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

[Lihu]

15 minutes ago, Gunther said:

The TST poll?  C'mon G, you know better.  

Your objective thoughts about golf are generally correct but when you delve into the subjective, you typically are off the rails.  Keep rollin tho...  

During Jack's time, there were not that many golfers who could hit as far nor accurate as Jack. In the beginning of Tiger's career, there were not that many that could hit as far as Tiger, but in Tiger's twilight days many of the younger players could out hit him. So, his career was cut shorter than Jack's just because there were so many more athletic players competing against him while he aged. Jack had more or less the same field as he did when he started. He was the really athletic player of his time and remained so for his entire career.

The athleticism is so widespread now that if you look at the field, no one is on top for very long because there isn't that much of a differentiation among the top 50 players. It's getting like Olympic level playing. Everyone near the top is only a little better or worse than the rest of the field.

So, IDK if there's a way to fair way to compare two players from different eras? Was Tiger a better player than Jack in their respective primes? Does that make him the greatest of all time? Or are you going by relative to their respective competition? If you do that maybe Tom Morris was the GOAT?

[70sSanO]

Actually I think Jack had greater competition throughout his career.  Jack's first major win was in 1962 and his last major win was in 1986.  He won 2 majors in 1980, prior to his 1986 Masters win.  He faced some of the greatest golfers ever over that time span (Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson, Ballesteros).  Obviously he enjoyed a long competitive career that allowed him to get to 18.

Tiger won his first major in 1997 and last one in 2008.  He utterly dominated those 11 years.  But I don't see the same level of competition, great golfers, over that same time span.  No Rory, Dustin, Jordan, Jason, etc. that may have made an impact if they had shown up 10 years earlier.

Because of his sheer dominance, and accumulating major victories over such a short time, he is probably the better golfer.  However, as the years tick away and fewer people are around that saw Tiger play, I think Jack will always be larger than life and his overall contribution to golf will place him as the greatest.  Not unlike Babe Ruth.  No matter who breaks his records, there is still only one Ruth.

John

Edited April 10, 2017 by 70sSanO

[saevel25]

2 minutes ago, 70sSanO said:

Because of his sheer dominance, and accumulating major victories over such a short time, he is probably the better golfer.  However, as the years tick away and fewer people are around that saw Tiger play, I think Jack will always be larger than life and his overall contribution to golf will place him as the greatest.  Not unlike Babe Ruth.  No matter who breaks his records, there us still only one Ruth.

That doesn't make Babe Ruth the best off all time. It just means people rather prop up his greatness through nostalgia versus actual facts.

[iacas]

10 hours ago, Gunther said:

The TST poll?  C'mon G, you know better.  

Your objective thoughts about golf are generally correct but when you delve into the subjective, you typically are off the rails.  Keep rollin tho...  

Your opinion.

Mine differs. Tiger is the GOAT.

8 hours ago, 70sSanO said:

Actually I think Jack had greater competition throughout his career.  Jack's first major win was in 1962.

Jack would disagree with you. The numbers would too.

[Lihu]

10 hours ago, 70sSanO said:

Actually I think Jack had greater competition throughout his career.  Jack's first major win was in 1962 and his last major win was in 1986.  He won 2 majors in 1980, prior to his 1986 Masters win.  He faced some of the greatest golfers ever over that time span (Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson, Ballesteros).  Obviously he enjoyed a long competitive career that allowed him to get to 18.

Tiger won his first major in 1997 and last one in 2008.  He utterly dominated those 11 years.  But I don't see the same level of competition, great golfers, over that same time span.  No Rory, Dustin, Jordan, Jason, etc. that may have made an impact if they had shown up 10 years earlier.

Because of his sheer dominance, and accumulating major victories over such a short time, he is probably the better golfer.  However, as the years tick away and fewer people are around that saw Tiger play, I think Jack will always be larger than life and his overall contribution to golf will place him as the greatest.  Not unlike Babe Ruth.  No matter who breaks his records, there is still only one Ruth.

John

Ernie Els, Phil Michelson, Gary Player, John Daly, . . .

[Gator Hazard]

On 11/2/2016 at 8:17 AM, saevel25 said:

I agree, jack so far had more time to achieve his records. More opportunity. If the difficulty of winning the major is low, then the odds of winning so many in a short period of time is more impressive than over a longer period of time. 

Agree, barring weak fields with not as competitive of golfers. We know that isn't/wasn't the case. 

[70sSanO]

14 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Ernie Els, Phil Michelson, Gary Player, John Daly, . . .

John Daly?  This has to be tongue-in-cheek if Daly is an example of athleticism?

Between the smoking and drinking, there are few worse examples.

John

Edit Added:  I think you also mistakenly listed Gary Player.  Player was born in 1935.

Edited April 10, 2017 by 70sSanO

[Lihu]

2 minutes ago, 70sSanO said:

John Daly?  This has to be tongue-in-cheek if Daly is an example of athleticism?

Between the smoking and drinking, there are few worse examples.

John

I quoted your statement that just said "competitor". Obviously, the best athlete in the group was Player.

[Gator Hazard]

19 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Ernie Els, Phil Michelson, Gary Player, John Daly, . . .

