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

[ncates00]

So when did Tiger become the GOAT and what is the conversion table for the wins and majors between the eras? Not being sarcastic. Seriously asking. 

[iacas]

35 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

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

You chose to end it when you closed your mind off to new thoughts and ideas. You're going by what you feel or think, it seems, not considering actual information or facts or even the types of things Jack Nicklaus himself has said.

26 minutes ago, 3puttglenn said:

 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.

Maybe.

17 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

So when did Tiger become the GOAT and what is the conversion table for the wins and majors between the eras? Not being sarcastic. Seriously asking. 

I'm sure it's slightly different for everyone.

FWIW, as long as the factor is 1.25, that's enough to basically tie Tiger with Jack at 18, and then given the weight of Tiger's other achievements… tough not to vote for Tiger.

Others would say it's irrelevant. Even at a weighting factor of 1… 14 < 18, but Tiger's other achievements are enough to push him over the edge.

Others might say as high as 3x - that it's three times more difficult to win a major now than it was in the 60s. That's too high for my tastes, but I can see where they're getting that number. In that case, 52 is quite a bit more than 18.

1.25 is pretty low. The fields are definitely at least 25% stronger now.

[GrandStranded]

32 minutes ago, 3puttglenn said:

 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.

 

As does Jack also.

[3puttglenn]

well one thing is for sure... we've seen tiger dominate more then any golfer in history... we've seen tiger win by margins that were records setting in the US open and the masters..  AND Tiger is the only modern golfer to hold all four major trophys at the same time.

[MuniGrit]

20 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

As does Jack also.

What does the math say? Lol

[GrandStranded]

33 minutes ago, 3puttglenn said:

well one thing is for sure... we've seen tiger dominate more then any golfer in history... we've seen tiger win by margins that were records setting in the US open and the masters..  AND Tiger is the only modern golfer to hold all four major trophys at the same time.

I don't agree with the "dominated more then any golfer in history" comment. He did dominate more then any golfer in his era. As Jack did in his., and Hogan, and Jones, to name a couple more, in theirs. Yes he did have two record setting tournaments, so have many other greats, again, Jack included. To your final point, yes Tiger held all four at one time. Certainly a great achievement. Jack won a few majors himself back in the day.

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

I don't agree with the "dominated more then any golfer in history" comment. He did dominate more then any golfer in his era. As Jack did in his., and Hogan, and Jones, to name a couple more, in theirs.

Jack didn't really "dominate" like Tiger did.

C'mon, @GrandStranded… you're gonna upset @turtleback, or at least demonstrate how poorly you've read his posts. Or not read them at all.

Jack was pretty good for a long time. Tiger dominated like no other golfer, against the stiffest competition by anyone who "did pretty darn well" even for a little (any of the people you named).

[GrandStranded]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

Jack didn't really "dominate" like Tiger did.

C'mon, @GrandStranded… you're gonna upset @turtleback, or at least demonstrate how poorly you've read his posts. Or not read them at all.

Jack was pretty good for a long time. Tiger dominated like no other golfer, against the stiffest competition by anyone who "did pretty darn well" even for a little (any of the people you named).

Okay, and yes I've read his posts, and understand his reasoning. Maybe I phrased it wrong, but I was referring to "within their eras".

[onthehunt526]

53 minutes ago, 3puttglenn said:

well one thing is for sure... we've seen tiger dominate more then any golfer in history... we've seen tiger win by margins that were records setting in the US open and the masters..  AND Tiger is the only modern golfer to hold all four major trophys at the same time.

The Tiger Slam. Ah. Something that may never happen again in our lifetimes. Jack never even came close to winning four majors in a row ever. Not close at all (well '72 he had a chance to hold all four because of a scheduling quirk.). Enough said.

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Okay, and yes I've read his posts, and understand his reasoning. Maybe I phrased it wrong, but I was referring to "within their eras".

So was I.

Tiger dominated much more so than Jack did.

[GrandStranded]

4 minutes ago, onthehunt526 said:

The Tiger Slam. Ah. Something that may never happen again in our lifetimes. Jack never even came close to winning four majors in a row ever. Not close at all (well '72 he had a chance to hold all four because of a scheduling quirk.). Enough said.

Scheduling quirk? I don't remember that...

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Scheduling quirk? I don't remember that...

https://www.pga.com/news/golf-buzz/jack-nicklaus-won-1971-pga-championship-today

[GrandStranded]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

So was I.

Tiger dominated much more so than Jack did.

Not trying to argue here, simply asking. If Tiger is blessed with continued good health, and goes on to play another 10 years or so, yet wins only 5-6 more tournaments, none of them majors... History would consider his era from 1997 thru about 2027. Would you still feel the same way?

[saevel25]

16 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Not trying to argue here, simply asking. If Tiger is blessed with continued good health, and goes on to play another 10 years or so, yet wins only 5-6 more tournaments, none of them majors... History would consider his era from 1997 thru about 2027. Would you still feel the same way?

Longevity is overrated. If a golfer won 50% of all tournaments in a 10 year stretch they are the greatest of all-time. 

[iacas]

18 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Not trying to argue here, simply asking. If Tiger is blessed with continued good health, and goes on to play another 10 years or so, yet wins only 5-6 more tournaments, none of them majors... History would consider his era from 1997 thru about 2027. Would you still feel the same way?

Of course. He dominated for a sufficiently long period of time. Past tense - "dominated."

[GrandStranded]

1 minute ago, saevel25 said:

Longevity is overrated. If a golfer won 50% of all tournaments in a 10 year stretch they are the greatest of all-time. 

Did Tiger ACTUALLY do that? Again, asking. That number seems awfully high...

[saevel25]

6 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Did Tiger ACTUALLY do that? Again, asking. That number seems awfully high...

No, but the argument is always, "Jack had a long career, blah blah blah". 

[GrandStranded]

5 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

No, but the argument is always, "Jack had a long career, blah blah blah". 

Hmmmm...