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

[GrandStranded]

3 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Because it’s fun to see the rediculus shots Tiger hit and when he needed them the most. It was pretty absurd. 

That is a good point @mvmac, Jack owned his fade. He knew his shot zone well, and played it masterfully. Tiger hit the shot he wanted when he needed it the most at a masterful level. I don’t think people realize how hard it is to shape the ball like he did. And to do so with the accuracy he did it at. Most PGA Tour players hit one shot shape. They’ll struggle with trying to hit anything else. 

You've got a point. It is cool to watch them again...

[3puttglenn]

 The commentators on TV were talking about how Tiger went 3 YEARS with out missing a 3 foot putt.. 3 years... they said no one does that......

[onthehunt526]

30 minutes ago, 3puttglenn said:

 The commentators on TV were talking about how Tiger went 3 YEARS with out missing a 3 foot putt.. 3 years... they said no one does that......

It was the WGC at The Grove when he broke that streak.

[GrandStranded]

I'm starting to buy into this strength and depth of field argument. This new generation of younger, stronger players from all over the world are making Tiger look like yesterdays news. It seems like one week it's his putter hurting him, then the driver, now the iron game. He just can't get it together. Would it be fair to say if one of these young guns gets to 10 majors, they become the GOAT?

[Dr. Manhattan]

2 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

I'm starting to buy into this strength and depth of field argument. This new generation of younger, stronger players from all over the world are making Tiger look like yesterdays news. It seems like one week it's his putter hurting him, then the driver, now the iron game. He just can't get it together. Would it be fair to say if one of these young guns gets to 10 majors, they become the GOAT?

 

Maybe. Depends on what they do in other events. 

[GrandStranded]

10 minutes ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

 

Maybe. Depends on what they do in other events. 

Let's say Rory, JT, or Jordan  gets 35-40 wins, 10 being majors. Is that enough? I'm thinking it might be. 

[Dr. Manhattan]

1 minute ago, GrandStranded said:

Let's say Rory, JT, or Jordan  gets 35-40 wins, 10 being majors. Is that enough? I'm thinking it might be. 

 

I don't know. What kind of tournaments are we talking about? Tiger has a ton of wins that featured the top 75 or so in the world. 14 majors, 18 WGC's, 2 PLAYERS Championships...boat load of wins at Arnold and Jack's events. These are not exactly the John Deere Classic. 

[saevel25]

3 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Let's say Rory, JT, or Jordan  gets 35-40 wins, 10 being majors. Is that enough? I'm thinking it might be. 

Probably close. 

[GrandStranded]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

 

I don't know. What kind of tournaments are we talking about? Tiger has a ton of wins that featured the top 75 or so in the world. 14 majors, 18 WGC's, 2 PLAYERS Championships...boat load of wins at Arnold and Jack's events. These are not exactly the John Deere Classic. 

Those type of players are usually playing all the top events with elite fields. I'd imagine almost all their wins would be considered quality.

[iacas]

I don't think 10 and 35/40 gets it there. There's a limit to how strong the fields can be. It levels off. I've made charts illustrating this.

12/60 might be the number.

@GrandStranded, though, you're dangerously close to trolling.

You're the one obsessed with posting Tiger-related posts to provoke.

[Dr. Manhattan]

17 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Those type of players are usually playing all the top events with elite fields. I'd imagine almost all their wins would be considered quality.

 

They don't always play the same events. What you proposed earlier is saying that a win today is literally twice as good as winning 10 years ago. I don't buy it. 

[GrandStranded]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

I don't think 10 and 35/40 gets it there. There's a limit to how strong the fields can be. It levels off. I've made charts illustrating this.

12/60 might be the number.

@GrandStranded, though, you're dangerously close to trolling.

You're the one obsessed with posting Tiger-related posts to provoke.

I was just looking for conversation, but I guess it's must be coming off that way, so I'm sorry, and will stop. 

