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

[MuniGrit]

11 minutes ago, lastings said:

The thing is, we don’t think you’re saying that.  Or, at least, we don’t think we do.  No one can really figure out what point you are trying to make.  Except, I think, the leaderboard in the 97 masters was weak.  Which doesn’t appear to be based in fact.   Or maybe that the entire field in ‘97 was weak, but you haven’t really provided any evidence to back that up either.

I have said it many times that the 1997 leader board and golf in general was in down in a transition period. Not sure why you guys can't admit that. Initially someone threw out a list of about 7 golfers to say the field was super strong and I pointed out that at that time they would be lucky to have 20 tour wins between them all. Faldo, Norman, Watson, Nicklaus, etc were on their way out. Els, Phil, Vijay, etc hadn't become great players YET. It took them a few more years. Go ahead and continue that I'm downplaying Tigers win(which I'm not) or whatever you are looking for. I was just saying one COULD make an argument vs the fields of Player, Trevino, Watson, Casper in their prime. They COULD make an argument doesn't mean I'm saying that. 

[lastings]

18 minutes ago, MuniGrit said:

I have said it many times that the 1997 leader board and golf in general was in down in a transition period. Not sure why you guys can't admit that. Initially someone threw out a list of about 7 golfers to say the field was super strong and I pointed out that at that time they would be lucky to have 20 tour wins between them all. Faldo, Norman, Watson, Nicklaus, etc were on their way out. Els, Phil, Vijay, etc hadn't become great players YET. It took them a few more years. Go ahead and continue that I'm downplaying Tigers win(which I'm not) or whatever you are looking for. I was just saying one COULD make an argument vs the fields of Player, Trevino, Watson, Casper in their prime. They COULD make an argument doesn't mean I'm saying that. 

But again, you’re presenting a flawed argument.  You’re suggesting that golfers aren’t as good until they’ve competed their resume.  (i.e. your els/Mickelson argument). And that golfers are over the hill once their resume is complete (I.e. what you’re saying about Faldo).  So you dismiss the quality of those golfers.     But the problem is, golfers are just beginning to peak (physically) as they build the beginning of their resume. And peak mentally as they are completing their resume.  You dismiss Els (who was 2 months away from winning his 2nd major). And you dismiss Faldo (the reigning masters champ), and you dismiss every great golfer in between for one reason or another.    But, if you want to find those kind of flaws, they exist in every field every year.   This very argument that you make about Els and Faldo, would have dismissed Tiger in ‘97 as a strong member of the field and dismissed Jack in ‘86 as a strong member of the field.

Edited March 11, 2018 by lastings

[GrandStranded]

4 minutes ago, lastings said:

But again, you’re presenting a flawed argument.  You’re suggesting that golfer aren’t as good until they’ve competed their resume.  (i.e. your els/Mickelson argument). And that golfers are over the hill once their resume is complete (I.e. what you’re saying about Faldo).  So you dismiss the quality of those golfers.     But the problem is, golfers are just beginning to peak (physically) as they build the build the beginning of their resume. And peak mentally as they are completing their resume.  You dismiss Els (who was 2 months away from winning his 2nd major). And you dismiss Faldo (the reigning master champ), and you dismiss every great golfer in between for one reason or another.    But, if you want to find those kind of flaws, they exist in every field every year.   This very argument that you make about Els and Faldo, would have dismissed Tiger in ‘97 as a strong member of the field and dismissed Jack in ‘86 as a strong member of the field.

I've tried to sit on the sideline here, but just can't. So if I'm following the pro Tiger argument put forth here, this entire Jack vs. Tiger discussion is pointless anyway. Since the fields obviously strengthened from the late 70's to the late 90's, the same probably happened in an accelerated fashion in the twenty years since. Everything Tiger accomplished 20 years ago should mean nothing, since he played against players much worse then those on Tour today. because todays players are bred earlier, the field is deeper, filled with more superior athletes, since more of these physical specimens are now playing golf. No need to even bring up things like Trackman, the ball, or clubs. We should just change the topic to "Who is the GOAT, Justin Thomas or Dustin Johnson. Tiger is so twenty years ago... he's not even be top 50 against todays superior athletes.

