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

[GrandStranded]

4 hours ago, turtleback said:

Personally I think it varies greatly by event and the factor goes from maybe 10x to close to 1x as the years pass.  Jack's first BO win against a field that only included half of the top ten on the money list compared to, say, Tiger's last major has to be pretty close to 10x.  And then when we look at some of the fields that his competitors won against to establish their 'greatness - which some argue outweigh more contemporary players - it is even higher.  E.g., Gary Players first BO that had 3 Americans no one ever heard of.

Nah, I stopped caring about what he says long ago.  He is more interested in being cute than having a real discussion.

The funny thing is that NO ONE has used Jack's out years to try to diminish his achievements.  The serious folks generally cut off at 1986 while other Jack supporters (see, we are secure enough to be polite, not having to call names to be cute or thinking it buttresses their opinion) call that an outlier and want to cut off after 1980.  What NO ONE has done is make a serious argument watering down his win rate by including the 59 majors he played in after the '86 Masters.  

Gee  dominated for sufficiently long.  Where have I heard that?  LOL

Well, Jack's first cut at what it would take to be GOAT after he turned pro was he had to beat Snead's record.  Of course if we compare Tiger's wins and Sam's wins under a consistent set of criteria of what gets counted, as it applies to team events and small field events, Tiger passed Sam long ago - even with no account being taken in field strength differences.

"Cuteness" aside, Jack has won more majors, Snead more tournaments. Those are facts. You are a Tiger fan, and have constructed quite a list of theories, in an attempt to prove 14>18, Snead has many wins that are tarnished, the British was a club championship back in Jack's day, and the players he played against paled in comparison to those Tiger played during his 10 year run. Those are only some of your theories. The only people you convince with these are the ones who agree with you that Tiger is better anyway. Most fans who think Tiger is the best, know that 18 >14, because that's a fact, and most know beating that total was always Tigers goal. They feel Tiger is better however, because he passed their personal "eye test". As for the ones who feel Jack is better, all you get from them is rolled eyes, and the shaking of heads. You've turned what should be a fun thread into one where you and a few others line up to shout down anyone who dares to disagree. Funny thing is I've said countless times here that I give Tiger the edge over Jack, so I do agree with you there. Yet I know it's only my opinion, and I know I hate the way you go about trying to force yours upon everyone else.    

Edited March 29, 2018 by GrandStranded

[MuniGrit]

33 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

"Cuteness" aside, Jack has won more majors, Snead more tournaments. Those are facts. You are a Tiger fan, and have constructed quite a list of theories, in an attempt to prove 14>18, Snead has many wins that are tarnished, the British was a club championship back in Jack's day, and the players he played against paled in comparison to those Tiger played during his 10 year run. Those are only some of your theories. The only people you convince with these are the ones who agree with you that Tiger is better anyway. Most fans who think Tiger is the best, know that 18 >14, because that's a fact, and most know beating that total was always Tigers goal. They feel Tiger is better however, because he passed their personal "eye test". As for the ones who feel Jack is better, all you get from them is rolled eyes, and the shaking of heads. You've turned what should be a fun thread into one where you and a few others line up to shout down anyone who dares to disagree. Funny thing is I've said countless times here that I give Tiger the edge over Jack, so I do agree with you there. Yet I know it's only my opinion, and I know I hate the way you go about trying to force yours upon everyone else.    

Well said, I notice the use the math doesn't apply to total wins or majors won. Thread should be called Tiger is the GOAT and nobody is allowed to say otherwise or have their own opinion. I'm like you, I agree Tiger is the GOAT it's just interesting the fan club here get's their panties in a bunch in a hurry if there is anything they perceive negative to their own narrative.

[Dr. Manhattan]

As far as the "facts" regarding Sam Snead, please read this article. Gary Van Sickle has been plenty critical of Tiger Woods through the years. He is not a Woods fanboy. He did real journalistic work in researching Snead's win total. Bottom line is it should be 74 and not 82. The Tour doesn't want to be seen as crapping on a dead guy's grave. 

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/tiger-woods-actually-ahead-sam-snead-pga-tour-wins

Hogan also has about 8 extra wins counted that are bogus too. Team events with tiny fields. Even Palmer and Nicklaus each have a few of these type of "wins" counted in their official total. 

[boogielicious]

12 hours ago, MuniGrit said:

Well said, I notice the use the math doesn't apply to total wins or majors won. Thread should be called Tiger is the GOAT and nobody is allowed to say otherwise or have their own opinion. I'm like you, I agree Tiger is the GOAT it's just interesting the fan club here get's their panties in a bunch in a hurry if there is anything they perceive negative to their own narrative.

You need to knock off the whiny victim crap. It is really getting tiresome. 

[jbishop15]

14 hours ago, MuniGrit said:

Well said, I notice the use the math doesn't apply to total wins or majors won. Thread should be called Tiger is the GOAT and nobody is allowed to say otherwise or have their own opinion. I'm like you, I agree Tiger is the GOAT it's just interesting the fan club here get's their panties in a bunch in a hurry if there is anything they perceive negative to their own narrative.

