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

[Hardspoon]

1 hour ago, Vinsk said:

I get this but what @Patch said was that every GOAT gets replaced. You replied sometimes they don’t. I can’t think of any that haven’t. So by what has occurred it’s a pretty accurate statement I believe. I think it’s an interesting question. What GOAT in any sport still remains as the GOAT. Jack was obviously replaced by Tiger. Gretzky? I don’t know hockey at all.

Muhammad Ali (or, if you wanna be crazy, Mike Tyson).

Given boxing's overall decline in popularity, and competition from MMA, I'd bet that whoever is the GOAT now is not going to be replaced.

[Pretzel]

17 hours ago, brocks said:

Can you give some examples? 

Highest paid athlete in history is a category for GOAT that has yet to be passed. Diocles, from 104 to 146 AD, earned an equivalent amount to $15,000,000,000 (15 billion) in his 24-year career. So far nobody has even come close to that number.

One could even argue he's the GOAT for any sport in any time, but certainly he's the GOAT for chariot racing with a record that will not likely be challenged anytime in the next couple centuries. He won 1,462 of his 4,257 races, and placed 2nd or 3rd in another 1,438 of those races. Considering the dangers of chariot racing (they literally carried knives and other weapons for use on their opponents during the race) I'd be surprised if anyone else ever did or will even complete as many races as him, much less win or place.

Other unlikely to fall records include Lance Armstrong's 7 Tour de France wins in a row (even though he doped, so did his competitors), Cy Young's 511 wins (careers for pitchers are only getting shorter and shorter), Secretariat's 31 horse-length victory at the Belmont Stakes and race time are unlikely to be approached anytime soon (nobody has been within even 2 seconds of that time before or since), Richard Petty's 200 NASCAR wins, and Wayne Gretzky's points records (he has more assists alone than any other player has total points).

 

[brocks]

9 hours ago, Pretzel said:

Highest paid athlete in history is a category for GOAT that has yet to be passed. Diocles, from 104 to 146 AD, earned an equivalent amount to $15,000,000,000 (15 billion) in his 24-year career. So far nobody has even come close to that number.

One could even argue he's the GOAT for any sport in any time, but certainly he's the GOAT for chariot racing with a record that will not likely be challenged anytime in the next couple centuries. He won 1,462 of his 4,257 races, and placed 2nd or 3rd in another 1,438 of those races. Considering the dangers of chariot racing (they literally carried knives and other weapons for use on their opponents during the race) I'd be surprised if anyone else ever did or will even complete as many races as him, much less win or place.

Other unlikely to fall records include Lance Armstrong's 7 Tour de France wins in a row (even though he doped, so did his competitors), Cy Young's 511 wins (careers for pitchers are only getting shorter and shorter), Secretariat's 31 horse-length victory at the Belmont Stakes and race time are unlikely to be approached anytime soon (nobody has been within even 2 seconds of that time before or since), Richard Petty's 200 NASCAR wins, and Wayne Gretzky's points records (he has more assists alone than any other player has total points).

 

Pretty sad when we have better records from first-century chariot racing than from pre-1970 pro golf. 

Thanks for a very interesting post.  BTW, at first I misread Lance Armstrong as Louis Armstrong, and I thought he was a pretty good example, too.

 

 

[boogielicious]

18 hours ago, Pretzel said:

Cy Young's 511 wins

If Cy Young was so great, why didn't he ever win the Cy Young award, hmmmm? 

[rehmwa]

19 hours ago, Pretzel said:

Highest paid athlete in history is a category for GOAT that has yet to be passed. Diocles, from 104 to 146 AD, earned an equivalent amount to $15,000,000,000 (15 billion) in his 24-year career. So far nobody has even come close to that number.

 

oh, now we bring up freakin' Diocles again?  seriously, there were about 12 total guys that were on the circuit.  Depth of field was minimal and half of those guys didn't even survive into middle age (around 16 years old) - four of them raced with only one arm - Hertopoles was only on the circuit because his Dad, the Senator pull some strings.  Every race Diocles was in he only had 2 competitors even close - it's easy to dominate when they were off pillaging in Hibernia and Numidia.  300 of his wins were just against his own horse trainer because there weren't anyone else that showed up. 