[lastings]

9 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

I've tried to sit on the sideline here, but just can't. So if I'm following the pro Tiger argument put forth here, this entire Jack vs. Tiger discussion is pointless anyway. Since the fields obviously strengthened from the late 70's to the late 90's, the same probably happened in an accelerated fashion in the twenty years since. Everything Tiger accomplished 20 years ago should mean nothing, since he played against players much worse then those on Tour today. because todays players are bred earlier, the field is deeper, filled with more superior athletes, since more of these physical specimens are now playing golf. No need to even bring up things like Trackman, the ball, or clubs. We should just change the topic to "Who is the GOAT, Justin Thomas or Dustin Johnson. Tiger is so twenty years ago... he's not even be top 50 against todays superior athletes.

I think there is a 1:50 tee time today that will suggest otherwise.

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

So if I'm following the pro Tiger argument put forth here, this entire Jack vs. Tiger discussion is pointless anyway.

No. Some people might still think 18x > 14y (x and y being multipliers for strength/depth of field). Others think 14y > 18x. Swap in 17 and 20 if you prefer.

5 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Since the fields obviously strengthened from the late 70's to the late 90's,

The late 60s and the 00s is a better representation of those time periods. Jack was about done in the last 70s, and Tiger won his first major in 1997 (and then not again until the last major of 1999).

5 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Since the fields obviously strengthened from the late 70's to the late 90's, the same probably happened in an accelerated fashion in the twenty years since.

The opposite is far more likely true: it's decelerated. Over a smoothed out trend line, it's likely always been decelerating.

I've posted some graphs, and done the math, in other posts.

Check out the graphs in this post, for example:

5 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Everything Tiger accomplished 20 years ago should mean nothing, since he played against players much worse then those on Tour today.

"nothing"? No. But if someone wins 12 majors and wins 65 times, they may be the GOAT. But it's likely not anywhere near as big as the gap between Tiger and Jack… not for the least reasons of which are that… Tiger is still playing.

And the math above.

5 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Tiger is so twenty years ago... he's not even be top 50 against todays superior athletes.

Uhhhhh…?

[GrandStranded]

7 minutes ago, lastings said:

I think there is a 1:50 tee time today that will suggest otherwise.

Ah, you might be right... again. If a relic like Tiger can find a way to win at Copperhead, a historic site if ever there was one, against such a deep field filled with todays superior athletes, he will have truly proven his greatness. Imagine a golfer from twenty years ago, who played against the lesser athletes of that day, transcending a generation and actually beating the players of today? I will be rooting hard for him, it would be so cool to see such a historic win for the ages. 

[woodzie264]

15 minutes ago, lastings said:

I think there is a 1:50 tee time today that will suggest otherwise.

Yep

[lastings]

 

 

8 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Ah, you might be right... again. If a relic like Tiger can find a way to win at Copperhead, a historic site if ever there was one, against such a deep field filled with todays superior athletes, he will have truly proven his greatness. Imagine a golfer from twenty years ago, who played against the lesser athletes of that day, transcending a generation and actually beating the players of today? I will be rooting hard for him, it would be so cool to see such a historic win for the ages. 

You may be right with this unnessary snark.  But, ultimately his positive trajectory in his few tournaments following a 2 year layoff from golf, suggest we may again get to catch a glimpse of the greatness that was and may be again.   Given that he’s already leading tournaments in driving distance and swing speed, it’s only a matter of time before his iron play surpasses the field. (Assuming he stays healthy). 

Its funny this thread is happening. After Tigers 11th or 12th major, it seemed a foregone conclusion that all of Jacks records were going down.  Unfortunately, injuries have derailed that.  (Or, at least 1 record).  But, that shouldn’t dismiss total wins, where Tiger surpassed jack by age 36.  Win % where tiger owns Jack 27% to 12%.   Player of the years, Vardon Trophies, money titles, scoring average, scoring average better than field average.   Literally, the only thing jack has on Tiger is 18>14.  But, at what point does all that other stuff outweigh that 1 thing?  Maybe after Tiger wins his next major. 

