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

[Vinsk]

2 hours ago, Jack is best said:

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

 

[Patch]

A stat I thought was kind of interesting was that these two "best of the best" never recorded a sub 60 round during sanctioned, tournament play. 

You'd think as great of ball strikers that these two were, one, or both would have broken 60. 

I might be wrong, but I didn't see either one's name on that short list.

[iacas]

27 minutes ago, Patch said:

A stat I thought was kind of interesting was that these two "best of the best" never recorded a sub 60 round during sanctioned, tournament play. 

You'd think as great of ball strikers that these two were, one, or both would have broken 60. 

I might be wrong, but I didn't see either one's name on that short list.

There are several reasons for that. First, Tiger doesn’t often play courses where you have to shoot 20 under to win. Second, playing that style of golf may not lead to consistency and a lot of wins while playing high volatility golf may increase your chances of a 59.

There are others but I’m on my phone.

[Zeph]

I think there's only been nine sub-60 rounds ever on the PGA Tour. Even if you are the worlds best for a decade (Tiger), the probability of shooting that low is extremely low. Tiger usually not playing the typical 20+ under tournaments is also a big part of it.

[HJJ003]

14 minutes ago, Zeph said:

I think there's only been nine sub-60 rounds ever on the PGA Tour. Even if you are the worlds best for a decade (Tiger), the probability of shooting that low is extremely low. Tiger usually not playing the typical 20+ under tournaments is also a big part of it.

10 rounds sub 60, but 9 players (Furyk is on that list twice)

[turtleback]

1 hour ago, Zeph said:

I think there's only been nine sub-60 rounds ever on the PGA Tour. Even if you are the worlds best for a decade (Tiger), the probability of shooting that low is extremely low. Tiger usually not playing the typical 20+ under tournaments is also a big part of it.

And a third of the sub-60 rounds were in the last 2 years.  This has to be one of the worst criteria for greatness.  Even worse than comparing raw stroke averages, as they both share the weakness of being heavily dependent on something, course set-up, that has nothing to do with the players' ability.  And the list of sub-60 guys is not particularly notable for the best ball strikers.  Chip Beck had a sub-60 round while none of Woods, Nicklaus, Hogan, Snead, etc. ever did.  So sorry, having a sub-60 round is a nice curiosity, but not remotely something that should carry any career assessment value.

14 hours ago, Jack is best said:

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

Jack never won a single tournament that included substantially all of the top 75 players in the world.  NOT ONE!!  (not his fault, as he never even played in a tournament with substantially all of the best players in the world because there weren't any, until long after he stopped being competitive - but still a FACT).

Tiger has won more than 20 such events.

[Vinsk]

29 minutes ago, turtleback said:

And a third of the sub-60 rounds were in the last 2 years.  This has to be one of the worst criteria for greatness.  Even worse than comparing raw stroke averages, as they both share the weakness of being heavily dependent on something, course set-up, that has nothing to do with the players' ability.  And the list of sub-60 guys is not particularly notable for the best ball strikers.  Chip Beck had a sub-60 round while none of Woods, Nicklaus, Hogan, Snead, etc. ever did.  So sorry, having a sub-60 round is a nice curiosity, but not remotely something that should carry any career assessment value.

Jack never won a single tournament that included substantially all of the top 75 players in the world.  NOT ONE!!  (not his fault, as he never even played in a tournament with substantially all of the best players in the world because there weren't any, until long after he stopped being competitive - but still a FACT).

Tiger has won more than 20 such events.

There you go again with your damn facts! @Jack is best has no interest in such things. And judging from his posts I’m guessing he only became aware of Jack when he was already working on his impressive girth and selling ice cream hand over fist. So let’s stop with your stats and facts and get back to some opinions so the trolls can keep up. 😊

[BCoggins]

If Jack would have had the equipment and course upkeeping of today in his time most of his rounds would have been in the 50s.He would have hit the driver 400 yds.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, BCoggins said:

If Jack would have had the equipment and course upkeeping of today in his time most of his rounds would have been in the 50s.He would have hit the driver 400 yds.

Oy.

[RussUK]

24 minutes ago, BCoggins said:

If Jack would have had the equipment and course upkeeping of today in his time most of his rounds would have been in the 50s.He would have hit the driver 400 yds.

