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

[Fidelio]

2 minutes ago, brocks said:

Can you see where this is heading?

I can see that I won't be giving you serious responses.

[brocks]

7 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

I can see that I won't be giving you serious responses.

OK, I deleted my snark.  What in my post is discouraging you from giving serious responses?

You primarily get judged on majors.

Before Jack won his 12th major, did you think Walter Hagen was the GOAT?

 

Edited July 10, 2018 by brocks

[Fidelio]

4 minutes ago, brocks said:

OK, I deleted my snark.  What in my post is discouraging you from giving serious responses?

If Jack finishes 3 back and finishes 3rd in his era and Tiger finishes the same 3 back and finishes 8th in the modern era, the gap in finishes is larger because of field strength.  It also means Jack should win more often on average because fewer people will luck into a win. And  the times that Jack has better than average  luck there will be fewer times that someone is slightly luckier because there are fewer people in contention.

 

 

[Vinsk]

27 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

You primarily get judged on majors

So in your book Ben Curtis has a better career than Lee Westwood? 

[Fidelio]

5 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

So in your book Ben Curtis has a better career than Lee Westwood? 

You do get judged by majors.

Lee Westwood had a much better career in majors. Lee Westwood is a good example of why wins aren't the only thing that matter. Top finishes and luck should be big part of analysis. Perfectly illustrates why Jack's seconds, thirds, top tens are so important to the debate.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Fidelio

[brocks]

4 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

You do get judged by majors.

Lee Westwood had a much better career in majors. Lee Westwood is a good example of why wins aren't the only thing that matter. Top finishes and luck should be big part of analysis. Perfectly illustrates why Jack's seconds, thirds, top tens are so important to the debate.

I agree with the first half of that.  If you're judging a couple of golfers who are probably not in the top 50 all time, then by all means compare their top fives.

You lost me after that.  Luck should be part of the analysis????   If you're talking about luck, you're not doing analysis, you're doing voodoo.   You can't analyze something you can't quantify.

And if you're talking about who's the GOAT, rather than who's better than Ben Curtis, then top tens or even top fives have a place, but that place is somewhere around the fifth tie-breaker.  Dominance, wins, strength of competition, streaks, margin of victory, scoring titles, money titles, POTYs, etc. are all more important.

[saevel25]

20 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

You do get judged by majors.

That is just stupid. If someone won 20 majors and no other wins versus someone who one 100 non majors tournames. The 100 wins are more impressive. 

Mira totally self serving that Jack reset the bar at Major wins versus actually looking at the quality of all wins. No one really ranked the majors as they do now before Jack said Majors are important. 

 

[Vinsk]

23 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

Top finishes and luck should be big part of analysis. 

I hope none of your math peers read this. Seriously, that statement is astronomically stupid. 

[Fidelio]

2 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

I hope none of your math peers read this. Seriously, that statement is astronomically stupid. 

That's very nasty of you. Very nasty.

I feel like replying in kind. I won't though. I will say the statement you quoted is one of the more profound ideas in the 12 years of this thread.

[Vinsk]

52 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

That's very nasty of you. Very nasty.

I feel like replying in kind. I won't though. I will say the statement you quoted is one of the more profound ideas in the 12 years of this thread.

No. It isn't nasty at all. There's really no other words to describe it. And I'm not calling you stupid. I'm calling what you said as stupid. Which it is. Profoundly stupid.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Fidelio said:

I am not penalizing anyone for doing something in a shorter time.  I am looking at a total career.

Yes you are.

Tiger's career stats are better than Jack's. In the opinions of some, they're WAY better.

I don't assign bonus points for winning majors 26 years apart, though. You seemingly do.

1 hour ago, Fidelio said:

Whether the methodology is correct or not is irrelevant.

It's incredibly relevant. It's the most important thing.

1 hour ago, Fidelio said:

The point of linking to study by Dartmouth academics is show that sports are very random and academics readily accept that.

No, that's not what it shows. It shows that those particular people chose to ascribe a variance in performance to LUCK. It's a choice they made - it doesn't mean it's accurate or that "people accept it."

They clearly don't understand golf. Golfers don't all shoot their expected scores every week. Mark Calcavecchia did not have 22 strokes worth of "luck" the week he won a British Open. He simply played a good bit better than his average.

