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

[Vinsk]

Well unless somebody chooses to actually  read the thread (often not the case) it would only be more of the same fallacies that @turtleback, @iacas, @mvmac and others have thoroughly argued and put to rest. Probably should go for the ‘Oh yeah? Well Jack makes better ice cream.’ 

[mvmac]

1 hour ago, Vinsk said:

Probably should go for the ‘Oh yeah? Well Jack makes better ice cream.’ 

And was better with his opening tee shots 

[Chanceman]

Not to mention fewer OOB off the tee.

[JonMA1]

I'm still of the opinion that winning more majors than anyone before is still a more impressive feat. That doesn't mean I think Nicklaus was more talented or even as talented as Woods, only that he beat who he had to beat to get the record. He surpassed Hagen's record by a wide margin and doubled Hogan's total. I'm not sure how deep the talent was in their generations, but that was where the bar was set and Nicklaus surpassed it.

I know this opinion seems contradictory as I believe the talent is deeper today. Maybe I can't explain it very well, but in sports all an athlete has to aim for is a previous record. Jack didn't just beat the previous record by one or two wins, he obliterated it. Is it safe to assume his competition was at least slightly higher than was Hagan's or Hogan's? If so, that makes his accomplishment very impressive IMO.

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

I'm still of the opinion that winning more majors than anyone before is still a more impressive feat. That doesn't mean I think Nicklaus was more talented or even as talented as Woods, only that he beat who he had to beat to get the record. He surpassed Hagen's record by a wide margin and doubled Hogan's total. I'm not sure how deep the talent was in their generations, but that was where the bar was set and Nicklaus surpassed it.

I know this opinion seems contradictory as I believe the talent is deeper today. Maybe I can't explain it very well, but in sports all an athlete has to aim for is a previous record. Jack didn't just beat the previous record by one or two wins, he obliterated it. Is it safe to assume his competition was at least slightly higher than was Hagan's or Hogan's? If so, that makes his accomplishment very impressive IMO.

Oh brother.

I moved the post here, btw, as this had almost nothing to do with the strength or depth of field. It's mostly about Jack vs. Tiger.

[Dr. Manhattan]

28 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

I'm still of the opinion that winning more majors than anyone before is still a more impressive feat. That doesn't mean I think Nicklaus was more talented or even as talented as Woods, only that he beat who he had to beat to get the record. He surpassed Hagen's record by a wide margin and doubled Hogan's total. I'm not sure how deep the talent was in their generations, but that was where the bar was set and Nicklaus surpassed it.

I know this opinion seems contradictory as I believe the talent is deeper today. Maybe I can't explain it very well, but in sports all an athlete has to aim for is a previous record. Jack didn't just beat the previous record by one or two wins, he obliterated it. Is it safe to assume his competition was at least slightly higher than was Hagan's or Hogan's? If so, that makes his accomplishment very impressive IMO.

 

Jack definitely faced stronger competition than Hogan/Jones/Hagen. But he had more opportunities to play in majors as well. The Masters did not exist until Walter Hagen was in his 40's. He won 5 Western Opens which were sort of like The PLAYERS Championship of the time. WW1 stole some opportunities from him in addition to the situation with The Masters. 

Meanwhile, Ben Hogan only played a single British Open and won it. He also had the car wreck and WW2 stealing opportunities from him. Check out the number of either blank or "NT" for no tournament in his results timeline. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Hogan#Results_timeline

At one point Hogan won 8/11 major starts. Tiger is the only one close to this with 7/11. 

It's also worth pointing out that Bobby Jones had 13 majors in only 31 starts at a very young age and retired very young. He could have blown well past 20 in his day if he kept playing. He retired at the age of 28 and won his first major at age 21. Jack won his first major at age 22 and 7 years later he had 7 majors total (age 29). 

Edited March 22, 2018 by Dr. Manhattan

[JonMA1]

52 minutes ago, iacas said:

Oh brother.

I moved the post here, btw, as this had almost nothing to do with the strength or depth of field. 

My reply in that other thread had everything to do with the poll question which asked "Which is more impressive..."

I even went into how current mark of 18 surpassed the previous of 11, even though the depth of field was likely weaker during Hagen's era.