Now - Amestothesis raced against a larger field, they had better training, and he won or placed in nearly 20% of every race he ran.  As soon as math was invented Diocles even changed his criteria of GOAT from percent of wins to total $$$ once he saw the youngsters crushing wins out.

You Diocles guys just move the bar when the argument gets tough.

[Pretzel]

1 hour ago, rehmwa said:

oh, now we bring up freakin' Diocles again?  seriously, there were about 12 total guys that were on the circuit.  Depth of field was minimal and half of those guys didn't even survive into middle age (around 16 years old) - four of them raced with only one arm - Hertopoles was only on the circuit because his Dad, the Senator pull some strings.  Every race Diocles was in he only had 2 competitors even close - it's easy to dominate when they were off pillaging in Hibernia and Numidia.  300 of his wins were just against his own horse trainer because there weren't anyone else that showed up. 

Now - Amestothesis raced against a larger field, they had better training, and he won or placed in nearly 20% of every race he ran.  As soon as math was invented Diocles even changed his criteria of GOAT from percent of wins to total $$$ once he saw the youngsters crushing wins out.

You Diocles guys just move the bar when the argument gets tough.

It's funny you mention that, because chariot racing is a prime example of an ever changing field of competitors. It's hard to have a consistent depth of field when about half of the competitors die in each race. This is helped by the fact that spectators were encouraged to sabotage the opposing teams (they raced for the Reds, Whites, Blues, and Greens based on the colors they wore) by throwing nail studded chunks of lead at the racers (the Romans did love their lead), and the fact that racers had the reins tied to their bodies instead of just holding them like a sane person.

But if we want to talk real domination, I can't believe you wouldn't even mention Scorpus (real racer). He's the all-time wins leader at 2,048 victories before his death at the old age of 27 in a racing incident.

[turtleback]

4 hours ago, Pretzel said:

It's funny you mention that, because chariot racing is a prime example of an ever changing field of competitors. It's hard to have a consistent depth of field when about half of the competitors die in each race. This is helped by the fact that spectators were encouraged to sabotage the opposing teams (they raced for the Reds, Whites, Blues, and Greens based on the colors they wore) by throwing nail studded chunks of lead at the racers (the Romans did love their lead), and the fact that racers had the reins tied to their bodies instead of just holding them like a sane person.

But if we want to talk real domination, I can't believe you wouldn't even mention Scorpus (real racer). He's the all-time wins leader at 2,048 victories before his death at the old age of 27 in a racing incident.

OK, I have to ask.  Did you do a paper on this or are you just recreationally collect interesting stuff from antiquity?

[RussUK]

13 hours ago, turtleback said:

OK, I have to ask.  Did you do a paper on this or are you just recreationally collect interesting stuff from antiquity?

Either way i could do with @Pretzelon my works pub quiz team!. We've got sport and 70's rock music sorted but we are short on ancient chariot racing. You never know when a question on the 105AD Rome chariot grand prix might come up (may have been the one that was red flagged on lap 3 when the tigers got loose? )

[Phil McGleno]

Guys I played many events against Jack.-He was better than me.

But hell at this point Sean O'Hair is 10x the golfer I ever was. Jack had much weaker competition in his day - ME!

Me and a bunch of club pros.

[Vinsk]

29 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

Guys I played many events against Jack.-He was better than me.

But hell at this point Sean O'Hair is 10x the golfer I ever was. Jack had much weaker competition in his day - ME!

Me and a bunch of club pros.

They’re never gonna get it Phil. Unless they can transport Jack or Tiger through a time machine and see how they do they’re gonna continue to hold that we can’t know. They’ve become Flat Earthers in this debate.

[Pretzel]

On 5/23/2019 at 1:19 PM, turtleback said:

OK, I have to ask.  Did you do a paper on this or are you just recreationally collect interesting stuff from antiquity?

I've just stumbled down enough internet rabbit holes to find these tidbits before.

