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

[Vinsk]

10 minutes ago, brocks said:

You won't hear me saying that.  You won't even hear me say Tiger could beat Vardon or Hagen under equitable conditions.  When you're talking about the very best players of different eras, there's no way to accurately compare them, although it stands to reason that the farther back you go, the less chance there is that the best player of that era is the best of all time.  However, that is an argument based on probability, rather than empirical fact.  Sometimes, the best receiver at Mississippi Valley State really is better than any of the receivers in the FBS.

But when you compare field strength, where hundreds of players (over the course of a few years) are involved, then things become more certain.  Never 100% certain, but even diehard Jack-for-GOATers concede that the fields overall are stronger today.  What they dispute is whether that matters.

Some say that once you get past the top dozen or so, the rest of the field isn't important.  Some are more liberal, and say the top 20.  A few say the top 30.  I don't think I've ever heard a Jack advocate go much higher.

But the fact is that tons of PGA events, even majors, are frequently won by players ranked outside the top 50, even the top 100.  In 2011, there were two in a row -- Darren Clarke won the Open when ranked 111, and the next month Keegan Bradley won the PGA when ranked 108.  And we all remember the only time didn't win a major when leading after the third round.  He was beaten by YE Yang, who was ranked 110.  Head to head.

And one of my favorite stats -- during his prime of 1996-2009, Tiger played in 20 WGC stroke play events, and won 13 of them -- 65%.  During the same period, he played in 159 regular PGA events (i.e., PGA events other than majors and WGCs), and won 41 of them --- 25.8%.

The WGCs typically had the top 75 or so players in the world in the field.  No amateurs, no club pros, no legacy champs who had won a major 30 years ago.  The cream of the cream.  And Tiger won them twice as often as he did events with far fewer players ranked in the top 100, and far more outside the top 100.  It's true that he played mostly very strong PGA events, but other than the Players, none of them were as strong as the WGCs.

You might think it was because the courses, like Firestone, were perfect for him, but no.  As @iacas said, " Narrow fairways. Thick rough. Gotta hit a lot of drivers. "

How about the WGC Amex as it was then called, where Tiger won six times?  Actually, those six wins came on six different courses, in four different countries -- Spain, Ireland, England, and the US.

No, the only thing that explains why Tiger's winning percentage at WGCs was more than twice his already phenomenal rate at regular tour events was the field size.  Most of the regular PGA events had full fields of 140-150.  Even though every single extra player was ranked below, often far below, the players at the WGCs, they made the difference.  The chance of any one of them winning in a given week might be one in two hundred, but the collective chance of all 80 of them was more like one in three (see the Birthday Paradox).

So I don't really care if Watson was better than Phil (I think he was), or Casper was better than Ernie (I'm not sure).  It's impossible to know.  Maybe the top 6 players of Jack's day were as good or better than the top 6 of Tiger's (although it's important to remember that Arnie, Billy, Lee, and Tom all peaked at different times, so Jack never had to face any two of them at their best).  But it doesn't matter, because it's all but certain that the top 20 of Jack's day weren't as good as the top 20 of Tiger's, and once you go into the top 50, let alone the top 100 or 200, it's not even close.  And players outside the top 50, even outside the top 100, make it much harder for even the best player of his time to win.

 

 

 

 

@Jack is best, all yours.

[70sSanO]

It is impossible to do a true head to head, but there is no doubt Tiger is the GOAT.  Will he be the GOAT 25/50 years from now? Impossible to say.  It will be a future generation that will get to make that call.  Just as the current generation gets to make this call.  There will be a Tiger vs ??? discussion some day.

One thing for sure is that in nearly every sport the athletes are getting bigger, stronger, faster and just plain better.  Most of the greatest from days gone by concede that they would not be as dominant as when they competed.  And it was interesting to hear Tiger describe how Koepka plays in yesterday's press conference.

John

[saevel25]

10 hours ago, brocks said:

Some say that once you get past the top dozen or so, the rest of the field isn't important.  Some are more liberal, and say the top 20.  A few say the top 30.  I don't think I've ever heard a Jack advocate go much higher. 