[GrandStranded]

55 minutes ago, lastings said:

 

 

You may be right with this unnessary snark.  But, ultimately his positive trajectory in his few tournaments following a 2 year layoff from golf, suggest we may again get to catch a glimpse of the greatness that was and may be again.   Given that he’s already leading tournaments in driving distance and swing speed, it’s only a matter of time before his iron play surpasses the field. (Assuming he stays healthy). 

Its funny this thread is happening. After Tigers 11th or 12th major, it seemed a foregone conclusion that all of Jacks records were going down.  Unfortunately, injuries have derailed that.  (Or, at least 1 record).  But, that shouldn’t dismiss total wins, where Tiger surpassed jack by age 36.  Win % where tiger owns Jack 27% to 12%.   Player of the years, Vardon Trophies, money titles, scoring average, scoring average better than field average.   Literally, the only thing jack has on Tiger is 18>14.  But, at what point does all that other stuff outweigh that 1 thing?  Maybe after Tiger wins his next major. 

From childhood, Tiger posted Jack's records on his wall. The goal was always beating Jack's majors record. That was the bar he wanted to clear. Ten years ago his fans assumed Tiger would blow right by the 18 Jack won. But now his fans know that isn't happening, and they want to change the narrative however they can. Believe it or not, I'm rooting hard for Tiger today and in the future. I really am.  I enjoy watching the greats perform in any sport. I just don't like when people reset the bar for their purposes.. If I had really wanted to get snarky, I could've mentioned the other obstacles beside injury Tiger had to battle. Like an angry blonde chasing him thru his house with a sand wedge, lamp posts hidden on dark drive ways, DUI, Sex addiction, and pain killers...  

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

From childhood, Tiger posted Jack's records on his wall. The goal was always beating Jack's majors record. That was the bar he wanted to clear.

That's his bar.

I'm not beholden to his bar.

5 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

But now his fans know that isn't happening, and they want to change the narrative however they can.

Or, they're capable of making up their own minds.

Obviously if Tiger got even to 18, with all his other accomplishments (higher margins of victory, more regular Tour wins than even Snead, etc.), he'd be the GOAT, by the VAST majority.

But others aren't required to use the goals he set as a seven-year-old to judge his career.

5 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

I just don't like when people reset the bar for their purposes.

Complete assumption that "they" have done that.

This topic dates back to 2006, and the poll votes about as far.

5 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

If I had really wanted to get snarky, I could've mentioned the other obstacles beside injury Tiger had to battle. Like an angry blonde chasing him thru his house with a sand wedge, lamp posts hidden on dark drive ways, DUI, Sex addiction, and pain killers...  

Gotta love it when someone couches what they want to say in an "If I had wanted to…" way.

[GrandStranded]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

That's his bar.

I'm not beholden to his bar.

Or, they're capable of making up their own minds.

Obviously if Tiger got even to 18, with all his other accomplishments (higher margins of victory, more regular Tour wins than even Snead, etc.), he'd be the GOAT, by the VAST majority.

But others aren't required to use the goals he set as a seven-year-old to judge his career.

Complete assumption that "they" have done that.

This topic dates back to 2006, and the poll votes about as far.

Gotta love it when someone couches what they want to say in an "If I had wanted to…" way.

Turns out I didn't even have to couch my opinion, NBC said almost the exact same thing 10 minutes after my post. As far as our opinons Jack vs Tiger, I've given Tiger the slight edge, you and others here favor Tiger by a lot, and some favor Jack. In the end, who cares what we think? Tiger should, and will feel deservedly proud of all he accomplished in his fantastic career, but he will probably always wish he could've achieved his main goal of surpassing Jack's record. 

[iacas]

26 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

you and others here favor Tiger by a lot, and some favor Jack.

I don't favor Tiger "by a lot." I give him the edge, and think he's clearly the GOAT by my reckoning, but it's not by "a lot."

26 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

In the end, who cares what we think?

We do.