Again, since apparently nobody was listening: what you're describing is people disagreeing with you. It turns out that more people think Tiger is better than Jack, at least on this forum. Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean that people have to agree with it. 

[saevel25]

15 hours ago, GrandStranded said:

Cuteness" aside, Jack has won more majors, Snead more tournaments. Those are facts

There are two other BIG facts.

1. Jack and Snead played against easier competition.
2. Jack and Snead have wins counted under criteria that would not count for Tiger. That is a big double standard that inflates their greatness.

15 hours ago, GrandStranded said:

Snead has many wins that are tarnished, the British was a club championship back in Jack's day, and the players he played against paled in comparison to those Tiger played during his 10 year run. Those are only some of your theories

Facts

15 hours ago, GrandStranded said:

Most fans who think Tiger is the best, know that 18 >14, because that's a fact, and most know beating that total was always Tigers goal

In terms of quantitative, sure. In terms of quality, not true.

If I had a car collection with 18 cars and you had a car collection with 14 cars. What if all my cars are 2000 Toyota Camry's, and all of yours are pristine classics and high end sports cars?  By your argument, my collection of cars is better. By those who understand quality, yours would be the better collection. Tiger has the better collection of wins.

15 hours ago, GrandStranded said:

You've turned what should be a fun thread into one where you and a few others line up to shout down anyone who dares to disagree.

Do you understand how discussions work?

You tried to present a counter argument, and your points could not stand up against the facts presented. What outcome were you hoping to achieve? Did you not realize that throwing out a counter opinion has the possibility of it getting countered?

15 hours ago, MuniGrit said:

Well said, I notice the use the math doesn't apply to total wins or majors won.

Quality versus Quantity. It's an easy concept.

15 hours ago, MuniGrit said:

Thread should be called Tiger is the GOAT and nobody is allowed to say otherwise or have their own opinion.

They can have their own opinion. If they voice their opposition, then they should be willing to present good evidence. If they do present the evidence, then they should have the resolve to withstand the counter arguments. If they get upset about that, then that is on them.

Here is the issue. Voicing an opinion doesn't mean you get to have it voiced with out a counter position voiced as well. There are plenty of times I have had my arguments smacked down pretty hard. It doesn't bother me. If I cry, "Why are you slamming my opinion!". Then I don't learn anything. I've closed of my mind to what they were saying because I care to much about my own validation versus gaining knowledge.

2 hours ago, boogielicious said:

You need to knock off the whiny victim crap. It is really getting tiresome. 

Yep

[MuniGrit]

41 minutes ago, jbishop15 said:

Again, since apparently nobody was listening: what you're describing is people disagreeing with you. It turns out that more people think Tiger is better than Jack, at least on this forum. Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean that people have to agree with it. 

I'm sure some people disagree with me and have an opinion that Jack is the best. Good for them I don't need to spend every day arguing that he isn't. I totally agree with what you are saying.

[jbishop15]

23 minutes ago, MuniGrit said:

I'm sure some people disagree with me and have an opinion that Jack is the best. Good for them I don't need to spend every day arguing that he isn't. I totally agree with what you are saying.

You're the one who keeps coming into the thread, my man. There ain't a magnet, and you ain't made steel. If you don't wanna argue every day about Jack v. Tiger, all you gotta do is not click the link. Nobody is going to chase you around with an iPad or a laptop with this thread open on it.

[turtleback]

18 hours ago, GrandStranded said:

"Cuteness" aside, Jack has won more majors, Snead more tournaments. Those are facts. You are a Tiger fan, and have constructed quite a list of theories, in an attempt to prove 14>18, Snead has many wins that are tarnished, the British was a club championship back in Jack's day, and the players he played against paled in comparison to those Tiger played during his 10 year run. Those are only some of your theories. The only people you convince with these are the ones who agree with you that Tiger is better anyway. Most fans who think Tiger is the best, know that 18 >14, because that's a fact, and most know beating that total was always Tigers goal. They feel Tiger is better however, because he passed their personal "eye test". As for the ones who feel Jack is better, all you get from them is rolled eyes, and the shaking of heads. You've turned what should be a fun thread into one where you and a few others line up to shout down anyone who dares to disagree. Funny thing is I've said countless times here that I give Tiger the edge over Jack, so I do agree with you there. Yet I know it's only my opinion, and I know I hate the way you go about trying to force yours upon everyone else.    

A hilarious recounting of many things no one has argued.  I don't force my opinion on anyone - I present actual facts.  Unlike those who handwave and whine because when they post nonsense it gets called out. 

Some of Snead's wins ARE 'tainted' by the fact that they would not count under the criteria used to count Tiger's wins.  This is a FACT which has been documented here, by me, and in various articles.  Heaven forbid we look beyond the surface to the underlying reality.

Prior to the 80's the BO was not quite like a club championship, but it wasn't close to a Web.com event in field strength through the 60s and not all that much better through the 70s.  But it is easier to handwave than to actually interact with the facts on the ground.  Like the actual fields themselves, where we see a paucity of top quality players.

As far as the 'eye test' - that is the absurdest claim of all, since my whole argument for Tiger's utter domination over Jack has NOTHING to do with any eye test and everything to do with cold hard facts that have set before you.