[iacas]

Just now, GrandStranded said:

I was just looking for conversation, but I guess it's must be coming off that way, so I'm sorry, and will stop. 

Talk about something else for awhile, because yeah, that's how you're coming off.

And check your PMs. Your book couldn't be delivered and you need to take an action.

[Fidelio]

Jack has more top 3s than Tiger has top 10s in majors. That settles the depth of field argument in Jack's favor.  And it wasn't like Jack was facing duck hooking duds. Tom Watson was runner up at the 2009 British Open. Jack had a chance to win the Masters at 58. Jack even won 8 Senior Majors.

It is absolutely bonkers to put Tiger ahead of Jack.  Also worth noting almost 30 of the tournaments Tiger won were limited field events vs 7 for Jack. That really cripples the deep field argument. But even then, you get measured on majors and Jack's record is so much better that I don't see this as a debatable topic.

[boogielicious]

7 hours ago, Fidelio said:

Jack has more top 3s than Tiger has top 10s in majors. That settles the depth of field argument in Jack's favor.  And it wasn't like Jack was facing duck hooking duds. Tom Watson was runner up at the 2009 British Open. Jack had a chance to win the Masters at 58. Jack even won 8 Senior Majors.

It is absolutely bonkers to put Tiger ahead of Jack.  Also worth noting almost 30 of the tournaments Tiger won were limited field events vs 7 for Jack. That really cripples the deep field argument. But even then, you get measured on majors and Jack's record is so much better that I don't see this as a debatable topic.

 

[sheepdog]

10 hours ago, Fidelio said:

Jack has more top 3s than Tiger has top 10s in majors. That settles the depth of field argument in Jack's favor.  And it wasn't like Jack was facing duck hooking duds. Tom Watson was runner up at the 2009 British Open. Jack had a chance to win the Masters at 58. Jack even won 8 Senior Majors.

It is absolutely bonkers to put Tiger ahead of Jack.  Also worth noting almost 30 of the tournaments Tiger won were limited field events vs 7 for Jack. That really cripples the deep field argument. But even then, you get measured on majors and Jack's record is so much better that I don't see this as a debatable topic.

This place is full of Tiger fanboys so you're in for a rough ride for saying that. I learned that when I joined. Look I just read that Jack wasn't a great putter, that's insane but this is the type of BS you'll hear around this place.

These guys are welcome to think what they think but they would sell their souls to the devil for 5 more majors in Tiger's pocket. They can't stand it, they lose sleep at night about it, they'll argue for Tiger till the ends of the earth. They'll use mathematics, statistics, charts, insults, anything to back their Messiah up. They'll tell you Arnie, Gary, Billy, Tom and Lee really weren't all that good. The people Tiger plays would destroy them. Gosh, gee if Tiger just had 19 majors then everything would be alright, the world would have no problems and everyone would agree with them. The fact that Jack has 18 and TW has 14 chafes them like sandpaper. They just can't get around that one try as they will.

Thing is You can throw all of that crap out, different eras, different times, different equipment, same for Hogan, Jones, Hagen IMHO.

 

Now Fidelio, sit back and learn, watch the Tiger fanboys light me up.

[Fidelio]

3 hours ago, boogielicious said:

 

The fields are of course not as deep. But the problem is the fields aren't so weak that a third place finish in 1970 is like finishing out of the top 10 today. I even put 14 majors  in Tiger's era on the same plane as 18 majors in Jack's era. But the simple reality is Tiger has 38 top 10s in majors. Jack has 37 top 2s.  That settles it. Scoreboard. Ballgame. Jack. And it isn't close. 

[iacas]

11 hours ago, Fidelio said:

Jack has more top 3s than Tiger has top 10s in majors. That settles the depth of field argument in Jack's favor.

The opposite is more true.

11 hours ago, Fidelio said:

And it wasn't like Jack was facing duck hooking duds.

A significantly large portion of the field was closer to "duds" in Jack's day than in Tiger's day.

