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

[boogielicious]

On 3/22/2018 at 2:06 PM, MuniGrit said:

How many posters actually saw Jack play other than highlights? Its the same as the guys arguing for Jones and Hagen. TIGER is the GOAT in my opinion and I also have seen his whole career which may skew my viewpoint.

I saw Jack but not the others you mention. Agree that fresh viewing does help with opinions,  but stats and other analysis should help too. 

[Wally Fairway]

NLU is making a point, maybe they want to weigh in (actually I think they are comparing Phil & Jack Masters records)

Here is Phils record in the majors

 

[turtleback]

1 hour ago, Wally Fairway said:

NLU is making a point, maybe they want to weigh in (actually I think they are comparing Phil & Jack Masters records)

Here is Phils record in the majors

 

Best stat ever - for demonstrating the weakness of the field in those years.  Bubba Watson has won (at least) 4 events in which substantially all of the best players in the world were in the field.  No one in the 70s even PLAYED in an event that included substantially all of the best players in the world.  

[Wally Fairway]

12 minutes ago, turtleback said:

Best stat ever - for demonstrating the weakness of the field in those years.  Bubba Watson has won (at least) 4 events in which substantially all of the best players in the world were in the field.  No one in the 70s even PLAYED in an event that included substantially all of the best players in the world.  

Which 4 events did Bubba win with the best players in the world?
Because the Masters is the weakest field of the majors, so I'm throwing those away, and are you holding that against the players before the WGC events were started?
And to me the WGC Match Play is like the PGA when it was match play - it is a nice win but it isn't anywhere near as impressive as winning a stroke play event (even if it is considered a major)

[3jacker]

Since this is so subjective, throw in how one plays when he doesn't win.

Finishing 2nd in majors is an indicator of how consistently a player maintained top form as well.

[iacas]

53 minutes ago, 3jacker said:

Since this is so subjective, throw in how one plays when he doesn't win.

Finishing 2nd in majors is an indicator of how consistently a player maintained top form as well.

Also significantly easier in the 60s and 70s.

[skydog]

1 hour ago, turtleback said:

No one in the 70s even PLAYED in an event that included substantially all of the best players in the world.  

Huh? Weird comment. I’m guessing most folks in the 70s played against the best players in the world at the time. That group of best players was weaker in quality and quantity than today’s group of best players but I’m not sure I understand this comment.

[iacas]

@skydog think about it a little.

US players often didn’t play the British. Euros often didn’t play the US majors.

Pretty sure that’s what @turtleback is saying.

[skydog]

45 minutes ago, iacas said:

@skydog think about it a little.

US players often didn’t play the British. Euros often didn’t play the US majors.

Pretty sure that’s what @turtleback is saying.

That’s what I was assuming but doesn’t really seem like an appropriate comment for the 70s.  1965 and before, yea, but I think by the 70s it was more of a global field/stage. Anyways not trying to split hairs, it just seemed like an odd comment.

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, skydog said:

That’s what I was assuming but doesn’t really seem like an appropriate comment for the 70s.  1965 and before, yea, but I think by the 70s it was more of a global field/stage. Anyways not trying to split hairs, it just seemed like an odd comment.

I don't know. Not my comment. I'll let @turtleback defend "substantially all".

[turtleback]

14 minutes ago, skydog said:

That’s what I was assuming but doesn’t really seem like an appropriate comment for the 70s.  1965 and before, yea, but I think by the 70s it was more of a global field/stage. Anyways not trying to split hairs, it just seemed like an odd comment.

Yeah, startling  isn't it.  But if you look at the fields  there it is.  

https://www.theopen.com/Heritage/PreviousOpens#!/1979/Royal-Lytham-&-St-Annes

http://www.augusta.com/masters/historic/leaderboards/1979leaderboard.shtml

https://www.pgatour.com/tournaments/us-open/past-results.html

http://vn.sports.yahoo.com/golf/pga/leaderboard/1979/33

 

24 American touring pros played the British Open (there were a few extra but no one any of us heard of, so I am assuming they were amateurs - definitely not among the best players in the world).  Very few non-Americans played the US-based majors.  Foreign players who did not play the US tour and were not major winners had an almost impossible time to qualify for the US Open because all of the qualifying was in the US until 2005.  The Masters had not yet changed its eligibility rules to embrace foreign golfers.  And you pretty much had to be a member of the US tour or a major winners to get into the PGA Championship as a foreigner.  A US club pro had a better chance.  I'm too lazy to figure it out, but the list of players who played all 4 events in 1979 was probably less than 3 or 4 dozen.  The US majors came a lot closer to having most of the best players, but there were a lot of very good Europeans by then that basically had no chance to enter any of the three.

It took longer to really globalize than people realize.

Now with the existence of the OWGR and the role it plays in eligibility for majors, WGCs, and the Players, 9 tournaments a year will have virtually all of the top 50 entered.  And except for the Masters with it's small field size, it is probably more like substantially all of the top 75-100.

[3jacker]

16 hours ago, iacas said:

Also significantly easier in the 60s and 70s.

For Jack, yes.

[3jacker]

15 hours ago, iacas said:

Here's another fact: each of Tiger's 14 majors was much more difficult to win than any of Jack's 18.

A bonus fact: this is all…

Not a fact.

You don't have to beat the whole field, most of the field isn't in the running.  It always comes down to 3 to 10 guys.  Depth of field is irrelevant when most of the field is 10 strokes back of the leaders.

