Jack vs. Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?

[Vinsk]

6 hours ago, Throwback said:

What the hell is a Goat any way? Jack was the best in his day, Tiger the best in his. The real question is who is next.

No, the question is ‘Who’s the GOAT...(Greatest Of All Time) Jack or Tiger. The answer is Tiger. 

[RussUK]

Its one of those threads where there will never be full agreement (which is fine, if we all agree'd life would be boring).

But everyone seems to be trawling over the same ground.

May i suggest a new catagory and/or topic?

COAT: Crappiest Of All Time

[TigerIsTheGOAT]

15 hours ago, Throwback said:

What the hell is a Goat any way? Jack was the best in his day, Tiger the best in his. The real question is who is next.

Greatest Of All Time

15 hours ago, GrandStranded said:

Sorry, didn't ignore the points you made, I simply disagreed with them. You take random charts, stats (any can be easily skewed to support either side) and depth vs quality arguments which favor your side of the discussion and take them as gospel.I'm going by what I saw with my own eyes. Thats good enough for me.  Again for the last time, I favored Tiger, by a slim margin. This isn't good enough for the pro Tiger crowd, so be it.  

Apparently both cannot be given that much credit. One has to be better, and by a lot, it seems.

Where was it ever said Trevino was #2? By who? The guy who just took it out of context?

All I said was that it is going to be harder to win against 100 players than against 40 or 50.  That was pretty much my only point.  You disagree with that?

[GrandStranded]

2 minutes ago, TigerIsTheGOAT said:

Greatest Of All Time

All I said was that it is going to be harder to win against 100 players than against 40 or 50.  That was pretty much my only point.  You disagree with that?

Explain to me which day it was exactly, when from lets say 1975 to 1997, there suddenly appeared these 50 or 60 better players on tour every week you are talking about, who not only graced us with their superior skills, but made every field deeper. I don't remember when or how they appeared so suddenly.

[saevel25]

19 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Explain to me which day it was exactly, when from lets say 1975 to 1997..

Probably when the Web.com tour was created in 1990. This offered a chance for people to play competitive golf and compete for a chance to get on the PGA Tour.

From there the quality of play has steadily increased and has probably peaked out over the past 5 years. I've posted this before. The scoring average has shifted lower from 1986 till today. The distribution is tighter as well, meaning there are less bad golfers (relative to tour average). There are more people scoring at the top end as well (more elite golfers).

Spoiler

 

[GrandStranded]

9 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Probably when the Web.com tour was created in 1990. This offered a chance for people to play competitive golf and compete for a chance to get on the PGA Tour.

From there the quality of play has steadily increased and has probably peaked out over the past 5 years. I've posted this before. The scoring average has shifted lower from 1986 till today. The distribution is tighter as well, meaning there are less bad golfers (relative to tour average). There are more people scoring at the top end as well (more elite golfers).

  Reveal hidden contents

 

I'm going to respectfully disagree about the Web/Nike Tour. I think with the explosion of prize money in golf, and other sports, more young athletes saw golf as a viable way to make a great living, as opposed to those who came of age in previous eras. Golf suddenly became one more option for them.  That, and the leaps made in ball and club technology are the biggest factors, I feel, in improved scoring. As far as the physical training, sure it's a tool some players use, but remember, we are talking about golf. You have a Dustin Johnson, you have a Jason Reed. Tiger - Phil, Jason Day -Charlie Huffman. Justin Thomas weighs what? 150 pounds? Sure there are a lot of physical specimens on tour, and if they feel a training regimen helps them, it certainly might. But in golf, it isn't a necessity like it is in other sports. On a side note, this reminds me of the really funny commercial from a few years back. Tim "Lumpy" Herron eating hot dogs while watching a fellow pro work out feverishly...   

[iacas]

1 hour ago, GrandStranded said:

Explain to me which day it was exactly, when from lets say 1975 to 1997, there suddenly appeared these 50 or 60 better players on tour every week you are talking about, who not only graced us with their superior skills, but made every field deeper. I don't remember when or how they appeared so suddenly.

We have an entire other topic about this:

It's a simple math problem, @GrandStranded. One that's been made several times in that topic.

This topic is about Jack vs. Tiger. If you want to only talk about the piece of that regarding strength and depth of field, the other topic is your jam.

The fields are both much stronger and deeper now than they were in the 1960s or 1970s, and that's not an opinion.

But discuss it "over there" if you would, please.

37 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

I'm going to respectfully disagree about the Web/Nike Tour. I think with the explosion of prize money in golf, and other sports, more young athletes saw golf as a viable way to make a great living, as opposed to those who came of age in previous eras. Golf suddenly became one more option for them.

Which increased the strength and depth of field… But again, for the other topic, please.

37 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Charlie Huffman. Justin Thomas weighs what? 150 pounds?

http://www.mytpi.com/articles/swing/charley_hoffman's_body-swing_connection

And Justin Thomas works out, btw.

37 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

But in golf, it isn't a necessity like it is in other sports.

It kinda is these days.

37 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

On a side note, this reminds me of the really funny commercial from a few years back. Tim "Lumpy" Herron eating hot dogs while watching a fellow pro work out feverishly...   

Tim Herron has had six top tens (with only one finish higher than 4th) since 2009. In 167 events.

[sheepdog]

On 3/6/2018 at 4:16 PM, GrandStranded said:

 

Where was it ever said Trevino was #2? By who? The guy who just took it out of context?

That's just the way I took it since you were comparing him to Tiger's obvious number 2.

