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

[k-troop]

[URL=http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/win-or-lose-at-the-pga-jordan-spieth-is-having-one-of-golfs-greatest-seasons/]http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/win-or-lose-at-the-pga-jordan-spieth-is-having-one-of-golfs-greatest-seasons/[/URL] Another perspective: I saw this article on 538 Sports about how Jordan Spieth is having one of the greatest golf seasons ever. It posted a graphic that ranked the best seasons in golf history. Of the Top 20, Jack has 8 and Tiger 7. However, Tiger holds the 1,2,4,5,6,8, and 17 spots while Jack has 3,7,9,10,11,13,16,20. Spieth's is ranked 12 using this methodology, which uses standard deviations above/below all tournament averages for the given year. A pretty common and useful statistical tool. Just something else to add to the fire...

Not sure I buy that Tiger and Jack own all of golf's top-10 seasons ever, and Nelson, Hogan, and Jones are all excluded (surely at least one of those three deserves a mention). But I appreciate an attempt at objective comparison.

[mmoan2]

Not sure I buy that Tiger and Jack own all of golf's top-10 seasons ever, and Nelson, Hogan, and Jones are all excluded (surely at least one of those three deserves a mention).

But I appreciate an attempt at objective comparison.

I agree, but the lack of stats kept in those days makes a true comparison difficult. Surely Hogan in 1953 or Jones in 1930 should be on the list. That's why these GOAT talks in any sport always boil down to "my science is better than your science" in the end, IMO. That's cool, though.

[The Recreational Golfer]

While performance in major championships is not the only means of deciding the matter, it is important.

Woods has now played in 76 major championships (through the 2015 P.G.A. Championship). Here is his record compared to Nicklaus’s first 76:

Jack:
1st - 15
2nd - 15
3rd - 9
4-10 - 16

Tiger:
1st - 14
2nd - 6
3rd - 4
4-10 - 14

[Pendragon]

On 8/1/2015 at 7:34 AM, jbishop15 said:

I'm not trying to be rude here, but have you read any of the posts in this thread? A lot of the points you brought up have been discussed with a lot of depth.

Sounds like you were trying to be rude. Isn't Vasp entitled to have an opinion? 

Personally, I agree with him. I also think that Nicklaus is the GOAT. It's close, but not that close.

[boogielicious]

5 hours ago, Pendragon said:

Sounds like you were trying to be rude. Isn't Vasp entitled to have an opinion? 

Personally, I agree with him. I also think that Nicklaus is the GOAT. It's close, but not that close.

Not when they don't bother reading anything in the thread and rehash the same old stuff. We call it a "fly by post". jpbishop15 was correct in suggesting Vasp read the thread. He was not being rude.

 

[Patch]

I am going with neither one was the best.or GOAT.  I am making them both a GOTE, which is greatest of their era, since they did not play each other in head to head competition. I have probably posted this opinion many times before. 

[boogielicious]

39 minutes ago, Patch said:

I am going with neither one was the best.or GOAT.  I am making them both a GOTE, which is greatest of their era, since they did not play each other in head to head competition. I have probably posted this opinion many times before. 

GOTE with goatee

[jbishop15]

7 hours ago, Pendragon said:

Sounds like you were trying to be rude. Isn't Vasp entitled to have an opinion? 

Personally, I agree with him. I also think that Nicklaus is the GOAT. It's close, but not that close.

Lol, okay. Enjoy the thread.

[collapse]

Scoring average against the fields of the day could be a good indicator coupled with wins.This way we see overall play and ability to close.

[boogielicious]

8 minutes ago, collapse said:

Scoring average against the fields of the day could be a good indicator coupled with wins.This way we see overall play and ability to close.

That data has been presented in this thread. It does not favor Jack.

[collapse]

Just now, boogielicious said:

That data has been presented in this thread. It does not favor Jack.

Then TW is the best.

[Wally Fairway]

Having been away from this board for several months, it is good to see that the debate rages on - as well as the debate about the debate.

Seeing this thread as the 2nd thread at the top of the board is a familiar & welcoming site.

[nevets88]

 

STOP THE PRESSES

Brandel Chamblee says Woods is the greatest of all time. Shaking my head... wait... what? Full program to be broadcasted on the 30th. Holiday doldrums ratings grab?

Video, or it didn't happen? Here:

http://www.golfchannel.com/media/golf-central-december-16-2015/

[Patch]

Just thinking here before I go for my morning walk in 25 degree weather. ( move over coffee, as this is job for alcohol)

Has anyone taken the time to take all tournaments won during their different eras of golf and put the same dollar value on each of their's and their competition wins? Probably wouldn't mean anything other than adding fuel to the discussion. 

[GolfLug]

I call BS. Patronizing to qualify his 'technical' analysis of Tiger's swing as unbiased against Tiger.

[collapse]

Well said...no inconsistencies.

http://www.golfchannel.com/media/chamblee-woods-greatest-player-all-time/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Birdiechaser]

 

 

       Is it truly able to be determined ??     both had their prime in different era's of golf  with different equipment , courses ...compitition ..to me Jack was the best in some but Tiger was the best at some events also ... i like to remember both Jack and Tiger as playing tournament golf better than any other players in the last 50 years 

[turtleback]

13 hours ago, Birdiechaser said:

 

 

       Is it truly able to be determined ??     both had their prime in different era's of golf  with different equipment , courses ...compitition ..to me Jack was the best in some but Tiger was the best at some events also ... i like to remember both Jack and Tiger as playing tournament golf better than any other players in the last 50 years 

Determined on some kind of objective basis?  Of course not.

But people have been comparing athletes as long as athletics have been with us.  And just because players played indifferent eras doesn't mean there cannot be an interesting and useful discussion.  

For example, I put Tiger on top because he dominated professional golf for a 15 year period (which, while I would love it if he had been able to maintain longer is still plenty long enough for me to check the longevity box) to an extent that very few players, including Jack, has ever done even for a season or two.  Between 1996 and 2009 Tiger was clearly not only the best player but the best player by a large margin for all but 2 years (1998, and 2004 - I'm giving him 2008, although some might argue).  Jack,on the other hand, was always one of the top 3-4 players for 25 years, but if you look at the actual years, he was the best player in only a handful of years.  And even in the years when he was the best player he was nowhere near as dominant as Tiger was.  

Tiger's peak was way higher than Jack's, while Jack's peak lasted longer. Those who value longevity over brilliance will favor Jack.  Those who favor brilliance over longevity will favor Tiger.  

 

Welcome to the Board!

Edited December 24, 2015 by turtleback
to add some longwindedness