This feels like a "duh" type thing. But you're blindly supporting it because you think it supports your claims… even though it doesn't support your claims at all. For all we know, Jack was the luckier one of the two, and Tiger was incredibly unlucky, as he was when he was caught in that horrible storm at the British Open.

It's incredibly stupid to attribute a scoring variance over a small sample size (four rounds) to luck. Golf isn't a game where you shoot 71.3 every time you play. It's not even close to that.

Mark Calcavecchia drove the ball better. He holed more putts. He hit his irons closer to the hole that week.

He didn't get 22 shots worth of luck.

1 hour ago, Fidelio said:

Some studies where intuition vs reality diverge:

Nope.

1 hour ago, Fidelio said:

Let's say a person has a certain level of skill that says they should win 15% of the majors they entered over a career of 20 years. So if they are healthy they play in 80 majors. Based on their skill, they should win 12 majors on average. But will they win precisely 12 majors? With a sample size this small they could  win 15 majors or 9 majors and still be well within what is expected based on their win rate. Two people of equal skill could be six majors apart. The only difference is the guy with 9 majors was very unlucky and the guy with 15 majors had a lot of good fortune, yet they are the same player.

No, that's not "the only difference." Not by a long shot.

1 hour ago, Fidelio said:

And a way that can help determine who got the short end of the straw would be to look at how often a person wins vs how often they contend.

Nope. In the "real world," it doesn't work that way.

1 hour ago, Fidelio said:

The win rate vs times contended might be due to the aggressive style Tiger plays which will produce higher highs and lower lows.

Which is you arguing against yourself. Congratulations. You don't even know what to call it.

And you're leaving apart two things:

• That Tiger finishing 8th was more difficult than Jack finishing 3rd.
• That the majority of Tiger's regular PGA Tour wins were tougher to win than any of Jack's majors, due to the strength and depth of field.

Sorry. That's at least reason #3 why "the majors are all that matter" is a poppycock line of reasoning. Reasons #1 and #2 have been discussed before.

1 hour ago, Fidelio said:

But mostly the gap between  the number of majors contended in vs won is due to luck.

Because you say so? Seemingly…

1 hour ago, Fidelio said:

It is very possible Jack should have win 20 majors on average during the era he competed and Tiger should have more like 12.

And I could say that I think if Jack and Tiger had traded places, Jack would have won five majors and Tiger 28. So… that and $5 might get me a drink at Starbucks. Maybe.

Your opinion is given the same weight. Actually, less weight, because you're just basing it on a perverse definition of "luck" and ignoring other valid facts.

1 hour ago, Fidelio said:

You primarily get judged on majors.

Says who? I don't base things "primarily" on majors.

And let's say I did. Guess what? Tiger's 14 majors wins are more impressive than Jack's 18.

1 hour ago, Fidelio said:

I believe Jack would have had the better record in majors had they played in the same era.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

1 hour ago, Fidelio said:

I believe Jack's game was better suited to majors than Tiger's. I am basing my reasoning on how consistently near the top Jack was in majors relative to Tiger.

And you ignore the fact that Jack had to beat five people, while Tiger had to beat large multiples of that number. Cool.

1 hour ago, brocks said:

So let's recap your logic:

Assumption: mostly the gap between  the number of majors contended in vs won is due to luck.

Conclusion: mostly the gap between  the number of majors contended in vs won is due to luck.

Q.E.D.

Seriously.

1 hour ago, brocks said:

There have been approximately ten jillion posts that show that the fields were weaker in Jack's day.  As @turtleback and I have noted several times, this holds even if you insist that athletes have not gotten better over the last 60 years; it's just a matter of how many of the world's 100 best golfers competed in a given major, and the answer is, usually less than half 60 years ago, usually nearly all today.

Shhhhhhh. Reasons, facts, and logic have no place in @Fidelio's "real world."

1 hour ago, brocks said:

Sometimes taking extreme cases helps to see basic principles.  Suppose there were only four golfers in the world that were really good.  Would you assume that someone who had 50 top fives, but zero wins, was a victim of really bad luck?

