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

[saevel25]

Jack played in 586 PGA tournaments 

Tiger played in 336 PGA Tournaments.

They both came in second around 10% of the time. Tiger is about 1% less often, but he has more PGA Tour wins in 250 less tournaments. 

This total number argument is irrelevant. Tiger was more dominant in nearly 75% less number of tournaments. Imagine if Tiger wasn’t hurt! 

[Fidelio]

16 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Jack played in 586 PGA tournaments 

Tiger played in 336 PGA Tournaments.

They both came in second around 10% of the time. Tiger is about 1% less often, but he has more PGA Tour wins in 250 less tournaments. 

This total number argument is irrelevant. Tiger was more dominant in nearly 75% less number of tournaments. Imagine if Tiger wasn’t hurt! 

Actually those win per start stats are irrelevant. Jack played in tour events until he was 65.

And Tiger's injuries were probably almost entirely because of poor life choices. Tiger is more beat up than NFL running backs. Nobody forced him to put that kind of strain on his body with 4 (5?) completely different golf swings. Nobody forced him to wreck his knee in Navy Seal training (source Haney's book). Tiger made the tabloid lifestyle choices he made that caused him to miss tournaments.  And BTW, it is somewhat interesting judgment to go to Anthony Galea as doctor? I don't have any evidence that he did anything improper with Tiger, but at a minimum it is not what he should have done. All of those were bad choices Tiger made.  Consistently bad choices have a way of catching up with you.

Something people here don't like hear, Jack was just a lot better at life than Tiger was. Jack may not have been a better golfer, but he was an infinitely better decision maker and life manager which lead to a better career.

 

Edited April 14, 2019 by Fidelio

[iacas]

16 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

Seems like a pretty devastating argument actually.  37 top 2s and 73 top 10s vs 41 top 10s.

And if I played a PGA Tour event against 5 current PGA Tour players and a 140 or so other twelve year olds, I'd rack up the top ten finishes, too.

16 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

And guys like Watson, Floyd, and Miller would have zero trouble adapting to the modern game.

Pure speculation.

16 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

Trevino might not adjust as well but do guys like Spieth, Koepka, DJ rank in the same stratosphere as Lee? Not even close at this point.

Uhhhhhhh… This is where you're just stating your opinion as if it's a fact. I think you could more easily support the idea that they're actually better.

Lee, like Jack, didn't have to beat that many people.

16 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

I just came back to see how much Tiger humping there would be.

Less than your Jack humping, in part because the facts are on our side… 🙂

16 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

It is interesting that I have heard Butch Harmon in three separate interviews saying Jack has the superior career.

So now you're citing someone else's opinion? Uhm, I could do the same thing:

Jack Nicklaus, in 1996 (paraphrased): "Modern tour players would have been superstars in my day. The modern tour is so much more competitive, so much deeper."

6 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

Something people here don't like hear, Jack was just a lot better at life than Tiger was.

We don't really care one way or the other about that… because it's off topic here.

[onthehunt526]

Look who Tiger beat to win his 15th major.

Koepka, DJ, Finau, Xander, Frankie, Rickie, Poulter... that’s a who’s who of golf right now. Not a bunch of nobody’s. Jack did beat the cream of the crop in 1986 however.

[turtleback]

40 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

Why didn't Hogan, Snead, Nelson, or anyone else do it? Why didn't Tom Watson do it? Why didn't Seve or Faldo or Norman do it?

Have you ever bothered to count up how many majors Hogan, Snead or Nelson actually played in compared to how many Jack played?  Somehow I doubt it, although it would be VERY germane.

[Fidelio]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

So now you're citing someone else's opinion? Uhm, I could do the same thing:

 

I explicitly said it wasn't a good argument. But it is interesting, Butch has gone all in on Jack. Obviously it could be sour grapes. I just thought it was worth noting. And I also thought it was interesting how the majority of people who overlapped with Jack and Tiger pick Jack.  Ernie Els, a guy Jack dumped on for not being that great when he talked about Tiger's competition, effusively says Jack belongs ahead of Tiger.

Faldo is a guy who overlapped with Tiger and Jack and would have a pretty good feel for the competition differences seems kind of offended at the notion someone would refer to Tiger as the greatest. 

 

[turtleback]

29 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Jack played in 586 PGA tournaments 

Tiger played in 336 PGA Tournaments.

They both came in second around 10% of the time. Tiger is about 1% less often, but he has more PGA Tour wins in 250 less tournaments. 