It had very little to do with...

54 minutes ago, iacas said:

It's mostly about Jack vs. Tiger.

Regarding the poll in the other thread, if answering the question with an opinion that earns an "oh brother" and a relocation to a completely irrelevant thread, perhaps it doesn't belong there.

---

As far as this thread is concerned, I believe (read opinion) if Jack and Tiger were born at the same time, with the same opportunities, Tiger may have been slightly better.

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

My reply in that other thread had everything to do with the poll question which asked "Which is more impressive..."

That's just the poll.

You had almost nothing to say about the strength or depth of field, except "I know this opinion seems contradictory as I believe the talent is deeper today."

That's the only part of your response that was on the actual topic there.

I won't speak for the OP (Phil IIRC), but I believe the poll was a jumping off point. He can correct me if I am wrong.

And I gave your post an "oh brother" because it ignores or seems to ignore a BUNCH of previous posts that pointed out a bunch of things, like how Hagen didn't play in very many majors for a variety of reasons, that Hogan didn't play in many (and, you know, had a war and a car accident thrown in there for good measure), and that the strength/depth of field is a relevant thing to consider.

[brocks]

1 hour ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

Jack definitely faced stronger competition than Hogan/Jones/Hagen. But he had more opportunities to play in majors as well. The Masters did not exist until Walter Hagen was in his 40's. He won 5 Western Opens which were sort of like The PLAYERS Championship of the time. WW1 stole some opportunities from him in addition to the situation with The Masters. 

Meanwhile, Ben Hogan only played a single British Open and won it. He also had the car wreck and WW2 stealing opportunities from him. Check out the number of either blank or "NT" for no tournament in his results timeline. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Hogan#Results_timeline

All true, and thanks for posting the link.  There is a similar table of major results for almost every notable golfer.  People could save themselves some embarrassment by doing a couple minutes of research before they post.

It's especially ludicrous to compare Jack's major wins to Hagen's.  Hagen hit his prime not only long before there was a masters, but also before there was a PGA.  And in order to play the British Open, he had to spend two weeks on a boat.  Between that and WW I, he only played 8 Opens before he turned 40.  He won four of them, and was T6 or better in three others.  Jack played more than twice as many majors than Hagen by age 40.

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, brocks said:

Hagen hit his prime not only long before there was a masters, but also before there was a PGA.

Hagen's prime was prior to 1916? He only won one major prior to 1916.

The rest of your points stand.

[JonMA1]

16 minutes ago, brocks said:

People could save themselves some embarrassment by doing a couple minutes of research before they post.

Think you could be a bit more condescending @brocks? If your only intent is to try and talk down to people on the internet, carry on and read no further.

But if you have any desire to try and understand my point, it was in no way putting Hagen or Hogan down or to say everyone was on a level playing field. It was that from Jacks perspective, that was the bar. Whether it was fair or unfair, that was the best any professional golfer had been able to do in the time before he came along. He didn't just get to 12 and claim to be the best ever. It was to do the best against whatever competition he had at the time. Regardless of how poor the depth of field might have been compared to today, 18 was an impressive total during his career. That was really my only point.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, JonMA1 said:

But if you have any desire to try and understand my point, it was in no way putting Hagen or Hogan down or to say everyone was on a level playing field. It was that from Jacks perspective, that was the bar.

Had you been following along, you'd have likely caught a whiff of @turtleback pointing out to you that the number of majors won was something like Jack's third or fourth bar.

1 minute ago, JonMA1 said:

Whether it was fair or unfair, that was the best any professional golfer had been able to do in the time before he came along.

Jack considered Bobby Jones' record as 13 "majors," too, IIRC.

1 minute ago, JonMA1 said:

He didn't just get to 12 and claim to be the best ever.

Again, please see several of @turtleback's posts.

1 minute ago, JonMA1 said:

It was to do the best against whatever competition he had at the time. Regardless of how poor the depth of field might have been compared to today, 18 was an impressive total during his career. That was really my only point.

Okay.

Nobody has ever said anything that disagrees with that basic point.

Didn't we cover this when you thought people were "disparaging" Jack's 18 majors or something a week or so ago?