OK, suppose there were ten golfers that were really good, but usually less than half of them played in any one event.  Same question.

Can you see where this is heading?

Either he does but doesn't want to admit to it, or he won't ever "get it."

1 hour ago, Fidelio said:

If Jack finishes 3 back and finishes 3rd in his era and Tiger finishes the same 3 back and finishes 8th in the modern era, the gap in finishes is larger because of field strength.  It also means Jack should win more often on average because fewer people will luck into a win. And  the times that Jack has better than average  luck there will be fewer times that someone is slightly luckier because there are fewer people in contention.

I love when you argue against yourself but don't even seem to notice.

1 hour ago, Fidelio said:

You do get judged by majors.

You can't say "i judge the whole career" and then "you do get judged by majors". Well, you literally can since you've done just that, but it doesn't make much sense.

Tiger's career is better than Jack's. To many, Tiger's 14 is also better than Jack's 18. Tiger wins - in the opinion of many - on both career and majors counts.

I don't give a shit about a third-place finish in a weak 1960s field major. Not one hoot.

35 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

That's very nasty of you. Very nasty.

No, it's not. He didn't call you a name, he called your post stupid. There's a difference. Since you're making an issue of this, you called other people stupid, not what they were saying.

There's a difference.

35 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

I feel like replying in kind. I won't though. I will say the statement you quoted is one of the more profound ideas in the 12 years of this thread.

No, "top finishes and luck should be a big part of analysis" is not at all one of the "more profound ideas in this topic." It's just not.

[mvmac]

5 hours ago, brocks said:

Before Jack won his 12th major, did you think Walter Hagen was the GOAT?

What do you think @Fidelio?

[turtleback]

10 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Take a few days and read through this thread, because apparently you were not willing to do so before typing that response.

If you are not willing, then there will be no reasoning with you, and your post here will do nothing but prove you are unwilling to take in a constructive look at the reason why your response is may be wrong.

More importantly, he should read the Strength of Field thread.

[turtleback]

5 hours ago, Fidelio said:

You do get judged by majors.

Lee Westwood had a much better career in majors. Lee Westwood is a good example of why wins aren't the only thing that matter. Top finishes and luck should be big part of analysis. Perfectly illustrates why Jack's seconds, thirds, top tens are so important to the debate.

Tiger was never lucky enough to have someone blow a 2 foot putt to hand him a major.  Or did Sanders do that because of Jack's skill.

Tiger was never lucky enough to have the guy who had the Masters won duck hook into the water to open the door.  Or did Seve do that because of Jack?

Tiger was never lucky enough to have the guy who should have been the runaway winner 3 putt 10 times to allow him to get into a playoff.  Or did Arnie do that because of Jack.

How about some examples from you of instances where Tiger won a major because of one of these kinds of 'luck'.

Your whole thesis falls apart the moment we get empirical.

And here is another clue for you regarding those 19 second place finishes by Jack.  They didn't mean he was actually in contention for winning in all of them.  This has been posted before, but once more into the breach.

 

Quote

With all the hoopla about Tiger versus Jack, how Jack’s 19 seconds shows how much other players of his era stepped up, etc. it seemed like looking at Jack’s second place finishes warranted closer scrutiny. 

After looking closer, they seemed to fit into 3 categories: 

Runaways (6) – Jack was 2nd or T2 but never had a chance 

Close but not that close (5) – Jack was 2nd or T2 but it wasn’t as close as it looked 

Close calls (8) - either Jack blew it (which happened more often than many realize), the competitor made some great shots, or some combination thereof. 

Before laying out the categories, a few observations: 
 
o Trevino and Watson were the only players that fought Jack tooth and nail down the stretch and won.    

o While some players clearly did step up against Jack, Jack did play his share of giveaway. 

o Jack realistically could have won the close calls. Of these he gave away about half, so perhaps Jack lost 4-5 majors due to competitors really stepping up. 
 
Here they are: 

Runaways:  

’64 Masters – Palmer won going away by 6 strokes; Jack was T2 with Dave Marr. 
 
’64 Open – Tony Lema won going away by 5 strokes. Jack finished 2nd but was never in it. 

’64 PGA – Bobby Nickols won by 3 strokes going wire-to-wire; Jack was T2 with Palmer. 