This total number argument is irrelevant. Tiger was more dominant in nearly 75% less number of tournaments. Imagine if Tiger wasn’t hurt! 

But, math is hard.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Fidelio said:

But it is interesting,

It's not.

[saevel25]

10 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

Actually those win per start stats are irrelevant. Jack played in tour events until he was 65.

His stats are inflated due to the number of starts he has and the weak competition he played against. 

15 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

Something people here don't like hear, Jack was just a lot better at life than Tiger was. Jack may not have been a better golfer, but he was an infinitely better decision maker and life manager which lead to a better career.

That matters how to this discussion? it doesn't. The last bit of argument you have is character! that is laughable. 

[Fidelio]

1 minute ago, turtleback said:

Have you ever bothered to count up how many majors Hogan, Snead or Nelson actually played in compared to how many Jack played?  Somehow I doubt it, although it would be VERY germane.

 

Not a relevant argument outside of WWII and the cost to play in the British Open. Ben Hogan has almost 50% fewer top 10s. 

[turtleback]

3 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

 

Not a relevant argument outside of WWII and the cost to play in the British Open. Ben Hogan has almost 50% fewer top 10s. 

Not relevant, except for that it happened and why.

So, that would no.  I'm done with your trolling.

Edited April 14, 2019 by turtleback

[Fidelio]

Just now, saevel25 said:

The last bit of argument you have is character! that is laughable. 

I  literally made no argument about character. The argument was about decision making and the influence it had on the length of Tiger's career.  I have no idea how you interpreted what I said otherwise. I don't care if Jack is a swell guy.

[Golfnutgalen]

If we exclude Amateur starts Tiger and Jack's peak win percentages (both at the age of 33 coincidentally) were 29.7% and 19.6% respectively. It is hard to fathom just how insane Tiger was and apparently still is! Now after a few lean years Tiger's number has dropped slightly to 24% while Jack was at 17% at the same point in his career.

 

[Fidelio]

5 minutes ago, turtleback said:

So, that would no.  I'm done with your trolling.

That's fine. Your argument is sighs and eye rolls. My argument is grounded in reason and facts. 

But just for fun. I just did. Hogan missed 33 events because of WWII and not playing the British in the period between his first and last top 10 in major.  So, if he would have finished in the top 10 in EVERY ONE of the those events he would fall 1 short of Jack.

Apology accepted. Try harder. Be better.

Edited April 14, 2019 by Fidelio

[Vinsk]

25 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

Jack was just a lot better at life than Tiger was. Jack may not have been a better golfer, 

Fine. Debate is finished. We’re not discussing who’s the better person. It’s who’s the GOAT golfer. And that’s Tiger. You just don’t like to hear that.

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

I  literally made no argument about character. 

Yes you did.

1 minute ago, Fidelio said:

That's fine. Your argument is sighs and eye rolls. My argument is grounded in reason and facts. 

Uhhh, his argument is based on the number of tournaments (and majors) that Snead and Hogan and others were able to play.

15x >> 18y, where "x = strength of Tiger's fields" and "y" is Jack's.

[Fidelio]

Just now, iacas said:

Yes you did.

 

No. I didn't. I made an argument about judgment and how it negatively influenced Tiger's career.  

Other people have made that argument about Jack's a swell guy so he is better. I think it is a bad one and irrelevant. I don't care even a little bit about the character of the two men as relates to this debate. I made no such argument. I am pretty sure I know what I wrote 3 minutes ago.

[turtleback]

2 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

That's fine. Your argument is sighs and eye rolls. My argument is grounded in reason and facts. 

But just for fun. I just did. Hogan missed 33 events because of WWII and not playing the British in the period between his first and last top 10 in major.  So, if he would have finished in the top 10 in EVERY ONE of the those events he would fall 1 short of Jack.

Apology accepted. Try harder. Be better.

So you still haven't counted them up.  And of course it was Hogan's fault that he got into an accident, nearly died, had a very severely leg, and as a result couldn't play the PGA until they changed it to stroke play.

Just because Tiger beat the oddsvand won a major does not somehow provide any validation for these long discredited arguments you are resucitating.  I've done the numbers several times and you are welcome to go looking for them.

2 hours ago, Gunther said:

Props to Tiger,  I'm one who said 3 years ago it would never happen again.  Payin out $2,000 because of it, fk!, but really did enjoy his celebration with the kids and his mom.  One of the most amazing sports stories in our lifetime. Erik, ur fanboyness has been paid.

You had a good impulse.  Too bad you had to spoil it at the end.