But you keep being you, because every village needs one.

[boogielicious]

 

2 hours ago, jbishop15 said:

You're the one who keeps coming into the thread, my man. There ain't a magnet, and you ain't made steel. If you don't wanna argue every day about Jack v. Tiger, all you gotta do is not click the link. Nobody is going to chase you around with an iPad or a laptop with this thread open on it.

This thread has 321 pages and therefore, due to its mass, must exert a significant gravitational pull as compared to lesser threads. 

[GrandStranded]

1 hour ago, turtleback said:

A hilarious recounting of many things no one has argued.  I don't force my opinion on anyone - I present actual facts.  Unlike those who handwave and whine because when they post nonsense it gets called out. 

Some of Snead's wins ARE 'tainted' by the fact that they would not count under the criteria used to count Tiger's wins.  This is a FACT which has been documented here, by me, and in various articles.  Heaven forbid we look beyond the surface to the underlying reality.

Prior to the 80's the BO was not quite like a club championship, but it wasn't close to a Web.com event in field strength through the 60s and not all that much better through the 70s.  But it is easier to handwave than to actually interact with the facts on the ground.  Like the actual fields themselves, where we see a paucity of top quality players.

As far as the 'eye test' - that is the absurdest claim of all, since my whole argument for Tiger's utter domination over Jack has NOTHING to do with any eye test and everything to do with cold hard facts that have set before you.

But you keep being you, because every village needs one.

And the conclusion of your post once again proves what I keep saying about the condescending tone, and the nasty, passive aggressiveness you always bring to the table. For some reason, it's always allowed to remain here, never addressed, while others are admonished, edited or deleted. 

Edited March 30, 2018 by GrandStranded

[boogielicious]

1 minute ago, GrandStranded said:

And the conclusion of your post once again proves what I keep saying about the condescending tone, and the nasty, passive aggressiveness you always bring to the table. For some reason, it's always allowed to remain here, never addressed, while others are edited or deleted. 

FWIW, there are 321 pages and most of the stuff he posted has been posted many times before. I understand new folks don't want to review the 321 pages, but suffice to say, it does get tiresome repeating it.

[GrandStranded]

11 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

FWIW, there are 321 pages and most of the stuff he posted has been posted many times before. I understand new folks don't want to review the 321 pages, but suffice to say, it does get tiresome repeating it.

He's the one who chooses to continually repeat it. However, does the fact that he chooses to do that give him the permission to continually include needless nasty remarks to end his replies? It's not just me, he does it to everyone who doesn't accept what appears to be his life's work as fact rather then opinion. Are you saying his exasperation lets you allows him to say things in here he wouldn't have the courage to say to someone's face?

Edited March 30, 2018 by GrandStranded

[DaveP043]

5 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

He's the one who chooses to continually repeat it. However, does the fact that he chooses to do that give him the permission to continually include needless nasty remarks to end his replies? It's not just me, he does it to everyone who doesn't accept what appears to be his life's work as fact rather then opinion. Are you saying his exasperation lets you allows him to say things in here he wouldn't have the courage to say to someone's face?

After a while, you realize that we have a variety of personalities around here, much like any community of individuals.  Some are consistently snarky, or curmudgeonly, some are more considerate or conciliatory, all while posting within the guidelines.  After a while, you just ignore the tenor of the comments from certain people, in fact you get a little disappointed when they don't act curmudgeonly.

[saevel25]

16 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

He's the one who chooses to continually repeat it.

Statements need to be repeated because people do not read the thread, and they decide to continue on the same arguments already discussed previously. If a counter argument is not made then their argument is left alone and unchallenged. This keeps bad information at the forefront of the thread.

16 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

However, does the fact that he chooses to do that give him the permission to continually include needless nasty remarks to end his replies? It's not just me, he does it to everyone who doesn't accept what appears to be his life's work as fact rather then opinion. Are you saying his exasperation allows him to say things in here he wouldn't have the courage to say to someone's face?

Yes, a few of his comments could have been left out.

[iacas]

20 hours ago, GrandStranded said:

You've turned what should be a fun thread into one where you and a few others line up to shout down anyone who dares to disagree.

No, he didn’t.

The name calling, you don’t even know if he was given a penalty. He was. By me.

@saevel25, great post.

The quality/quantity one.

[GrandStranded]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

No, he didn’t.

The name calling, you don’t even know if he was given a penalty. He was. By me.

@saevel25, great post.

The quality/quantity one.

Point taken. Thank you.

[boogielicious]

22 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

He's the one who chooses to continually repeat it. However, does the fact that he chooses to do that give him the permission to continually include needless nasty remarks to end his replies? It's not just me, he does it to everyone who doesn't accept what appears to be his life's work as fact rather then opinion. Are you saying his exasperation lets you allows him to say things in here he wouldn't have the courage to say to someone's face?

Others have covered this, but no, we don't allow folks to be rude under any circumstance. He knows he crossed the line, but you know where the exasperation comes from now too. There are times where we moderators contact posters outside the threads too to keep OT comments out of the thread. It doesn't go unnoticed or ignored.