[onthehunt526]

Though it was impressive that Jack finished in the Top 10, 35 out of 40 times in the majors in his 30s (winning 9). Let's look at that for a second. The field strength was much weaker. A lot of fields didn't always have the best players, and Jack was just Jack.

Not including amateur majors, Tiger won 10 of 36 as a professional before his 30th birthday. Yes he's only won 4 since (all in a 3 year span and none since 2008). But that is a mind-boggling statistic from the 1997 Masters until the 2005 PGA, Tiger won 10 majors. Even with a two stretches of 10 majors in which he didn't win one.

Tiger effectively lost his prime. But against better competition (occasionally a one and done won), in which the players were better. 10 out of 36 majors is pretty remarkable.

[ncates00]

17 hours ago, iacas said:

Here's another fact: each of Tiger's 14 majors was much more difficult to win than any of Jack's 18.

A bonus fact: this is all…

What makes them more difficult?  Strength of field?  Competition?  Physical health? At the end of the day, it's hard to compare across generations with all the different club/ball advancements, physical training, coaching, launch monitors, books, forums like this, access, and the list goes on.  All we have to go on are the numbers and feelings/perceptions about what's going on.  I graduated high school in 2007, so I watched Tiger in his peak years and was a part of that generation getting into golf due to this man.  I never witnessed Jack, Hagen, or Bobby Jones or any of the greats play like I did Tiger.  I dare say you take any of the greats and drop them into the same environment as Tiger had and they'll find a way to win.  You don't win 18 majors and come in 2nd-5th a billion times without the winning ability.  This debate is as old as 2002 and not going any where, unless we can take a journey in a Delorean to see how it turns out.

[turtleback]

1 minute ago, ncates00 said:

What makes them more difficult?  Strength of field?  Competition?  Physical health? At the end of the day, it's hard to compare across generations with all the different club/ball advancements, physical training, coaching, launch monitors, books, forums like this, access, and the list goes on.  All we have to go on are the numbers and feelings/perceptions about what's going on.  I graduated high school in 2007, so I watched Tiger in his peak years and was a part of that generation getting into golf due to this man.  I never witnessed Jack, Hagen, or Bobby Jones or any of the greats play like I did Tiger.  I dare say you take any of the greats and drop them into the same environment as Tiger had and they'll find a way to win.  You don't win 18 majors and come in 2nd-5th a billion times without the winning ability.  This debate is as old as 2002 and not going any where, unless we can take a journey in a Delorean to see how it turns out.

Really?  So we can't compare Gary Player's 1958 British Open win, at a time when Americans completely dominated golf, that only had 3 Americans in the field with, say, the 2000 British Open Tiger won against virtually every top player in the world?  Really?

 

Or Jack's first British Open in 1966 when only 5 of the top 10 on the money list played with Tiger's '97 Masters which, by the very nature of the qualifying criteria contained the top 30 money winners?

[iacas]

10 hours ago, 3jacker said:

Not a fact.

Yes, that's a fact.

10 hours ago, 3jacker said:

You don't have to beat the whole field, most of the field isn't in the running.

Yes, you do have to beat the whole field. You don't get very much credit for being 9/10ths of the field or even 142 out of 143 other players. You have to beat them all.

8 hours ago, ncates00 said:

What makes them more difficult? Strength of field?

Yep.

The fields are much stronger now than in Jack's day.

8 hours ago, ncates00 said:

At the end of the day, it's hard to compare across generations with all the different club/ball advancements, physical training, coaching, launch monitors, books, forums like this, access, and the list goes on.

And yet… some of us find a way.

8 hours ago, ncates00 said:

I dare say you take any of the greats and drop them into the same environment as Tiger had and they'll find a way to win.

And I "dare say" they wouldn't have won nearly as many as they won in their (weaker) era.

8 hours ago, ncates00 said:

You don't win 18 majors and come in 2nd-5th a billion times without the winning ability.

Nor do you win 14 against stiffer competition.

Nobody's degrading Jack's 18 majors. Nobody's saying he's not likely the SECOND best golfer of all time.

[onthehunt526]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yes, that's a fact.

Yes, you do have to beat the whole field. You don't get very much credit for being 9/10ths of the field or even 142 out of 143 other players. You have to beat them all.

Yep.

The fields are much stronger now than in Jack's day.

And yet… some of us find a way.

And I "dare say" they wouldn't have won nearly as many as they won in their (weaker) era.

Nor do you win 14 against stiffer competition.

Nobody's degrading Jack's 18 majors. Nobody's saying he's not likely the SECOND best golfer of all time.

Well said, Erik.

If Tiger and Jack flipped eras, Jack wins less majors, and Tiger wins a lot more. Would the 18 and 14 be flipped? Honestly, no. 

Let me put this on you, from 1999 to 2001, Tiger won 25 times worldwide, 5 of those wins were majors. And there were some very good players, including recent and at the time future multiple major champions in those fields. Did Tiger always win? No. He was only 50% in worldwide events in 2000. He played in 20 and won 10... Against Hall of Fame golfers, Mickelson, Els, Singh, Duval (when he was good), Love III, the list goes on, even the "B players" were good, Stuart Appleby, Robert Allenby, among others. I know Tiger caught the better players of the 1990s toward the end of their playing primes. But he had stiffer competition than Jack, throughout the 12 years he won majors, From 1997-2008 he won all 14 of his majors. 

If Tiger wins a major or two against the kids now, it would just further prove the point. Tiger is the GOAT. Jack is a close second. Jack was better for longer, but that doesn't necessarily make you the GOAT.