[Jonny_C]

As much as I respect and admire what Jack did for the game he didn’t have the massive number of gifted opponents that Tiger has had to overcome,

[LICC]

I think people forget how absolutely incredible Tiger was in his prime. Tiger won 4 majors in a row. 7 of 11. He won by margins of victory over the second place finishers that weren't seen since the 19th Century. He went through a 4-year stretch when he won 32 times. The next best player won 8 times. He played an entire year when he had only one round higher than a 73. He went through a four year period when he only missed three putts from 3 feet or closer, out of over 1,500. He won at least 5 straight tournaments three different times! He went 8 years without missing a cut. He had one stretch when he won 20 out of 38 events that he played. He played the greatest golf ever seen. 

[TigerIsNumeroUNO]

On 5/24/2019 at 8:05 AM, Phil McGleno said:

Guys I played many events against Jack.-He was better than me.

But hell at this point Sean O'Hair is 10x the golfer I ever was. Jack had much weaker competition in his day - ME!

Me and a bunch of club pros.

How many cuts did you make? How many top 10s?

[Vinsk]

3 hours ago, TigerIsNumeroUNO said:

How many cuts did you make? How many top 10s?

Ask that to about 40-60% of Jack’s competitors in his early wins. 

[turtleback]

4 hours ago, LICC said:

I think people forget how absolutely incredible Tiger was in his prime. Tiger won 4 majors in a row. 7 of 11. He won by margins of victory over the second place finishers that weren't seen since the 19th Century. He went through a 4-year stretch when he won 32 times. The next best player won 8 times. He played an entire year when he had only one round higher than a 73. He went through a four year period when he only missed three putts from 3 feet or closer, out of over 1,500. He won at least 5 straight tournaments three different times! He went 8 years without missing a cut. He had one stretch when he won 20 out of 38 events that he played. He played the greatest golf ever seen. 

Well I can assure you, after the 6000+ posts in this thread, the folks here do not forget, and have not forgotten, Tiger's other-worldly standard of play.  

[Wally Fairway]

On 5/27/2019 at 5:22 PM, Jonny_C said:

As much as I respect and admire what Jack did for the game he didn’t have the massive number of gifted opponents that Tiger has had to overcome,

That is why the era's are so different - Hagen played when pros weren't allowed in the club house and professional golfers were considered to be ruining the purity of the sport, Jack (see Lee Trevino story for a better example) started playing when even the top players had to play exhibitions and money games because prize money was negligible, and the tour attracts top athletes today because of the sponsorship $$$'s that Tiger attracted to prize money and sponsorships.
Question for @Phil McGleno , what was the prize money when you played? I'm betting the top 75 earners on the tour didn't make 10x the average white collar salary. It was a different era as far at depth of field, because many couldn't make a living chasing the tour around the country and that is why local club pro's had to fill the field. All of this has gone away with the monies that golf generates today; that allows players on the Web.com tour make more (adjusted for inflation) than all but the top 10 players on the tour back in the day.

None of this means that Tiger isn't he most dominant player (or what y'all like to call the GOAT)  - but Hagen could only play against the limited fields that were around (and there wasn't a Masters, and a World War eliminated multiple Opens and PGA's during his prime), Hogan was very dominant (however his injuries make it hard to speculate what his record would be without his serving in WWII and missing 3 years of majors), Jack faced more competition than any earlier players and the tour started to gain sponsorship and TV coverage, but Tiger has had to compete against deeper fields while competing for $100's of millions of $$$'s of prize money, Brooks (and the current pros) face even deeper fields and annual total prizes that are worth around $250 million a year (plus sponsorships and FedEx bonus)

 

Now you can continue your discussion of flat earth, alien body storage at Wright Patterson AFB, and if Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

[iacas]

48 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

Jack (see Lee Trevino story for a better example) started playing when even the top players had to play exhibitions and money games because prize money was negligible

Ehhhhhh… no. Jack was third on the money list in 1962 and won over $61k. https://www.carinsurancedata.org/calculators/inflation/61000/1962 - that's the equivalent of $514,686.57 in 2019 dollars.

51 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

Question for @Phil McGleno , what was the prize money when you played?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962_PGA_Tour

You can look these things up if you want.