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

[3jacker]

Still waiting for proof of the fact that today's golfers are "better."

[saevel25]

14 minutes ago, 3jacker said:

Still waiting for proof of the fact that today's golfers are "better."

Plenty has been said here,

 

 

[3jacker]

Yeah but it's still just informed opinion.  No amount of typing or rationalizing can ever equal proof. There's plenty of difficult factors from the old era that are conveniently ignored, as well.

It's like politics or religion.

 

[ncates00]

11 hours 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.

I agree.  I'm just seeing what is your reasoning.  I mean, what's the conversion table for majors?  Like how many of Jack's majors equal one of Tiger's with this stronger field (very vague and subjective even, you play who is there to play)?  Also, at what point in your opinion did Tiger surpass Jack for the GOAT then?  1 major? 5?  10?  What's the conversion formula and how do you know?  See, this gets into a lot of feelings and subjectivity here- even when I agree with you.  But I'm a Tiger fanboy who started the game during his heyday as a high schooler.

[saevel25]

1 hour ago, 3jacker said:

Yeah but it's still just informed opinion.  No amount of typing or rationalizing can ever equal proof. There's plenty of difficult factors from the old era that are conveniently ignored, as well.

Sure it can. No matter how much you will never accept it. So why ask for it. People can make confident and accurate opinions based on a lot of quality information. All the information points to Tiger playing against tougher competition.

[klineka]

2 hours ago, 3jacker said:

Still waiting for proof of the fact that today's golfers are "better."

It's not just Golf. One post/tweet by @iacas really sums it up

"Athletes in all sports are faster, stronger, better" are things that can, and have, been objectively measured.

It's a fact that NFL players run faster now than they did 20 years ago.

It's a fact that powerlifters are stronger now than they were 20 years ago. 

Those are objective facts, not informed opinions

[3jacker]

But we're talking about golf. It's not a strength sport or a speed sport.

Despite all the nonsense out there.  There are fat guys today who are better than super buff guys . There's Bubba with his muppet arms, etc. Tiger was at his best before he began his ridiculous quest for buffery.

I think the fact that pro golfers are working out is getting confused with working out is making pro golfers better.

You have to prove - not infer - a causal relationship.

[saevel25]

5 minutes ago, 3jacker said:

But we're talking about golf. It's not a strength sport or a speed sport.

You are wrong here. Jack Nicklaus was a multi-sport athlete and had scholarship offers from Ohio State to play football. The two greatest golfers of all time were both the most athletic golfers of their era. Except maybe Tiger in his later years. I would say Dustin Johnson is the most athletic person on the PGA Tour right now. There is a reason why he's won a PGA Tour event every year since 2008.

Still, golf has been dominated by athletic golfers. You may have the occasional Luke Donald who pops up for a year or two, but they slowly fade away because they do not have the long game.

8 minutes ago, 3jacker said:

Despite all the nonsense out there.  There are fat guys today who are better than super buff guys . There's Bubba with his muppet arms, etc. Tiger was at his best before he began his ridiculous quest for buffery.

There isn't many super buff guys on tour. Also, Tiger was never super buff. Did he put on some muscle, sure. He wasn't body builder huge, or even NFL linebacker huge. He's about 6 FT tall and under 200 lbs.

Still, look at the Official World Golf Rankings. All these guys are lean guys. They are in shape.

https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.186.html

Dustin Johnson, Justin Thomas ,John Rahm, Jordan Spieth, Justin Rose, Hideki Matsuyama, Rory McIlroy, Rickie Fowler, Sergio Garcia, Brooks Koepka, Tommy Fleetwood, Jason Day, Paul Casey, Alex Noren, Henrick Stension, Marc Leishman, ect... There is no one overweight, or out of shape golfer, in the top 15 in the world.

18 minutes ago, 3jacker said:

I think the fact that pro golfers are working out is getting confused with working out is making pro golfers better.

It's not just about working out. There are more gifted golfers now than every. They start at a younger age. They are taller and more athletic. They also happen to work out to allow them to maintain a high level of golf.

Todays golfer are taller, and more athletic than the golfers in the past.

All evidence points to golfers today being better than golfers in the past.

[klineka]

48 minutes ago, 3jacker said:

But we're talking about golf. It's not a strength sport or a speed sport.

Sure it is. Not running speed, but clubhead speed, which requires fast twitch muscle fibers. The top golfers are very good athletes. 

[turtleback]

3 hours ago, 3jacker said:

Yeah but it's still just informed opinion.  No amount of typing or rationalizing can ever equal proof. There's plenty of difficult factors from the old era that are conveniently ignored, as well.

It's like politics or religion.

 

If you want proofs, go do some math.  That is the only field you get proofs in.  Rejecting everything that informed reasoning puts forth as lacking 'proof' is just silly and gives you 0 credibility.

And no, in the threads we have here there are NO difficulty factors from the old era that are being ignored.  We've bashed this out with so many different waves of new entrants to the thread that every one has been brought up and dealt with.  Debunking something and ignoring it are not the same.

Name one such factor.

[rehmwa]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

Tiger was never super buff. Did he put on some muscle, sure. He wasn't body builder huge, or even NFL linebacker huge. He's about 6 FT tall and under 200 lbs.

