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

[amished]

17 hours ago, Vinsk said:

This thread, or really any discussion regarding GOAT isn’t about what ‘could’ve happened.’ Every player , era has its advantages and disadvantages. That is part of reality. So we’re discussion what actually happened/is happening. What if Jack pushing harder caused injury and he wasn’t able to win 18 majors? See what I mean? The ‘what if’s ‘ play no part in this discussion.

I agree, but I'm also confused.  It seems like you're arguing with me about what-ifs as if I was trying to prop somebody up on them.  I was responding to fnlights saying that Jack didn't push himself as much as Tiger pushed himself because Tiger was "looking up" to Jack, but then Jack didn't have somebody to "look up" to.  I disagreed with that sentiment as all top athletes all push themselves.  

What "what if" did I propose?  I think both Jack and Tiger pushed themselves hard to be as good as they could be, and Tiger's greatness surpassed Jack's.  Referencing another thread: I couldn't exactly tell you when Tiger became greater than Jack in my eyes, as Tiger's # of majors now is more impressive than Jack's number of majors, but if Tiger won three less, or five less, would I still feel the same?  I'm not sure.  These are what if's, but they're irrelevant.

[iacas]

@amished and @Vinsk are agreeing without knowing that they're agreeing right now, perhaps.

[Vinsk]

13 minutes ago, amished said:

These are what if's, but they're irrelevant.

You don’t appear to be confused at all.

[amished]

I must need more caffeine or something then....

[turtleback]

4 hours ago, amished said:

I must need more caffeine or something then....

I think @Vinsk quoted you but was addressing what @fnlights said about Jack possibly winning more if he was trying to reach a particular goal. 

It is kind of like when my wife and I were teaching at the same school and would come home and discuss the latest administrator idiocy.  The kids would come in and say, 'Are you and Mom arguing?  (something we never did)  We would explain that we weren't arguing, we were agreeing loudly, LOL.

I think you and @Vinsk are just agreeing loudly.

[Vinsk]

30 minutes ago, turtleback said:

I think @Vinsk quoted you but was addressing what @fnlights said about Jack possibly winning more if he was trying to reach a particular goal. 

It is kind of like when my wife and I were teaching at the same school and would come home and discuss the latest administrator idiocy.  The kids would come in and say, 'Are you and Mom arguing?  (something we never did)  We would explain that we weren't arguing, we were agreeing loudly, LOL.

I think you and @Vinsk are just agreeing loudly.

Lol. You are correct. 

[308 Ragin Cajun]

If Tiger had to compete with Nicklaus, Watson, and  Trevino in their primes, with topday's equipment, there's no way he would have won 14 majors. 

[iacas]

Just now, 308 Ragin Cajun said:

If Tiger had to compete with Nicklaus, Watson, and  Trevino in their primes, with topday's equipment, there's no way he would have won 14 majors. 

You’re right! He’d have probably won more. And Jack would have won fewer than 18.

The fields are stronger and deeper now and better equipment has helped the “lesser” players way more than it has helped the stars.

[Vinsk]

38 minutes ago, 308 Ragin Cajun said:

If Tiger had to compete with Nicklaus, Watson, and  Trevino in their primes, with topday's equipment, there's no way he would have won 14 majors. 

Thanks for your opinion.

36 minutes ago, iacas said:

You’re right! He’d have probably won more. And Jack would have won fewer than 18.

The fields are stronger and deeper now and better equipment has helped the “lesser” players way more than it has helped the stars.

Thanks for the facts.

Edited July 22, 2018 by Vinsk

[iacas]

11 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Thanks for the facts.

The first paragraph was not a fact, FWIW.

[turtleback]

1 hour ago, 308 Ragin Cajun said:

If Tiger had to compete with Nicklaus, Watson, and  Trevino in their primes, with topday's equipment, there's no way he would have won 14 majors. 

Probably more like 25.

[Vinsk]

31 minutes ago, iacas said:

The first paragraph was not a fact, FWIW.

Yes. But I was hoping he’d point that out.

[The Recreational Golfer]

While their records in major championships isn't the only thing that counts when comparing them, it counts for something.

Woods has now played in 80 major championships (through the 2018 PGA). Here is his record compared to Nicklaus’s first 80:

Jack:
1st - 15
2nd - 16
3rd - 9
4-10 - 18

Tiger:
1st - 14
2nd - 7
3rd - 4
4-10 - 15

 

 

[Vinsk]

2 minutes ago, The Recreational Golfer said:

While their records in major championships isn't the only thing that counts when comparing them, it counts for something.

Woods has now played in 80 major championships (through the 2018 PGA). Here is his record compared to Nicklaus’s first 80:

Jack:
1st - 15
2nd - 16
3rd - 9
4-10 - 18

Tiger:
1st - 14
2nd - 7
3rd - 4
4-10 - 15

 

 

Again though, the numbers don’t paint the whole picture and you can’t just ignore that. Just like 18>14. Tiger’s second place finish today is considerably a greater golf accomplishment than many of Jack’s early weak PGA pro filled major wins. 

[GrandStranded]

5 minutes ago, The Recreational Golfer said:

While their records in major championships isn't the only thing that counts when comparing them, it counts for something.

Woods has now played in 80 major championships (through the 2018 PGA). Here is his record compared to Nicklaus’s first 80:

Jack:
1st - 15
2nd - 16
3rd - 9
4-10 - 18

Tiger:
1st - 14
2nd - 7
3rd - 4
4-10 - 15

 

 

It will very shortly be pointed out to you, Tiger is far superior, and nobody here cares about second, or third. Jack accomplished what he did against guys who were one step above club pros. Tiger, on the other hand faced a bunch of immortals in his 10 year period of dominance. They would've destroyed Jack's competition.

OOPs. I wasn't fast enough. It's already been mentioned. On that note, I'm outta this thread right now. I suggest you do the same... 😀

[Vinsk]

1 minute ago, GrandStranded said:

It will very shortly be pointed out to you, Tiger is far superior, and nobody here cares about second, or third. Jack accomplished what he did against guys who were one step above club pros. Tiger, on the other hand faced a bunch of immortals in his 10 year period of dominance. They would've destroyed Jack's competition.

Well you finally understand. Hope more will catch on. Facts are facts. But still a fun discussion.

[iacas]

Trolling yet again, @GrandStranded.

[brocks]

2 hours ago, GrandStranded said:

Jack accomplished what he did against guys who were one step above club pros.

I detect sarcasm, but in fact, it was worse than that.  In the PGA Championships of the 60's, most of the competitors weren't one step above club pros, they were club pros.

"There were only 56 touring pros in the starting field of 168 players at [the 1968 PGA Championship in] San Antonio. One day a writer asked me about this ratio, and I said, "It's absurd and unfortunate." Only a third of the players at the PGA were regular tour competitors—or, in other words, the best players in the world. The PGA's antiquated qualifying system prevented top players such as Bob Murphy, Lee Elder and Deane Beman from playing at San Antonio. As a member of the Tournament Committee, I spoke out against the system. I had nothing to gain for myself; I was exempt from qualifying for the PGA tournament. I wanted a proper tour representation at the pros' own championship. The PGA should be the No. 1 tournament in golf because it is our own championship. It cannot be No. 1, though, when many top players—the tour players—cannot tee the ball up. "

--- Jack Nicklaus

https://www.si.com/vault/1968/09/16/614249/rebuttal-to-a-searing-attack

 

Edited August 13, 2018 by brocks