11 hours ago, Fidelio said:

It is absolutely bonkers to put Tiger ahead of Jack.

In your opinion. In the opinion of others, based on facts, it's bonkers to say that Jack competed against tougher competitors than Tiger. Thus, given that Tiger played against tougher players, and yet won more frequently than Jack, it's logical for many people to put Tiger ahead of Jack.

11 hours ago, Fidelio said:

Also worth noting almost 30 of the tournaments Tiger won were limited field events vs 7 for Jack. That really cripples the deep field argument.

Ha! Oh boy, you stepped in it there.

I'm not gonna rehash the older posts, but you don't have to scroll back too far or go back too many pages to see how seriously screwed up that post is. Jack played in MAJORS with significantly weaker fields than Tiger's WGC wins, most of which had nearly all of the top 50 players in the world playing. Or more.

11 hours ago, Fidelio said:

But even then, you get measured on majors and Jack's record is so much better that I don't see this as a debatable topic.

No, measuring on majors is one way to measure. If you want to discard everything else accomplished by the golfer, which strikes many of us as silly.

But…

Even if you ONLY consider the majors, many here could make a compelling case for putting Tiger ahead of Jack. Again if "x" and "y" are the strength/depth of field multipliers for each, many here would say "14x > 18y."

I'm among them.

If "z" is the Jordan Spieth or Rory McIlroy era, yes, then many of us would also say that "12z > 14x".

20 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

This place is full of Tiger fanboys so you're in for a rough ride for saying that.

Keep telling yourself that, buddy, but you didn't present much of an argument at all, and so you've had to resort to name-calling ("fanboys") as a means of belittling the logical arguments those who vote for Tiger as the GOAT are capable of presenting.

20 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

Look I just read that Jack wasn't a great putter, that's insane but this is the type of BS you'll hear around this place.

@lastings said that. He speaks, as everyone here does, for himself. And I don't think he's even a huge Tiger "fan" let alone a "fanboy."

20 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

These guys are welcome to think what they think but they would sell their souls to the devil for 5 more majors in Tiger's pocket.

Not remotely true. 14x > 18y.

20 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

They can't stand it, they lose sleep at night about it, they'll argue for Tiger till the ends of the earth. They'll use mathematics, statistics, charts, insults, anything to back their Messiah up.

20 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

They'll tell you Arnie, Gary, Billy, Tom and Lee really weren't all that good. The people Tiger plays would destroy them.

They'll quote Jack's own words talking about how much stronger and deeper fields are today, and cite evidence that supports it. Guys who played against Jack, like @Phil McGleno, will make detailed posts talking about how much easier it was to play back then.

20 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

The fact that Jack has 18 and TW has 14 chafes them like sandpaper. They just can't get around that one try as they will.

14x > 18y

79 > 72

And many other things.

But keep telling yourself it's just "fanboys" crying themselves to sleep at night, @sheepdog, when it's you who cannot mount an argument other than "18 > 14".

5 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

The fields are of course not as deep.

The fields are much deeper now than when Jack played. But I think you meant to type "were."

5 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

But the problem is the fields aren't so weak that a third place finish in 1970 is like finishing out of the top 10 today.

Scroll back and read some posts by @turtleback and @brocks and some others. You'll read about British Opens where virtually nobody in the top 50 played. You'll read about U.S. majors with few if any foreign players making the trip across, even into the 70s.

The fields are significantly deeper/stronger now.

5 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

I even put 14 majors  in Tiger's era on the same plane as 18 majors in Jack's era. But the simple reality is Tiger has 38 top 10s in majors. Jack has 37 top 2s.  That settles it. Scoreboard. Ballgame. Jack. And it isn't close. 

You're welcome to do that, but someone else could say "I agree 14 = 18, but 79 >> 72, and Tiger's other accomplishments >>> Jack's other accomplishments" and say "ballgame, Tiger, and it isn't close."

But hey, maybe you're just a "Jack fanboy."