I love it when people call Tiger or Rory or the rest, 'overmuscled' or 'super buff'.  These guys are simply fit and lean.  There isn't a sample of body building type effort in the entire batch.

When someone thinks that just regular exercise and eating good is equated to 'super buff' then I question their baseline assumptions.  "Normal" should not be be fat, wheezing, and untoned - nor is it.  if one is self conscious about their lack of fitness, they should exercise instead of belittling those that care about their health.

Golf is NOT exclusively owned by the sedentary.

[iacas]

@3jacker, the proof is mathematical. I illustrated this with a simple graph in the other topic.

[GrandStranded]

My perception of golf in the late 80's and thru the 90's and early 00's was there were  very few great players in American golf. The best were foreigners like Norman, Price, and even an aging Nick Faldo.. Love, Couples, Kite, etc  weren't great, just better then most of their peers. When Tiger came on the scene, he blew these guys and everyone else out of the water. Someone mentioned a few hours ago a list which contained Love, Duval, and Singh. along with Phil and Ernie. This is where I think The people who favor Jack get upset. I'll give you Els and Phil, maybe Singh as HOF'ers. You'll never convince me, however with the argument that Player, Palmer, Casper, Watson, Trevino etal were not at least as good as those later players, nor will I buy into the argument that their accomplishments pale to those of Tiger's peers because of weak fields or those lacking depth. 

Edited March 28, 2018 by GrandStranded

[iacas]

3 hours ago, GrandStranded said:

My perception of golf in the late 80's and thru the 90's and early 00's was there were  very few great players in American golf. The best were foreigners like Norman, Price, and even an aging Nick Faldo.. Love, Couples, Kite, etc  weren't great, just better then most of their peers. When Tiger came on the scene, he blew these guys and everyone else out of the water. Someone mentioned a few hours ago a list which contained Love, Duval, and Singh. along with Phil and Ernie. This is where I think The people who favor Jack get upset. I'll give you Els and Phil, maybe Singh as HOF'ers. You'll never convince me, however with the argument that Player, Palmer, Casper, Watson, Trevino etal were not at least as good as those later players, nor will I buy into the argument that their accomplishments pale to those of Tiger's peers because of weak fields or those lacking depth. 

Glad to see you're open minded about it all. </sarcasm>

The simple truth is that if you have five good players and 120 poor players, those five players are going to win a lot more than if they were exactly the same players themselves, but the 120 competing players were much better.

Also, people act like all of those players were competing against Jack the whole time. Arnie was done winning majors pretty quickly. Tom Watson is almost nine years younger and won his first major in 1975, after Nicklaus had already won 13. Lee and Gary were more contemporaries, but Arnie and Tom weren't unless you almost consider them one person, with an 11-year gap in there from 1964 to 1975 (Palmer's last to Watson's first).

Again, simple math and probabilities, here, folks. Jack, Lee, Arnie, etc. all benefitted from the weaker fields back then. Look at Gary Player's first British Open win. A Web.com Monday qualifier probably has a stiffer field these days.

[GrandStranded]

54 minutes ago, iacas said:

Glad to see you're open minded about it all. </sarcasm>

The simple truth is that if you have five good players and 120 poor players, those five players are going to win a lot more than if they were exactly the same players themselves, but the 120 competing players were much better.

Also, people act like all of those players were competing against Jack the whole time. Arnie was done winning majors pretty quickly. Tom Watson is almost nine years younger and won his first major in 1975, after Nicklaus had already won 13. Lee and Gary were more contemporaries, but Arnie and Tom weren't unless you almost consider them one person, with an 11-year gap in there from 1964 to 1975 (Palmer's last to Watson's first).

Again, simple math and probabilities, here, folks. Jack, Lee, Arnie, etc. all benefitted from the weaker fields back then. Look at Gary Player's first British Open win. A Web.com Monday qualifier probably has a stiffer field these days.

Ok, but what about the fields from the 90's through the mid 2000's? There weren't many great players in that era, though the level of play from the middle of the field down might have improved a bit compared to Jack's time, I don't think the top half was any stronger at all. I do agree there are  much better athletes/players now, and these stronger, deeper fields from 2005-2010 thru now are because of Tiger and his effect on the game. 

Edited March 28, 2018 by GrandStranded

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Ok, but what about the fields from the 90's through the mid 2000's? There weren't many great players in that era, though the level of play from the middle of the field down might have improved a bit compared to Jack's time, I don't think the top half was any stronger at all.

I think the top half and bottom half were much better.

I think you just keep seeing what you want to see. The math says otherwise.

I’m not gonna convince you. So I’m not really trying here.

[GrandStranded]

8 minutes ago, iacas said:

I think the top half and bottom half were much better.

I think you just keep seeing what you want to see. The math says otherwise.

I’m not gonna convince you. So I’m not really trying here.

I agree, and I'm certainly not going to convince you either. Best to end it here.

[3puttglenn]

 I think you can look at the records Tiger has, and the choice is easy who is best of all time... Tiger holds records  that are so incredible we wont live long enough to see someone break them.