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

[GrandStranded]

1 minute ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

 

Vijay won 9 times in 2004 including a major and you said he's never been great. None of the current players have had a season like that. He also won over 30 times on the Tour including 3 majors as a late bloomer. Pretty damn good career. 

I think I said he was very good, not as good as Phil and Ernie. Which he wasn't. I also mentioned he wasn't a good putter. He wasn't. If he was, the way he hit it, he could've been great.

[Dr. Manhattan]

Just now, GrandStranded said:

I think I said he was very good, not as good as Phil and Ernie. Which he wasn't. I also mentioned he wasn't a good putter. He wasn't. If he was, the way he hit it, he could've been great.

 

You said he has never been great. 2004 was great. The guys today would love to have that season. 

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

I think I said he was very good, not as good as Phil and Ernie. Which he wasn't. I also mentioned he wasn't a good putter. He wasn't. If he was, the way he hit it, he could've been great.

He won 15 more than Ernie on the PGA Tour. One fewer major.

And you’re missing the point. Put Vijay back in the 60s and 70s and he might win 9 majors.

Vijay also took #1from Tiger for awhile. Ernie can’t say that.

[GrandStranded]

12 minutes ago, iacas said:

Hogwash.

Dude won over 30 PGA Tour events and 3 majors.

Random players back in the field weren’t capable of winning in Jack’s era.

ALMOST ALL OF THEM.

Dude, you’re seriously not understanding that Player’s stats, for example, were also pumped by the weak fields?

Player probably wins less than Singh playing in Singh’s era.

Where did I mention the fields Jack, or Player played against? I asked who were the great players Tiger beat. If your answer is ALMOST ALL OF THEM, then I just think you're being stubborn. I credited Tiger with how he beat everyone, it wasn't his fault there weren't many great players in that time span. He did what great players do. He just won. Big time.

Edited March 17, 2018 by GrandStranded

[iacas]

That’s my answer and it’s not because I’m being stubborn. It’s because I appreciate how much stronger golfers are now.

Vijay is likely > Player.

Jack’s quote from 1996 backs the idea that there are a ton of great players these days.

[GrandStranded]

8 minutes ago, iacas said:

He won 15 more than Ernie on the PGA Tour. One fewer major.

And you’re missing the point. Put Vijay back in the 60s and 70s and he might win 9 majors.

Totally subjective, certainly not a point I'm missing.

 

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

That’s my answer and it’s not because I’m being stubborn. It’s because I appreciate how much stronger golfers are now.

Vijay is likely > Player.

18th green. eight foot putt to win a major. who do you want taking it for you? Player or Singh? If you can honestly say Singh, we just  have to agree to disagree.

Edited March 17, 2018 by GrandStranded

[GrandStranded]

31 minutes ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

 

You said he has never been great. 2004 was great. The guys today would love to have that season. 

If Vijay fits your definition of great, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. Personally I feel you're grading on a curve. A few days ago, Turtleback recommended a book to me(which I have ordered) by Frank Beard. It was a diary style view of a season where he coincidentally ended up the leading money winner. Must have been a great year for Frank. Does it make him a great player?

Edited March 17, 2018 by GrandStranded

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Totally subjective, certainly not a point I'm missing.

You're missing the point that when "great"players are facing very few other "great" or even "good" players, their stats are inflated. Player, Palmer, Watson… inflated stats. Trevino, Seve… And the corollary is that when there are a lot of great players, and the rest of the field is all very good, the wins get distributed a lot more evenly.

Vijay won 34 times and three majors against stronger fields. He is one of the greats of the game. Hall of Fame member, easily.

15 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

18th green. eight foot putt to win a major. who do you want taking it for you? Player or Singh? If you can honestly say Singh, we just  have to agree to disagree.

Who f***ing cares about his putting woes later in his career? He played golf well enough to win three majors and 34 PGA tour events from the 90s to the 2010s. He played golf well enough to steal #1 from Tiger Woods when Tiger wasn't playing all that poorly. He won a FedExCup.

You can think Vijay wasn't all that "great" but few have had a better career than him since 1995. Tiger. Phil. Ernie (arguably - 15 fewer PGA Tour wins, 1 more major) is pretty equal.

And you want to talk about putting woes? Have you seen Ernie five-putt (or was it a six-putt) from about three feet?

[Dr. Manhattan]

8 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

If Vijay fits your definition of great, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. Personally I feel you're grading on a curve. A few days ago, Turtleback recommended a book to me(which I have ordered) by Frank Beard. It was a diary style view of a season where he coincidentally ended up the leading money winner. Must have been a great year for Frank. Does it make him a great player?

 

Let me get this straight. You are arguing that a guy with 34 wins on the hardest Tour in the world against modern fields, including 3 majors, is not a great player. He's in the Hall of Fame and the supposed studs today would be damn lucky to end up with a similar career. DJ is still a long way from Vijay's total career performance. Singh was a late bloomer too. First win on Tour at age 30. First major at age 35. 

Edited March 17, 2018 by Dr. Manhattan

[GrandStranded]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

You're missing the point that when "great"players are facing very few other "great" or even "good" players, their stats are inflated. Player, Palmer, Watson… inflated stats. Trevino, Seve… And the corollary is that when there are a lot of great players, and the rest of the field is all very good, the wins get distributed a lot more evenly.

Vijay won 34 times and three majors against stronger fields. He is one of the greats of the game. Hall of Fame member, easily.

Who f***ing cares about his putting woes later in his career? He played golf well enough to win three majors and 34 PGA tour events from the 90s to the 2010s. He played golf well enough to steal #1 from Tiger Woods when Tiger wasn't playing all that poorly. He won a FedExCup.