[MuniGrit]

I think Tiger beat much better fields but the 97 Master's was a bunch of old guys, Faldo and amazing golf by him. The highlights are of Nicklaus, Watson, Faldo, Player and a bunch of other old guys. The fields he crushed early on could be argued by the Jack is the GOAT crowd. He beat them so bad though it it wouldn't have mattered if they were a little better.

[lastings]

14 hours ago, MuniGrit said:

I think Tiger beat much better fields but the 97 Master's was a bunch of old guys, Faldo and amazing golf by him. The highlights are of Nicklaus, Watson, Faldo, Player and a bunch of other old guys. The fields he crushed early on could be argued by the Jack is the GOAT crowd. He beat them so bad though it it wouldn't have mattered if they were a little better.

In 1997 Ernie Els was one of the best golfers in the history of the world. 

[mvmac]

19 hours ago, MuniGrit said:

I think Tiger beat much better fields but the 97 Master's was a bunch of old guys, Faldo and amazing golf by him. The highlights are of Nicklaus, Watson, Faldo, Player and a bunch of other old guys. 

Your post doesn't make any sense. It may be your perception but it's not the truth.

In the '97 field you had Ernie Els, Phil, Vijay, Fred Couples, Davis Love, Greg Norman, Jim Furyk, David Duval,  Colin Montgomerie, Steve Stricker, Tom Lehman, Lee Westwood. All in their 20's or 30's (except for Norman). A lot of those guys I mentioned are in the HOF. And yes I get Couples or DL3 might not be as "legit" as others but they all had good careers.

[jbishop15]

2 hours ago, mvmac said:

Your post doesn't make any sense. It may be your perception but it's not the truth.

In the '97 field you had Ernie Els, Phil, Vijay, Fred Couples, Davis Love, Greg Norman, Jim Furyk, David Duval,  Colin Montgomerie, Steve Stricker, Tom Lehman, Lee Westwood. All in their 20's or 30's (except for Norman). A lot of those guys I mentioned are in the HOF. And yes I get Couples or DL3 might not be as "legit" as others but they all had good careers.

As for comparing Tiger's contemporaries to the Big Three of Jack, Arnie, and Gary Player, I'd stack Tiger, Phil, and Vijay up against them and feel pretty good about it. 

[MuniGrit]

3 hours ago, mvmac said:

Your post doesn't make any sense. It may be your perception but it's not the truth.

In the '97 field you had Ernie Els, Phil, Vijay, Fred Couples, Davis Love, Greg Norman, Jim Furyk, David Duval,  Colin Montgomerie, Steve Stricker, Tom Lehman, Lee Westwood. All in their 20's or 30's (except for Norman). A lot of those guys I mentioned are in the HOF. And yes I get Couples or DL3 might not be as "legit" as others but they all had good careers.

I'm just saying the actual leaderboard was pretty scarce. Yes those guys you listed is a pretty good lost but they weren't what they turned out to be at that time. In fact if you take all those guys minus Norman, did they even have 20 PGA wins combined?  I know 97 Vijay and Ernie didn't have very many PGA Tour wins yet. Els had 1 major.

 

Nobody was competing with Woods that year. The difference between Woods even at that age and the next best guy was miles.

Edited March 9, 2018 by MuniGrit

[turtleback]

23 hours ago, MuniGrit said:

I think Tiger beat much better fields but the 97 Master's was a bunch of old guys, Faldo and amazing golf by him. The highlights are of Nicklaus, Watson, Faldo, Player and a bunch of other old guys. The fields he crushed early on could be argued by the Jack is the GOAT crowd. He beat them so bad though it it wouldn't have mattered if they were a little better.

What is funny about this comment is that the fields Jack beat in the British were mostly guys you never heard of.  It was not routine for top American players to go over, in those days.  If anyone's accomplishments get marked down for weak fields it is Jack's so-called remarkable run of high finishes in the BO.  I know it is hard to believe for those who either didn't live during it or who look at the past through rose-colored glasses, majors did not have the same cachet back then as they do now.  Remember the big hue and cry when a good but not top American golfer didn't go over for the British Open (can't remember his name)?  Whereas a guy who was arguably the best player in the game from 1968-1970, Billy Casper, only played in a handful of them and no one looked askance at all.

[MuniGrit]

4 minutes ago, turtleback said:

What is funny about this comment is that the fields Jack beat in the British were mostly guys you never heard of.  It was not routine for top American players to go over, in those days.  If anyone's accomplishments get marked down for weak fields it is Jack's so-called remarkable run of high finishes in the BO.  I know it is hard to believe for those who either didn't live during it or who look at the past through rose-colored glasses, majors did not have the same cachet back then as they do now.  Remember the big hue and cry when a good but not top American golfer didn't go over for the British Open (can't remember his name)?  Whereas a guy who was arguably the best player in the game from 1968-1970, Billy Casper, only played in a handful of them and no one looked askance at all.

I've already said I thought Tiger played the game at the highest level the game has ever seen. 

[lastings]

1 hour ago, MuniGrit said:

  I know 97 Vijay and Ernie didn't have very many PGA Tour wins yet. Els had 1 major.

Ernie else had 19 pga victories and 28 euro tour victories and 4 majors.  

His resume is impeccable. 

[MuniGrit]

12 minutes ago, lastings said:

Ernie else had 19 pga victories and 28 euro tour victories and 4 majors.  

His resume is impeccable. 

How about in 97?

[lastings]

3 hours ago, MuniGrit said:

How about in 97?

What’s that matter?   Is he somehow a worse golfer or a lesser challenge because he was just entering the prime of his career?