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

[csh19792001]

2 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Wrong. Tiger and many other current players have hit persimmon and older drivers and they hit it as far and further than Jack. Be real. Have you compared youthful Jack to some of these guys today? Physically?

Why Jack Nicklaus would dominate modern-day golf | Golf News and Tour Information | Golf Digest

---

In his prime, Jack Nicklaus was the one everyone chased. Drop that golfer into today's game, and it would be case still, giving these three measures of success

It can be hard, then, to picture Nicklaus as the longest player on the PGA Tour. But that’s exactly what he was in his heyday. Consider this: In 1963, Nicklaus won the long-drive contest at the PGA Championship with a 341-yard blast. “That drive was 341 yards, 17 inches. I do remember that, too,” he told Golf Channel in 2013. “That was an 11-degree wood driver, 32.75 inch Dynamic Edge shaft.”

4 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Wrong. Tiger and many other current players have hit persimmon and older drivers and they hit it as far and further than Jack. Be real. Have you compared youthful Jack to some of these guys today? Physically?

You honestly think Nicklaus wouldn't be a fitness fanatic playing the past 20-25 years?

The guy was as driven to be the greatest as anyone, ever. Including Tiger Woods.

[Vinsk]

18 minutes ago, csh19792001 said:

23 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

 

You honestly think Nicklaus wouldn't be a fitness fanatic playing the past 20-25 years?

The guy was as driven to be the greatest as anyone, ever. Including Tiger Woods.

Right. But he wasn’t. Nicklaus can’t help that he won tournaments with minimal SOFs. But...he did. Just a fact. 

[csh19792001]

1 minute ago, Vinsk said:

Right. But he wasn’t. Nicklaus can’t help that he won tournaments with minimal SOFs. But...he did. Just a fact. 

Can you actually define and quantify "minimal strength of fields".

Please explain the disparity between the average player in Jack's time and Tiger's.

[Vinsk]

Just now, csh19792001 said:

Can you actually define and quantify "minimal strength of fields".

Please explain the disparity between the average player in Jack's time and Tiger's.

 

[csh19792001]

Mea culpa. Got it. Thank you.

Edited February 6, 2021 by csh19792001

[Vinsk]

1 minute ago, csh19792001 said:

Lazy and dismissive.

What’s lazy is you’ve come into a thread making claims that have been debunked years ago. Read the thread and stop being lazy.

5 minutes ago, csh19792001 said:

Can you actually define and quantify "minimal strength of fields".

Please explain the disparity between the average player in Jack's time and Tiger's.

Here..Jack does it for you:

Edited February 6, 2021 by Vinsk

[csh19792001]

3 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

What’s lazy is you’ve come into a thread making claims that have been debunked years ago. Read the thread and stop being lazy.

I thought you simply linked the entire thread. I apologized and corrected myself.

I don't think reading about Tiger vs. Jack 10, 15 years ago has much relevance. Tiger was only mid career by that point.  

Nor is reading 98% of the posts that are literally one line and say "Tiger is the greatest" etc. Combing through all that, thousands of posts, is a waste of time. 

 If you have specific posts that explicate field strengths, I'm all ears.

Edited February 6, 2021 by csh19792001

[Vinsk]

1 minute ago, csh19792001 said:

 If you have specific posts that explicate field strengths, I'm all ears

The burden is on you. I’m supposed to go through the thread and present the data for you? Now that’s being lazy.

[csh19792001]

4 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

What’s lazy is you’ve come into a thread making claims that have been debunked years ago. Read the thread and stop being lazy.

Here..Jack does it for you:

That's very interesting but anecdotal. It doesn't do much to advance the field strength argument; it's his subjective perception. 

Where are the cogent, comprehensive posts about the strength of fields and the strength of the average player?

Thank you! 🙂

1 minute ago, Vinsk said:

The burden is on you. I’m supposed to go through the thread and present the data for you? Now that’s being lazy.

I figured, being a veteran of this forum, and (also) this thread, that you might be able to remember posts where something comprehensive and unbiased is presented about field strengths. 

You present as if you know a ton about this topic and have been quite involved in this conversation. That's why I'll defer to you. 

Not wishing to sift through 7000 posts where 99% of it is irrelevant- and also just tripe- is not being lazy. Asking veterans and long time members is thoughtful, I'd say.

[Vinsk]

16 minutes ago, csh19792001 said:

Not wishing to sift through 7000 posts where 99% of it is irrelevant- and also just tripe- is not being lazy.

So you’re calling 99% of a thread tripe despite not having read 99% of it ? Gotcha.

Maybe you can get some free labor from @turtleback or @brocks. They’re much more knowledgeable about this topic than me.

[csh19792001]

2 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

So you’re calling 99% of a thread tripe despite not having read 99% of it ? Gotcha.

Maybe you can get some free labor from @turtleback or @brocks. They’re much more knowledgeable about this topic than me.

I read hundreds and hundreds of posts. Have you read all 7,000 posts? 

If so, why aren't you able to send links to posts to support your argument? 

[StuM]

@csh19792001one thing on major wins is that Jack did win more majors but at least two were “Gifted” to him. See 66 Masters and 70 US open.  Without those he is at 16 majors. Even with 18 majors Jack won @ 10% of of the majors he played in while Tiger won @ 18%.  That makes Tiger’s 15 very impressive.  Combine that with Tiger’s PGA Tour and other worldwide wins, which are more than Jack, is evidence In favor of Tiger.

I agree comparing players of different time is hard and did struggle with that myself but ultimately I do think Tiger is GOAT.  

I still respect Jack’s accomplishments and understand why he is in the discussion.

[Vinsk]

@csh19792001 I get it’s a long thread. But it’s kinda like making some claims and asking questions that a book, which you haven’t read, has answered. Surely you can understand why some members aren’t going to engage until you’ve ‘read the book.’ 

[Vinsk]

33 minutes ago, csh19792001 said:

I read hundreds and hundreds of posts. Have you read all 7,000 posts? 

If so, why aren't you able to send links to posts to support your argument? 

 

[iacas]

The strength and depth of fields is mathematically much stronger today than in Jack’s era.

The end.

[csh19792001]

Just now, StuM said:

@csh19792001one thing on major wins is that Jack did win more majors but at least two were “Gifted” to him. See 66 Masters and 70 US open.  Without those he is at 16 majors. Even with 18 majors Jack won @ 10% of of the majors he played in while Tiger won @ 18%.  That makes Tiger’s 15 very impressive.  Combine that with Tiger’s PGA Tour and other worldwide wins, which are more than Jack, is evidence In favor of Tiger.

I agree comparing players of different time is hard and did struggle with that myself but ultimately I do think Tiger is GOAT.  

I still respect Jack’s accomplishments and understand why he is in the discussion.

You have to compare them through the same age to compute percentages of wins fairly.

Tiger just finished his age 44 season. Tiger has played in 85 Majors as a professional. Through the same age, Jack had played in 92 Majors as a professional.

During those 85 Majors, Woods won 15, finished second 7 times, and third four times. Jack won 17 Majors, finished second 19 times, and third 9 times. Against much better top 5 competition, but (ostensibly) significantly weaker fields, overall. 

Just now, iacas said:

The strength and depth of fields is mathematically much stronger today than in Jack’s era.

The end.

Where's the math? 

[Vinsk]

2 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

 

Go to post #742

[csh19792001]

1 minute ago, Vinsk said:

Go to post #742

Thank you!!! 🙂