David Duval, Greg Norman, Vijay Singh, Jim Furyk, Angel Cabrera, Reteif Goosen, Padraig Harrington. Yeah, just a bunch of slouches. I'm sure I am missing many too. They were/are all great players, many of whom would have won many more majors had it not been for one guy: Tiger. 

 

Lol! Almost forgot the guy that just won the Masters: Garcia. 

Edited April 10, 2017 by Gator Hazard

[Lihu]

Just now, Gator Hazard said:

David Duval, Greg Norman, Vijay Singh, Jim Furyk, Angel Cabrera, Reteif Goosen, Padraig Harrington. Yeah, just a bunch of slouches. I'm sure I am missing many too. They were/are all great players, many of whom would have won many more majors had it not been for one guy: Tiger. 

Yup!

Anyone playing in the top 125 of the world during that era were pretty great golfers!

8 minutes ago, Gator Hazard said:

David Duval, Greg Norman, Vijay Singh, Jim Furyk, Angel Cabrera, Reteif Goosen, Padraig Harrington. Yeah, just a bunch of slouches. I'm sure I am missing many too. They were/are all great players, many of whom would have won many more majors had it not been for one guy: Tiger. 

 

Lol! Almost forgot the guy that just won the Masters: Garcia. 

Yeah, same here. Thought about that after my first post! Sergio was young and powerful during that time too!

[GolfLug]

15 minutes ago, 70sSanO said:

John Daly?  This has to be tongue-in-cheek if Daly is an example of athleticism?

Between the smoking and drinking, there are few worse examples.

John

Edit Added:  I think you also mistakenly listed Gary Player.  Player was born in 1935.

Anybody who can move an object at 120 mph by use of physical leverage is athletic in my book. Doesn't happen without a full body co-ordination, strength and agility.

Edited April 10, 2017 by GolfLug

[Lihu]

19 minutes ago, 70sSanO said:

Edit Added:  I think you also mistakenly listed Gary Player.  Player was born in 1935.

Oh, yeah. . .

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/04/gary-player-reminds-everyone-during-the-masters-that-hes-still-the-fittest-81-year-old-on-the-planet

 

[70sSanO]

I couldn't find the TST thread from a while back that discussed how many majors does a pro have to win to be great and not just very good.  I'm sure someone can find it and post it.

But if I can recall correctly the minimum criteria hovered around 4 majors to move into the great category.  A lot of discussion on Norman, in the end lacked the numbers.

With the exception of Phil, and Els sliding in with 4, those great golfers are not really so great.  Very good and Sergio's sentimental win, but great?  Not according to TST.

John

[70sSanO]

Found it...

https://thesandtrap.com/forums/topic/92898-where-do-you-draw-the-line-between-very-good-and-great/#comment-1288921

John

[Gator Hazard]

32 minutes ago, 70sSanO said:

I couldn't find the TST thread from a while back that discussed how many majors does a pro have to win to be great and not just very good.  I'm sure someone can find it and post it.

But if I can recall correctly the minimum criteria hovered around 4 majors to move into the great category.  A lot of discussion on Norman, in the end lacked the numbers.

With the exception of Phil, and Els sliding in with 4, those great golfers are not really so great.  Very good and Sergio's sentimental win, but great?  Not according to TST.

John

Yeah, but the whole discussion is centered on just how dominant Tiger was and how the field was not as competitive as Jacks. Look at final results in those fields of majors for who took second and third behind Tiger and you find a lot of those names. Tiger was just that good. Take him out of the picture and those persons win a lot more majors (example: Michelson). The field was at a minimum as strong or stronger in Tigers time as Jack's.

If I wanted to pick between the two based on who I like better I would take Jack because I feel he was a better statesman for the game, nicer, not as much negative off course stuff around him (this is my personal opinion-I think Tiger is a class A jerk) but I can't take away his accomplishments. Tiger was ridiculously good. 

Edited April 10, 2017 by Gator Hazard

[70sSanO]

I think the dominance does make Tiger a better golfer over that period of time.  He changed the game in that he brought in athleticism that was absent prior to his reign.  I think he would still be dominant if he emerged on the scene today, but today's golfer is much fitter than those Tiger faced.  The field was pretty much resigned to play for second.  This is not unlike any sport where a competitor or team has mentally beaten the competition before it even starts.

As for second place finishes, Jack had some incredible numbers of finishing second 19 times.  Just like Phil 10 runner-ups, who knows if he gets 18 without luck or 25 with luck.

What will always hurt Tiger is his relationship with the fans and media and his what might have been career.  Had he continued there would be no discussion.

In most sports greatest is usually associated with major accomplishments/championships, be it Tennis, World Series, Stanley Cups, etc.  Gretzky is the greatest because of his numbers and cups.  But if he had only played for the Oilers and his career ended before "the trade", there would be a half a dozen players with more points, and guys like Crosby, Ovechkin, Kane might be in the mix.  Plus the eras were so much different.  The goalies of Gretzky's era, early on, were not as athletic and didn't have pads large enough to fill up the goal.  He may still be considered the greatest, but maybe not.

John

[Groucho Valentine]

I think all puritanical feelings for one or the other aside - Tiger was a better player than Nicklaus was. IMO, its pretty hard to argue agaist it. 

[Jack Watson]

I voted Jack.  It's very close though.  Tiger did better in less time but seems to have flamed out.

http://www.espn.com/golf/masters07/news/story?id=2814780