But the fact is that tons of PGA events, even majors, are frequently won by players ranked outside the top 50, even the top 100.  In 2011, there were two in a row -- Darren Clarke won the Open when ranked 111, and the next month Keegan Bradley won the PGA when ranked 108.  And we all remember the only time didn't win a major when leading after the third round.  He was beaten by YE Yang, who was ranked 110.  Head to head.

I'd say Top 90. You have 85% of all the wins coming from the top 90 in strokes gained total last year. That still means 15% of the wins were won by someone outside the top 90. With 5 wins going to golfers who were outside the top 150 in strokes gained total. 

[Dr. Manhattan]

On 8/12/2018 at 11:50 PM, brocks said:

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

 

 

That quote from Jack destroys ANY argument that his 1963 PGA should be counted equal to Tiger's PGA wins from 1999-2007. From what Jack describes, Dustin Johnson's weak field win in Canada recently was a much stronger victory than the 1960's "major" PGA.

Jack also had multiple Top 3 finishes at the PGA Championship during the 1960's and people keep citing those in the comparison with Tiger. Laughable to think finishing 2nd in 1964 or 1965 as Jack did with 70% club pros in the field is anywhere remotely close to what Tiger just pulled off finishing 2nd this year. That's on top of the fact that barely any international players were involved back then. Now you have a ton of them. 

Brock, you have a lot of great historical information. Do you have the data handy on when the PGA Championship finally turned into a real pro golf tournament and not just a bunch of club pros with 30% touring pros sprinkled in? 

[Vinsk]

35 minutes ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

That quote from Jack destroys ANY argument that his 1963 PGA should be counted equal to Tiger's PGA wins from 1999-2007

Yes it does. But as it’s been proven there are those who simply will not acknowledge it. Hell there’s some here who will flat out disagree with Jack himself on several different arguments. 

[Dr. Manhattan]

Just now, Vinsk said:

Yes it does. But as it’s been proven there are those who simply will not acknowledge it. Hell there’s some here who will flat out disagree with Jack himself on several different arguments. 

 

I don’t consider Jack to be a liar, so when he says 66% of the field was club pros instead of tour pros...I assume that is the truth. 

I do want to say though Jack and his peers deserve enormous credit for modernizing these tournaments. There was a pretty radical shift in the PGA field and it seems Jack/Arnold and other top pros were responsible for making that change happen. 

I’m glad they pushed for it too. The majors are a lot stronger now because of their efforts to kill off some of the old rules and mentality. 

[Buckeyebowman]

Jeez, I wish the instructions on this site were a little more clear! I didn't know that " clear editor" would blow me off the map! I'll attempt to reconstruct my original reply!

When the PGA Tour was formed there was a lot of conflict between "touring" pros and"club" pros. The PGA was basically being run for the benefit of club pros. Back in that day, touring pros were thought of as little better than grifters and hooligans. The more serious of that fraternity thought of themselves quite differently, and formed their own organization, the PGA "Tour", to distinguish themselves.

Back in the day touring pros were not allowed in the clubhouse, and were fed "out back", where the caddies were! They were treated quite poorly, and this led to some antagonism between them and the PGA. Thus, the split.

[Dr. Manhattan]

4 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

Jeez, I wish the instructions on this site were a little more clear! I didn't know that " clear editor" would blow me off the map! I'll attempt to reconstruct my original reply!

When the PGA Tour was formed there was a lot of conflict between "touring" pros and"club" pros. The PGA was basically being run for the benefit of club pros. Back in that day, touring pros were thought of as little better than grifters and hooligans. The more serious of that fraternity thought of themselves quite differently, and formed their own organization, the PGA "Tour", to distinguish themselves.

Back in the day touring pros were not allowed in the clubhouse, and were fed "out back", where the caddies were! They were treated quite poorly, and this led to some antagonism between them and the PGA. Thus, the split.

 

Hagen winning 5 PGA's must have infuriated them, lol. He was sort of the ultimate "tour" pro, over the top and flamboyant, etc. 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

I do want to say though Jack and his peers deserve enormous credit for modernizing these tournaments. There was a pretty radical shift in the PGA field and it seems Jack/Arnold and other top pros were responsible for making that change happen. 