26 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Tiger should, and will feel deservedly proud of all he accomplished in his fantastic career, but he will probably always wish he could've achieved his main goal of surpassing Jack's record. 

He likely still thinks he can.

[lastings]

6 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

but he will probably always wish he could've achieved his main goal of surpassing Jack's record. 

Who says he won’t? 

[GrandStranded]

22 minutes ago, iacas said:

I don't favor Tiger "by a lot." I give him the edge, and think he's clearly the GOAT by my reckoning, but it's not by "a lot."

We do.

He likely still thinks he can.

1.Fine, your opinion. 2. Fine, all good, but in the end it doesn't matter a lick.. 3. I would guess he definitely does. And he should feel that way. He is not only supremely talented but he also has one of the greatest competitive fires burning inside him anyone has ever had.  I never root against greatness, but don't confuse that with getting annoyed by the sometimes exasperating comments made by fans of great athletes or teams.

[turtleback]

 

26 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Turns out I didn't even have to couch my opinion, NBC said almost the exact same thing 10 minuteTiger should, and will feel deservedly proud of all he accomplished in his fantastic career, but he will probably always wish he could've achieved his main goal of surpassing Jack's record. 

Well, at least unlike Jack he didn't keep moving the goalposts until he found some he could meet.  Jack had at least three different criteria before he finally settled on majors.  And even then he did it in a way that wrote out every prior golfing great.

If Tiger followed Jack's example he'd be claiming that the only fair way to determine the GOAT was most wins in premium events, i.e., majors, WGCs, and the Players.  And then claim the title.  Because that is almost exactly what Jack did.

Edited March 11, 2018 by turtleback

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

2. Fine, all good, but in the end it doesn't matter a lick.

Very little matters in the true grand scheme of things. But they do to us. We're golf fans. If they didn't, we wouldn't be posting here about it.

2 minutes ago, turtleback said:

Well, at least unlike Jack he didn't keep moving the goalposts until he found some he could meet.  Jack had at least three different criteria before he finally settled on majors.  And even then he did it in a way that wrote out every prior golfing great.

They didn't talk about 18 or 14, they talked about the "incidents" or whatever.

When people don't quote the whole post, you assume they're responding to the meat of the post (18 > 14, people's changing opinions, etc.). Not an aside at the bottom, as @GrandStranded did. He hasn't yet figured out how to delete irrelevant parts of quotes, I guess. Which is fine.

[GrandStranded]

2 minutes ago, turtleback said:

 

Well, at least unlike Jack he didn't keep moving the goalposts until he found some he could meet.  Jack had at least three different criteria before he finally settled on majors.  And even then he did it in a way that wrote out every prior golfing great.

Sorry, but you're a Tiger fan trying to change the narrative. Tiger is the one who decided he wanted to beat Jack's record. I doubt when Jack was setting it he was thinking about Tiger Woods

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

Very little matters in the true grand scheme of things. But they do to us. We're golf fans. If they didn't, we wouldn't be posting here about it.

They didn't talk about 18 or 14, they talked about the "incidents" or whatever.

When people don't quote the whole post, you assume they're responding to the meat of the post (18 > 14, people's changing opinions, etc.). Not an aside at the bottom, as @GrandStranded did. He hasn't yet figured out how to delete irrelevant parts of quotes, I guess. Which is fine.

Hopefully I'll learn. I'm a little new to this, but I'm willing to put in the work to improve.

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Sorry, but you're a Tiger fan trying to change the narrative. Tiger is the one who decided he wanted to beat Jack's record. I doubt when Jack was setting it he was thinking about Tiger Woods

I think you're pretty far off base there.

You've not read @turtleback's posts for a few years, and you don't know what he's saying, or where he's coming from.

1. Jack is the one who has shifted goalposts. He did it several times throughout his career, before finally settling on major total, never mind the fact that Hogan, Bobby Jones, etc. didn't get to play in as many majors as he did.
2. Tiger's goals are not everyone else's, by rule, for determining GOAT.
3. You're missing out on a lot of conversation. Again, the topic is in its 13th year.