And @brocks wasn't being condescending. It's not apparent that you're considering the whole story here.

[Dr. Manhattan]

6 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

Think you could be a bit more condescending @brocks? If your only intent is to try and talk down to people on the internet, carry on and read no further.

But if you have any desire to try and understand my point, it was in no way putting Hagen or Hogan down or to say everyone was on a level playing field. It was that from Jacks perspective, that was the bar. Whether it was fair or unfair, that was the best any professional golfer had been able to do in the time before he came along. He didn't just get to 12 and claim to be the best ever. It was to do the best against whatever competition he had at the time. Regardless of how poor the depth of field might have been compared to today, 18 was an impressive total during his career. That was really my only point.

 

Jack said he didn't even know how many majors he had until someone in the media told him he was getting very close to Bobby Jones' 13. So it doesn't seem Jack was measuring himself against Hogan or Hagen. It was a very different time. 

[JonMA1]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

Again, please see several of @turtleback's posts

I will do that.

I've tried to keep up and I apologize for going over stuff that has already been brought up. FWIW, I've learned more from these threads than from anywhere else.

My only issue with this - and I'll plead ignorance - is how far of a gap some think there is between the two. For all I know, Tiger is way, way better. But based on what I've read, I think they are/were closer. Again, I'm just not that knowledgable.

2 minutes ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

Jack said he didn't even know how many majors he had until someone in the media told him he was getting very close to Bobby Jones' 13. So it doesn't seem Jack was measuring himself against Hogan or Hagen. It was a very different time.

Probably. I'll go back through and read @turtleback's posts.

I will say that in any interview I've heard, Jack seems a little too humble. But maybe he's really like that.

[brocks]

24 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

Think you could be a bit more condescending @brocks? If your only intent is to try and talk down to people on the internet, carry on and read no further.

I'm sorry if it sounded that way.  Actually, I didn't even have you in mind when I wrote the part about doing research, although I can certainly see how you would think I did.  I was complimenting Dr. Manhattan on linking to the majors results table, and I was thinking of hundreds of posts I've read over the years that were completely wrong about facts that could be found with a couple of clicks.

My comments about Hagen were written with you in mind, because it's so unfair to Hagen to compare major wins with Jack, and I saw no indication in your post that you were aware of it (but I accept that you are).  A week or two ago, Turtleback reposted a post of mine from several years ago that documented with contemporaneous newspaper and SI articles how Jack's personal choice for GOAT went from Jones to Snead to Hogan, and finally to himself when he began lobbying for major wins to be "the only fair way" to compare golfers of different eras.  But he never considered Hagen the GOAT, and AFAIK neither did anyone else outside the Hagen family (and make no mistake, Hagen had the record, not Jones, because the US and British Ams were much, much weaker than any pro event).   I remember thinking at the time (early 70's) that it was no more fair to compare majors than to compare earnings, but danged if he didn't sell it.  It's one of the reasons that I think Jack is the smartest golfer of all time.

It's important to note that when he idealized Jones, it was for the Amateur Grand Slam, not "most majors," as he makes clear in both of his autobiographies, written 30 years apart.

[turtleback]

2 hours ago, JonMA1 said:

I'm still of the opinion that winning more majors than anyone before is still a more impressive feat. That doesn't mean I think Nicklaus was more talented or even as talented as Woods, only that he beat who he had to beat to get the record. He surpassed Hagen's record by a wide margin and doubled Hogan's total. I'm not sure how deep the talent was in their generations, but that was where the bar was set and Nicklaus surpassed it.

I know this opinion seems contradictory as I believe the talent is deeper today. Maybe I can't explain it very well, but in sports all an athlete has to aim for is a previous record. Jack didn't just beat the previous record by one or two wins, he obliterated it. Is it safe to assume his competition was at least slightly higher than was Hagan's or Hogan's? If so, that makes his accomplishment very impressive IMO.

Why would it be MOST majors?  Why not winning percent in majors?   When a guy has had far more opportunities to do something than anyone before him, is being successful the most number times the fairest measure?  Why isn't the GOAT the player with the most victories in premium events (majors, WGCs, Players)?  Would that be unfair to Jack because WGC's were after his time?  But that was the exact situation when Jack became the GOAT by convincing the golf world that number of majors should be the sole determining factor.