I’m glad they pushed for it too. The majors are a lot stronger now because of their efforts to kill off some of the old rules and mentality. 

They didn't do it for altruistic reasons or anything. The PGA still controlled the events back then. There was no such thing as the PGA Tour. It was the PGA - Tournament Players Division or something like that. They wanted more control, to pay less money to the PGA, etc.

That relationship still exists today. The PGA Tour still technically "licenses" (IIRC) the "PGA" part of the name from the PGA. It's a pretty loose connection these days, but even back then and in the early days of the PGA Tour, it was still somewhat closely linked.

That's a big part of the reason why PGA club pros would fill out half of the tournament fields (decreasing in number over the years/decades) in the 60s and 70s.

8 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

Jeez, I wish the instructions on this site were a little more clear! I didn't know that " clear editor" would blow me off the map! I'll attempt to reconstruct my original reply!

"Clear Editor" means and does exactly what it says.

[brocks]

17 hours ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

Brock, you have a lot of great historical information. Do you have the data handy on when the PGA Championship finally turned into a real pro golf tournament and not just a bunch of club pros with 30% touring pros sprinkled in? 

I believe it was in 1969, the first year the players gained control of tournaments.  The latter part of 1968 was filled with disputes between the touring pros and the PGA, resulting in over 200 of them, including most but not all of the big names (Sam Snead was one who sided with the PGA), forming their own tour, called the American Professional Golfers, in August of 1968, a few weeks after the PGA Championship that Jack had lamented in the article I cited earlier.  After months of bitter wrangling, with suits, countersuits, and restraining orders, the touring pros agreed to come back under the PGA umbrella, but as an autonomous group called the Tournament Players Division, which later severed ties to become the PGA TOUR. 

It's difficult to reconstruct that period, because the PGA seems almost ashamed of the way they ran things before the player rebellion, and with good reason.  They didn't get rid of the whites-only clause until 1961, and even after that made it extremely difficult for international players to compete in the US.  They also had stupid rules based on it being an organization of club pros, which resulted in things like Jack not being allowed to play in the Ryder Cup in 1965, when IMO he was easily the best player in the world, or win the Vardon Trophy during some years when he had the lowest scoring average AND had played well above the minimum number of rounds, because he hadn't completed the PGA's apprenticeship program (which included ridiculous requirements like courses in pro shop management).  They also refused to award a Player of the Year award in 1968, probably because Billy Casper would have won it, and he was one of the rebels.

At any rate, and for whatever reason, it's very hard to get even official tournament statistics for the 1960's, let alone objective accounts of the organizational disputes. 

[turtleback]

18 hours ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

 

That quote from Jack destroys ANY argument that his 1963 PGA should be counted equal to Tiger's PGA wins from 1999-2007. From what Jack describes, Dustin Johnson's weak field win in Canada recently was a much stronger victory than the 1960's "major" PGA.

Jack also had multiple Top 3 finishes at the PGA Championship during the 1960's and people keep citing those in the comparison with Tiger. Laughable to think finishing 2nd in 1964 or 1965 as Jack did with 70% club pros in the field is anywhere remotely close to what Tiger just pulled off finishing 2nd this year. That's on top of the fact that barely any international players were involved back then. Now you have a ton of them. 

Brock, you have a lot of great historical information. Do you have the data handy on when the PGA Championship finally turned into a real pro golf tournament and not just a bunch of club pros with 30% touring pros sprinkled in? 

And the fields for Jack's first 15-20 British Opens were even weaker.

[Dr. Manhattan]

1 hour ago, brocks said:

I believe it was in 1969, the first year the players gained control of tournaments.  The latter part of 1968 was filled with disputes between the touring pros and the PGA, resulting in over 200 of them, including most but not all of the big names (Sam Snead was one who sided with the PGA), forming their own tour, called the American Professional Golfers, in August of 1968, a few weeks after the PGA Championship that Jack had lamented in the article I cited earlier.  After months of bitter wrangling, with suits, countersuits, and restraining orders, the touring pros agreed to come back under the PGA umbrella, but as an autonomous group called the Tournament Players Division, which later severed ties to become the PGA TOUR. 

