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

[Piz]

Look y'all.  Jack was a martini with not one but two extra olives.  Tiger is ranch dressing.  Ranch dressing, like it or not, has had a bigger impact on life as we know it.  The question: who is the greatest?  is a generational thing.  If you really like that extra olive; you likely don't give a rat's ass whether your chicken wings come with ranch or bleu cheese.

[onthehunt526]

On 4/11/2017 at 9:21 PM, Jack Watson said:

@saevel25

where is it documented Tigers driving was more powerful than Jacks?  A quick search yields this but no idea if accurate.  Of course remember the huge equipment difference.  Look at Jacks gir.

I get this but Tiger was 5 years older than Jack in this example, please compare apples to apples.

[onthehunt526]

5 hours ago, Piz said:

Look y'all.  Jack was a martini with not one but two extra olives.  Tiger is ranch dressing.  Ranch dressing, like it or not, has had a bigger impact on life as we know it.  The question: who is the greatest?  is a generational thing.  If you really like that extra olive; you likely don't give a rat's ass whether your chicken wings come with ranch or bleu cheese.

Tiger is strip steak, Jack is filet mignon... I still think Tiger is the GOAT, Jack was the GOAT... Tiger plays against better competition, has a better short game and honestly has a better winning percentage. If Tiger wins a major this year, all hell is going to break loose on the Sand Trap. If he's even in contention, the forum for that major is going to explode... Tiger moves the needle more than even Jack or Arnie could... More people in my generation started playing golf because of Tiger moving the needle that much. That's what Tiger has on Jack... Tiger influenced so many people into starting this beautiful game, mostly kids in my generation. You have the proof on the Tour now, Rory, Spieth, Reed, Even DJ credit Tiger for making the game what it is.

When Tiger came out on tour the purses were tiny compared to what they are now. For instance the Players Championship in 1997 had the highest purse on tour at $3,500,000 Steve Elkington won $630,000 for his victory. Last year the tournament with the highest purse was the $12,000,000 at the U.S. Open. Brooks Koepka won $2,160,000 for his victory... hell finish alone in second you still win $1,296,000 and third got you $816,000.... The money is a lot bigger, because of Tiger...

On the course, Tiger GOAT, Jack Greatest of All Time from when he won his 12th major which was the 1975 Masters until Tiger won his 12th at the 2006 PGA... It took Jack 56 majors to get to 14 majors... It took Tiger 46. Jack won the 1986 Masters for his 18th Major in his 97th major as a pro. Tiger has played what like 16 majors since 2011. Tiger has played 70 majors as a pro... Everyone says now he's way behind Jack... actually that's not true... Jack won the 1978 Open Championship his 15th major, in his 67th start as a pro. if Tiger won two majors somehow this year, he'd actually be back ahead of Jack.

[MuniGrit]

8 hours ago, lastings said:

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

Yes in my opinion an i love Els. Just like how Phil was the loveable loser until he got his first major. Players change and get better or get worse over their career. Golf was in the transition period when Tiger exploded on the scene. In fact the only time Els had more PGA Tour wins than Tiger was during the period from him turning pro in Oct until Jan 17.

[lastings]

He won the us open in 97.  That is the point in his career that he was peaking. 

Furthermore, I’m not even sure what the point is.  Tiger shot 270 (-18) in the 97 masters.  I don’t care if Nicklaus, hogan, Palmer, Snead, Jones, player, Spieth, and DJ were all in their prime and in that field.  Tiger was not going to get beat in that one. 

[MuniGrit]

23 minutes ago, lastings said:

He won the us open in 97.  That is the point in his career that he was peaking.  Tiger was not going to get beat in that one. 

How many PGA Tour wins did Els have in 97? Seriously look it up. 

Where have I ever said Tiger won because of a weak field? I have said nobody was beating him. That leaderboard outside of him was pathetic is all I said. 

[iacas]

What's the point of discussing one major victory? The GOAT and the topic and all that are about much, much, much more than one tournament.

[lastings]

off topic. but relevant:   who ever thought Tiger is done winning majors?    Anyone watching this guy right now??    Vintage!

[turtleback]

16 hours ago, Piz said:

Look y'all.  Jack was a martini with not one but two extra olives.  Tiger is ranch dressing.  Ranch dressing, like it or not, has had a bigger impact on life as we know it.  The question: who is the greatest?  is a generational thing.  If you really like that extra olive; you likely don't give a rat's ass whether your chicken wings come with ranch or bleu cheese.

Well dang, if that doesn't convince everyone I don't know what will.

 

Funny, until Tiger came along just about everyone was content to call Jack the GOAT - none of this 'best of his generation' nonsense, once Jack figured out how to write all prior generations out of the discussion.  But Tiger comes along and in some circles it suddenly becomes impossible to judge across generations and no one is the GOAT, just the best of their generation.  Funny stuff.

21 hours ago, MuniGrit said:

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

That doesn't mean ancillary nonsense shouldn't get shot down.