Only a small number of todays tour pro's hit the ball over 400yds with much regularity and their fitness is leaps and bounds beyond where player fitness was in Jack's day so what makes you think Jack could do it?

Unless he's got the wind behind, baked fairways and its downhill?

P.s. Genuine question.

[BCoggins]

Once in a PGA tour event driving contest hitting a old ball steel shafted wood headed club Jack hit over 340 yds.

[RussUK]

1 minute ago, BCoggins said:

Once in a PGA tour event driving contest hitting a old ball steel shafted wood headed club Jack hit over 340 yds.

1963 PGA Championship (official long drive contest), 341 yds and record stood for over 20 years. Now, if you are saying 400yds but no real accuracy (most long drive contests accuracy isnt the main aim), then maybe on the odd occasion. If you are sayin 400 yds bang in the middle of the fairway then probably not.

His average driving distance at his prime was 275yds, not short at all but i personally dont think 400yds+ would be realistic on a "regular" basis. just my opinion.

[rehmwa]

4 hours ago, RussUK said:

Only a small number of todays tour pro's hit the ball over 400yds with much regularity

so, a VERY small number?  even then I'd also have to remove the word "regularity"

but it's fun when it happens

[Vinsk]

5 hours ago, BCoggins said:

Once in a PGA tour event driving contest hitting a old ball steel shafted wood headed club Jack hit over 340 yds.

So what? I hit a drive 320 yds with a Northwestern Thunderbird wooden driver and a Prostaff golf ball. DJ could use the same club and ball you’re referring to 340 as well. What’s your point?

[turtleback]

On 8/21/2018 at 7:46 PM, Jack is best said:

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

Tiger has 25 top 3s in majors, of which he won 14, or 56%.

Jack has 46 top 3s in majors, of which he won 18, or 39%.

Which raises the question, if 'Jack is best' why was he so much worse at closing the deal when in contention than Tiger was? 

It is even worse:

Tiger has won 18 of the 45 WGCs he has played, 40%.  So Tiger has a better winning percentage for ALL the WGCs he has played in than Jack had in majors in which he was in the top 3.

But you keep trying, bless your heart.  Or, as my daughter likes to say, 'at least you're purty.'

Edited August 24, 2018 by turtleback

[Pretzel]

13 hours ago, BCoggins said:

Once in a PGA tour event driving contest hitting a old ball steel shafted wood headed club Jack hit over 340 yds.

I once hit a drive 470 yards on a sun-baked fairway with a 20 mph tailwind. That doesn't mean that with equipment from 50 years into the future I could regularly pound them 500+ yards.

Tiger also, if you might recall, hit a drive a WHOPPING 498 yards in 2002 using a steel shafted driver (Drive distance source and steel shafted driver source). If that's how the equipment changes work, how come Tiger isn't hitting it at least 400 yards regularly? His scoring average in 2000 was 67.79, why isn't he averaging better than 65 now with all that improvement?

It's almost as though the effects of equipment, although significant, have been counteracted by changes in course design over the years.

[RussUK]

13 hours ago, rehmwa said:

so, a VERY small number?  even then I'd also have to remove the word "regularity"

but it's fun when it happens

I was in a diplomatic mood when i replied yesterday

But yeah, VERY small number is more accurate.

[RussUK]

4 hours ago, Pretzel said:

I once hit a drive 470 yards on a sun-baked fairway with a 20 mph tailwind. That doesn't mean that with equipment from 50 years into the future I could regularly pound them 500+ yards.

Tiger also, if you might recall, hit a drive a WHOPPING 498 yards in 2002 using a steel shafted driver (Drive distance source and steel shafted driver source). If that's how the equipment changes work, how come Tiger isn't hitting it at least 400 yards regularly? His scoring average in 2000 was 67.79, why isn't he averaging better than 65 now with all that improvement?

It's almost as though the effects of equipment, although significant, have been counteracted by changes in course design over the years.

If somehow Doc Brown turned up in 1968 in his DeLorean with bag full of modern gear for Jack and he could hit it 400yds imagine the impact it would have on the game today?

Assuming technology advanced at a similar rate (and the clubs were reverse engineered initially) surely we'd be looking at golfers driving par 5's in one and the like?.

Damn, my imagination runs wild at times.......need to cut down on the morning cofee!

I think, like you say, thanks to better understanding of course design, the length some of these guys can tonk it these days has been limited. Otherwise it would be like 400yd pitch and putt