It's difficult to reconstruct that period, because the PGA seems almost ashamed of the way they ran things before the player rebellion, and with good reason.  They didn't get rid of the whites-only clause until 1961, and even after that made it extremely difficult for international players to compete in the US.  They also had stupid rules based on it being an organization of club pros, which resulted in things like Jack not being allowed to play in the Ryder Cup in 1965, when IMO he was easily the best player in the world, or win the Vardon Trophy during some years when he had the lowest scoring average AND had played well above the minimum number of rounds, because he hadn't completed the PGA's apprenticeship program (which included ridiculous requirements like courses in pro shop management).  They also refused to award a Player of the Year award in 1968, probably because Billy Casper would have won it, and he was one of the rebels.

At any rate, and for whatever reason, it's very hard to get even official tournament statistics for the 1960's, let alone objective accounts of the organizational disputes. 

 

Thanks! Your info is always much appreciated. 👍

[iacas]

5 hours ago, brocks said:

After months of bitter wrangling, with suits, countersuits, and restraining orders, the touring pros agreed to come back under the PGA umbrella, but as an autonomous group called the Tournament Players Division, which later severed ties to become the PGA TOUR.

FWIW they didn't "sever" their ties completely. They still license some things from the PGA, and still have a tie-in or two that remain.

[boogielicious]

16 hours ago, brocks said:

I believe it was in 1969, the first year the players gained control of tournaments.  The latter part of 1968 was filled with disputes between the touring pros and the PGA, resulting in over 200 of them, including most but not all of the big names (Sam Snead was one who sided with the PGA), forming their own tour, called the American Professional Golfers, in August of 1968, a few weeks after the PGA Championship that Jack had lamented in the article I cited earlier.  After months of bitter wrangling, with suits, countersuits, and restraining orders, the touring pros agreed to come back under the PGA umbrella, but as an autonomous group called the Tournament Players Division, which later severed ties to become the PGA TOUR. 

It's difficult to reconstruct that period, because the PGA seems almost ashamed of the way they ran things before the player rebellion, and with good reason.  They didn't get rid of the whites-only clause until 1961, and even after that made it extremely difficult for international players to compete in the US.  They also had stupid rules based on it being an organization of club pros, which resulted in things like Jack not being allowed to play in the Ryder Cup in 1965, when IMO he was easily the best player in the world, or win the Vardon Trophy during some years when he had the lowest scoring average AND had played well above the minimum number of rounds, because he hadn't completed the PGA's apprenticeship program (which included ridiculous requirements like courses in pro shop management).  They also refused to award a Player of the Year award in 1968, probably because Billy Casper would have won it, and he was one of the rebels.

At any rate, and for whatever reason, it's very hard to get even official tournament statistics for the 1960's, let alone objective accounts of the organizational disputes. 

Terrific information. Thanks for posting.

[brocks]

On 8/15/2018 at 7:11 PM, iacas said:

FWIW they didn't "sever" their ties completely. They still license some things from the PGA, and still have a tie-in or two that remain.

Correct; I worded that poorly.  Obviously the PGA Tour still has business and licensing agreements with the PGA of America, just as it does with the USGA.  But they are separate in almost every meaningful way, even to the extent of having different Player of the Year and lowest scoring average (Vardon Trophy and Byron Nelson) awards for the touring pros.

[Jack is best]

Jack has more majors more top twos and more top threes than a washed up eldrick

[iacas]

And Tiger has more PGA Tour wins, more WGCs, more Player of the Years, more double-digit margins of victory in majors, more Vardon trophies… and he did it all against much, much, much stiffer and deeper competition.

Troll.

[Pretzel]

2 hours ago, Jack is best said:

Jack has more majors more top twos and more top threes than a washed up eldrick

You're right, gee whiz, that guy who just notched another top two (which you seem to think is soooooo important) last weekend sure is washed up...