’68 US Open – Trevino won going away by 4 strokes; first player to shoot four US Open rounds in the 60’s; Jack had to shoot a final round 67 to get within 4 strokes. Never close. 

’76 Open – Johnny Miller won going away by 6 strokes. Jack shot 69 the last round to get a back-door T2 with Seve Ballesteros, who shot 74 the last round. 

’79 Open – Seve Ballesteros won going away by 3 strokes and it wasn’t that close. Jack got a back-door T2, but Crenshaw was the only serious challenger until he double-bogeyed the 17th hole. 


Close, but not that close:  

’65 PGA – Dave Marr won by two – Jack tied second with Billy Casper. The pivotal hole was the par 5 11th where Jack bogeyed with two poor chips whileMarr birdied. 

’67 Open – Robert De Vicenzo beat Jack by two strokes – no one else wasclose. Can you say Rich Beem or Michael Campbell? 

’68 Open – Gary Player beats Jack and Bob Charles by two strokes. Player actually battled all day with Charles and Billy Casper. Jack was the chaser all day and never could get closer than 2 shots. 

’81 Masters – Jack and Johnny Miller were T2 behind Watson by 2 strokes. Jack had to birdie 15 and 16 to get within 2 shots of Watson, who played a conservative back 9 and cruised home.  

’83 PGA – Jack lost by a stroke to Hal Sutton. Sutton had a 5-stroke lead with 7to play. Sutton got a little sloppy and let Jack get close, but never let him closeenough to tie for the lead.  


Close calls  

’60 US Open – While Palmer ‘charged’ to victory by 2 shots, Jack had to work pretty hard to lose this one. With a one-shot lead, he missed an 18-inch putt on the 13th hole, 3-putted the 14th hole, missed a 3-footer on 16, then missed a 5-footer on 18. Ben Hogan was later quoted as saying he played with a kid 'who should have won by 10 shots’.  

71 Masters – Tied for the lead after 3 rounds, Jack 3-putted 4 greens in route to an indifferent 72 and lost by two shots to Charles Coody; Johnny Miller was T2 with Nicklaus. 

’71 US Open – Trevino caught Jack with a final-round 69 and won the playoff the next day by 3. Remember that in the playoff Jack gave away the lead early by failing to get out of bunkers on both #2 and #3.  

’72 Open – Well chronicled end to the Grand Slam hopes as Jack lost by one to Trevino. Tied for the lead the last round, Jack bogeyed the 16th hole and then failed to birdie the par 5 17th. Trevino of course did hit the miracle chip on 17 to stay one ahead, while Tony Jacklin fell apart and finished 3rd.. 

’74 PGA – Jack missed a makeable putt on 18 that would have tied Trevino (even though according to legend Jack never missed a putt he needed on 18),thus losing by a shot. 

’77 Masters – Watson birdied 17 to take the lead. Jack, playing the group ahead of Watson, then bogeyed 18 and Watson cruised home with a 2-shot victory. 

’77 Open – Well chronicled duel in the sun between Nicklaus and Watson.Remember though, that Jack missed a 4-foot birdie putt on 17 that would have kept him tied for the lead, as Watson did birdie 17. 

’82 US Open – Well chronicled loss to Watson when Watson chipped in on 17, then also birdied 18 to win by 2.    

 

11 hours ago, BillBuckeye said:

Weaker field is the answer? Please!?!?! Weisskopf, Watson, Player, Palmer, Miller, Trevino.....etc. are you kidding? Tiger had only Mickelson, any of the other greats he faced were at the tail end of their competitive careers. Tiger had a great run for about 10 years, probably better than any we’ve ever seen, but Jack was at the top far longer. He was TOP 2 at 30 majors, keep your weaker field argument, it doesn’t hold up. Why not Ben Hogan, Bobby Jones or Walter Hagen? Whoever is the latest, must be the greatest. We’ll never know for sure, but Jack was the man to beat for about 20 years, Tiger flamed out and has been out of contention for pretty much the last 10 years, with no signs of getting back to the top.

Since you don't seem likely to look back I am reposting that has been posted here a few times.  It shows what 'tough' competitors Jack had to face.