[lastings]

9 minutes ago, turtleback said:

Funny, until Tiger came along just about everyone was content to call Jack the GOAT - none of this 'best of his generation' nonsense, once Jack figured out how to write all prior generations out of the discussion.  But Tiger comes along and in some circles it suddenly becomes impossible to judge across generations and no one is the GOAT, just the best of their generation.  Funny stuff.

nah.   It was exactly the same as it is today.   When Jack was in his prime, lots of people that saw Hogan said he was better.   and the old guys that saw Bobby Jones swore up and down that he was the greatest to swing a club. 

same as it ever was.  

[MuniGrit]

3 hours ago, turtleback said:

 

That doesn't mean ancillary nonsense shouldn't get shot down.

What is the nonsense? Els didn't even have Ben Curtis resume in 97. 3 freaking tour wins is not peak of career. 1997 golf was pretty weak all in all. The field was weaker in 97 than in Jacks era. The field is so much stronger now than in 97 or Jacks era it isn't even funny. Tiger is seeing his product first hand.

[onthehunt526]

13 hours ago, MuniGrit said:

How many PGA Tour wins did Els have in 97? Seriously look it up. 

Where have I ever said Tiger won because of a weak field? I have said nobody was beating him. That leaderboard outside of him was pathetic is all I said. 

Either 2 or 3 including the U.S. Open, I know he won the old Buick Classic at Westchester Country Club.  So it was at least 2.

[lastings]

21 hours ago, MuniGrit said:

Where have I ever said Tiger won because of a weak field? I have said nobody was beating him. That leaderboard outside of him was pathetic is all I said. 

So, I guess the question is, what is your point?

There were obviously very strong golfers in the field.  As has been mentioned, couples, Vijay, Mickelson, els, DLIII, stricker, Duvall, etc. 

but, you’re saying those guys weren’t on the leaderboard.  So, I guess you’re right?  Tiger just won one of those odd majors where none of the big guns really bring their “a” game.  

But, I think we already established that no matter what game anyone brought no one was beating Tiger that weekend.  

But to add to it, the leaderboard does have Couples, DLIII, European ledgend and ‘93 masters winner Bernhard Langer, 6-time player of the year Tom Watson, Justin Leonard (who won The Open and took 2nd at the PGA that very year). That doesn’t really strike me as a weak leaderboard. As a matter of fact, that leaderboard compares quite favorably to the 2017 leaderboard, which you insist is way better than ‘97 or Jack’s era. 

And you can’t even say the field played poorly.  I just glanced at the leader boards for 5 year intervals surrounding 1997, and the scores are almost exactly the same as 82, 87, 92, ‘02, ‘07, and even ‘17.  (Outside of the -18 at the top, of course.)

So, I think if there’s a point you’re trying to make, you may want to clarify it, because I’m having a tough time drawing any conclusion. 

[MuniGrit]

5 hours ago, lastings said:

So, I guess the question is, what is your point?

So, I think if there’s a point you’re trying to make, you may want to clarify it, because I’m having a tough time drawing any conclusion. 

As I have said from the beginning that golf was in a transitional area in 1997 and if you are in the Jack had tougher competition group you may have a point in 1997. The older HOF players were starting to wash up including Faldo and Norman. The current crop of soon to be HOF players were still trying to figure out their way to a great career. Tiger blew everyone away and changed the game.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, MuniGrit said:

As I have said from the beginning that golf was in a transitional area in 1997 and if you are in the Jack had tougher competition group you may have a point in 1997.

They/you still don't have a point, and even if you did, that's ONE major, and Tiger won by so many it's likely NOBODY was beating him that week.

But hey, go ahead, keep diminishing one of the landmark, hallmark performances of the last century.

[skydog]

Everything short of undying Tiger praise in this thread doesn’t need to be met with a barrage of disappearing comments. @MuniGrit already pointed out that Tiger would have beaten any field in 97 and that Tiger played the game at the highest level of anyone in history. 

On another note, I’ve always been somewhat agnostic on the goat arguement because Jack and Tiger are apples and oranges IMO to some extent. But if Tiger keeps this up, I’m willing to admit he’s the uncontested goat.

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, skydog said:

Everything short of undying Tiger praise in this thread doesn’t need to be met with a barrage of disappearing comments.

We have not deleted posts in this topic. You are wrong here.

11 minutes ago, skydog said:

@MuniGrit already pointed out that Tiger would have beaten any field in 97 and that Tiger played the game at the highest level of anyone in history.

I suspect we know that, but that makes his actual point somewhat confusing. What is it? What's the point in talking about the level of play for a bunch of great players during ONE event they wouldn't have won playing at their best, anyway? I don't know. Do you?

[skydog]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

We have not deleted posts in this topic. You are wrong here.

I suspect we know that, but that makes his actual point somewhat confusing. What is it? What's the point in talking about the level of play for a bunch of great players during ONE event they wouldn't have won playing at their best, anyway? I don't know. Do you?

Huh? I’m confused... I never said you deleted posts.