You can think Vijay wasn't all that "great" but few have had a better career than him since 1995. Tiger. Phil. Ernie (arguably - 15 fewer PGA Tour wins, 1 more major) is pretty equal.

And you want to talk about putting woes? Have you seen Ernie five-putt (or was it a six-putt) from about three feet?

Have to admit, Ernie has been a little erratic to say the least. LOL. I hate that this is turning into sounding like I'm knocking Vijay. I said I thought he was very good, not great. I don't use the term great a lot when describing athletes, maybe it's my fault and the standard I use is to high. When I say someone is very good, or close to great, believe me, it's not me knocking, but complimenting.

4 minutes ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

 

Let me get this straight. You are arguing that a guy with 34 wins on the hardest Tour in the world against modern fields, including 3 majors, is not a great player. He's in the Hall of Fame and the supposed studs today would be damn lucky to end up with a similar career. DJ is still a long way from Vijay's total career performance. Singh was a late bloomer too. First win on Tour at age 30. First major at age 35. 

Please read my post below yours here it's #5600. I hope it explains what I am trying to say a little better then I have. 

[Dr. Manhattan]

Just looked at Immelman's results in 2008 when he beat Tiger at The Masters. Talk about getting hot at the right moment...

• FBR Open (Phoenix) - Missed Cut
• Northern Trust Open (Riviera) - Missed Cut
• WGC Match Play - T17
• Honda Classic - Missed Cut
• PODS Champ (Valspar) - T65
• Bay Hill - T48
• WGC-Doral - T40
• Houston Open - Missed Cut
• The Masters - WIN

Talk about putting it together out of nowhere, LOL.

 

[mvmac]

24 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

I said I thought he was very good, not great.

Here's what you said,

1 hour ago, GrandStranded said:

There was nothing great about Vijay. Ever.

He won 9 times in one season in Tiger's prime! How is that not great?

Overall he's got the most wins on the PGA Tour by a non-American player, 14th all time. 

If Vijay wasn't great, then most of the guys Jack played against weren't great either.

[turtleback]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

He won 15 more than Ernie on the PGA Tour. One fewer major.

And you’re missing the point. Put Vijay back in the 60s and 70s and he might win 9 majors.

Vijay also took #1from Tiger for awhile. Ernie can’t say that.

Actually, put Vijay in the 60's and 70s and between his complexion and his origin he would never have gotten within sniffing distance of a PGA tour event.

[GrandStranded]

18 minutes ago, mvmac said:

Here's what you said,

He won 9 times in one season in Tiger's prime! How is that not great?

Overall he's got the most wins on the PGA Tour by a non-American player, 14th all time. 

If Vijay wasn't great, then most of the guys Jack played against weren't great either.

You guys have changed my question of who were the great players Tiger was beating between 1998 and 2015 into a debate on Vijay. To be honest, when I asked the question, and included Phil and Ernie as the other 2 greats of that span, I debated whether to include Ernie, and or Vijay. Phil was a no brainer. I'm now uncertain if my error was either not including Singh, or including Ernie. Probably the latter, but I'm not sure. To be fair, Vijay is a lot more comparable to Ernie then Ernie is to Phil. So whichever makes everyone feel better is fine. Only Phil, or Phil, Ernie and Vijay. Everyone feel better?

 

Edited March 17, 2018 by GrandStranded

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

You guys have changed my question of who were the great players Tiger was beating between 1998 and 2015 into a debate on Vijay.

Yeah, "we" have done that. You didn't play a role at all…

The answer is "a bunch of them."

See the Nicklaus quote from 1996. There were a ton of great players in the "Vijay era." Far, far more than there were in Nicklaus's era.

The thing you fail to acknowledge is that you're defining great based only on results (or in Vijay's case, on… his putting in his late 40s?).

Tell me, in a field of 150 very good to great players, how many wins will the 50 great players average? How about in a field with 4 great players, 20 very good players, and 124 scrubs?

2 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Probably the latter, but I'm not sure.

7 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Only Phil, or Phil, Ernie and Vijay. Everyone feel better?

No.

[GrandStranded]

5 minutes ago, turtleback said:

Actually, put Vijay in the 60's and 70s and between his complexion and his origin he would never have gotten within sniffing distance of a PGA tour event.

Because if he did play in the 60's and 70's he probably would've been about 5 years old. LOL Just kidding. Bu seriously, t if he could've he probably would have over 300 career wins.... ok sorry again, still just kidding!

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yeah, "we" have done that. You didn't play a role at all…

The answer is "a bunch of them."

See the Nicklaus quote from 1996. There were a ton of great players in the "Vijay era." Far, far more than there were in Nicklaus's era.

The thing you fail to acknowledge is that you're defining great based only on results (or in Vijay's case, on… his putting in his late 40s?).

Tell me, in a field of 150 very good to great players, how many wins will the 50 great players average? How about in a field with 4 great players, 20 very good players, and 124 scrubs?

No.

So, I'm thinking you don't agree with me, huh?

[JoeInPI]

I couldn't compare Jack and Tiger.  Different era obviously, WAY different ball AND club technology, so many variables it's kind of pointless to compare. (for me at least) For the competition argument, I'd bet a lot of Nicklaus' competition would have been a lot better playing the clubs and balls of the 90's than the stuff they played in the 60's.  I think they both hold their own place in their own era, just my opinion... :)

[GrandStranded]

3 minutes ago, JoeInPI said:

I couldn't compare Jack and Tiger.  Different era obviously, WAY different ball AND club technology, so many variables it's kind of pointless to compare. (for me at least) For the competition argument, I'd bet a lot of Nicklaus' competition would have been a lot better playing the clubs and balls of the 90's than the stuff they played in the 60's.  I think they both hold their own place in their own era, just my opinion... :)

Calm down everyone... He's new. Go easy.   BTW Welcome!