Empiricism blows your whole thesis apart.

Quote

The argument seems to be that Jack’s wins were greater because these guys were in the field, or that Jack had so many 2nd’s because these guys stepped up and took championships from him. 

Let’s look at Jack’s victories and see what the ‘name’ players did to put pressure on Jack: 

’62 US Open –Palmer had 10 3-putts in regulation, and took 38 putts on Saturday; with any kind of putting from Palmer there never would have been a playoff.  
’63 Masters – Player bogeyed the last two holes to finish 3 shots back; Palmer shot 37 on the back 9 the last day and finished 5 shots out. 
’63 PGA – Player was 7 shots back, Palmer 14 shots back, never in it. 
’65 Masters – Jack blew the field away, just like Tiger did in ’97. 
’66 Masters – Palmer shot 38 on the back 9, finishing 2 shots out of the Brewer – Nicklaus – Jacobs playoff; Player finished 11 shots back. 
’67 US Open - Jack legitimately beat Palmer in this one, though by then he knew he could beat Palmer; unheard of Trevino finished 5th 8 shots back, Player was 11 shots back. 
’70 Open – best known for Sanders blowing the 3-footer to give Jack a chance; nonetheless Trevino finished 2 shots back, Palmer 7 shots back, and Player missed the cut. 
’71 PGA – Player was the only one close at 4 shots back, Trevino 7 shots back, Palmer 8; Player shot a final round 73 so he didn’t exactly put the pedal to the metal. 
’72 Masters – Player finished 5 shots back, Trevino and Palmer both finished 14 shots back at +12; this tournament was similar to 2002 for Tiger in that absolutely no one challenged Jack the last day. 
’72 US Open- Palmer shot 76 to finish 4 shots back; Trevino shot 78 to finish 5 shots back, and Player never contended, finishing 15 shots back. 
’73 PGA – Watson finished 8 shots back, Trevino and Miller 9 shots back; Player 17 shots back; and Palmer missed the cut. 
’75 Masters – Miller admits he chickened out shooting at the pin on 18 when he needed a birdie to tie Nicklaus; Watson was 9 shots back, Trevino 10 shots back; Palmer 11 back. 
’75 PGA – Watson was 9 shots back; Palmer and Player 15 shots back; Trevino 21 shots back. 
’78 Open – Watson closed with a 76 to finish 6 shots back; Trevino was 10 shots back; Player 11 shots back; Miller was cut. 
’80 US Open – Watson was 4 shots back, Trevino 11 shots back. 
’80 PGA – Trevino was 11 shots back, Watson 14 back in a Nicklaus runaway. 
’86 Masters – great comeback by Jack, but Norman did bogey 18 to miss out playing off.

 

[BillBuckeye]

Is there a point to stating one’s opinions on this string? Nope....it’s all been brought up before and that’s good enough for some of you. The simple fact is they were both amazing golfers, not only them but a few others, Hogan comes to mind. Had Hogan not been nearly killed by a bus, would we be talking about him instead? Tiger had the best 10 year run of anyone who’s played the game, Jack sustained his place at the top for about 20 years. In my opinion, the sustained greatness of Jack surpasses Tiger’s accomplishments. 

[Slice of Life]

Just read through a lot more of this... 

IMO, Jack's majors are equivalent to Bill Russel's 11 rings. Never going to be surpassed, because it gets harder and harder to win as time goes on. Bill Russell didn't have to beat anyone. Jordan's 6 rings are far more impressive than Bill's 11.

To say Jack would have won more during Tiger's era is hilarious.

[lastings]

This thread is now 338 pages of the same 4 page discussion repeated over and over and over.   

I haven't seen a fresh perspective or new point since like page 12.    To be fair, I also jumped in this thread somewhere in the middle, recycled points that were made many pages before, was refuted with the same responses, and continued to follow along.   

==

[lungbuster]

I don't know that you can clearly say one was/is better than the other.  Both played in completely different eras with completely different courses, equipment, competitors, etc...  Both were very important for the game during their prime, but what separates them for me is how Tiger made golf mainstream and brought more money and exposure to it than Jack ever did.  Because of Tiger, golf grew at an exponential rate.  That to me, gives him the nod of GOAT.