2 hours ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

 

Jack definitely faced stronger competition than Hogan/Jones/Hagen. But he had more opportunities to play in majors as well. The Masters did not exist until Walter Hagen was in his 40's. He won 5 Western Opens which were sort of like The PLAYERS Championship of the time. WW1 stole some opportunities from him in addition to the situation with The Masters. 

Meanwhile, Ben Hogan only played a single British Open and won it. He also had the car wreck and WW2 stealing opportunities from him. Check out the number of either blank or "NT" for no tournament in his results timeline. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Hogan#Results_timeline

At one point Hogan won 8/11 major starts. Tiger is the only one close to this with 7/11. 

It's also worth pointing out that Bobby Jones had 13 majors in only 31 starts at a very young age and retired very young. He could have blown well past 20 in his day if he kept playing. He retired at the age of 28 and won his first major at age 21. Jack won his first major at age 22 and 7 years later he had 7 majors total (age 29). 

Neither the US Amateur nor the British Amateur really were majors by anything other than courtesy.  A legend has grown up that in the 20s amateur golf was as strong or stronger than professional golf.  And it turns out that is nonsense.  Jones was the outlier of amateur golfers - he was the one guy who could compete against and sometimes beat pros.  We know this because on the playing fields where pros and Amateurs met the pros always won except for Jones.

[JonMA1]

My apologies for the misunderstanding @brocks. While I am a huge Hogan fan, I don't know much about Hagen or Jones beyond the little that I've read - mostly on this site and from some internet sources. Obviously, things were much different from that generation.  Thanks.

49 minutes ago, turtleback said:

Why not winning percent in majors?

I don't disagree. I don't think you can look at any one way to determine GOAT. It has to be a combination of things.

That said, I don't think longevity or totals should be discounted either. They are not the only or the most important statistics, but I think they should be considered. My personal opinion is that they carry a great deal of weight in GOAT discussion. Others may disagree. 

53 minutes ago, turtleback said:

But that was the exact situation when Jack became the GOAT by convincing the golf world that number of majors should be the sole determining factor.

No offense, but what Jack wrote or even what Tiger states in interviews has little to do with what I think. What it comes down to for me, is that Tiger has the 2nd most tour wins and the 2nd most major wins in history. I don't have the stats in front of me, but he accomplished those with more dominant statistics and against overall stronger fields. His run at that very high level lasted over a decade.

The thing I can relate to, because it happened after I became involved with golf, is that he climbed back to #1 after a long layoff and while fighting injuries. He made it look easy.

If he never wins again, what he's already accomplished in his career is enough for me to have my opinion.

Where I might disagree with some is how much better he is than Jack was. I have no data with which to back this up, but I don't feel any of Tigers opponents were or are as good as Jack was in his prime. That might be more of a pissing contest and probably off-topic.

[brocks]

4 hours ago, iacas said:

Hagen's prime was prior to 1916? He only won one major prior to 1916.

We must be using different definitions of "prime."  You seem to mean "peak."  I mean his prime playing years, which might span 20 or more years for some golfers.  Unless you can show it's a fluke, a golfer's prime would begin no later than the year he had a top 5 in a major, which for Hagen was 1913.  The fact that he won the US Open the following year showed it was no fluke.

1 hour ago, JonMA1 said:

Where I might disagree with some is how much better he is than Jack was. I have no data with which to back this up, but I don't feel any of Tigers opponents were or are as good as Jack was in his prime. That might be more of a pissing contest and probably off-topic.

There is no way to know for sure whether Tiger was better than Jack, or even Vardon.  You can't compare golfers who never played each other in their primes.  All you can do is look at their records.

Where people go wrong is looking at just one number, instead of the total record.  And even the total record can be interpreted in many different ways.

I've always used dominance as the most important measure, and it's pretty easy to show that Tiger was more dominant than Jack.  Jack was one of the best golfers in the world for over 20 years, but he was THE best golfer in the world for only five, or possibly six, of those years.  Tiger was indisputably the best for nine years, and arguably the best for 12 years.

Edited March 22, 2018 by brocks