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

[ScouseJohnny]

Jeez, after his ceremonial drive the other day I'm hoping Jack might come out of retirement and win a couple more majors; then this thread would be resolved.

[boogielicious]

Just now, ScouseJohnny said:

Jeez, after his ceremonial drive the other day I'm hoping Jack might come out of retirement and win a couple more majors; then this thread would be resolved.

How? Jack played against club pros, Tiger did not. That is what people are saying. Jack was great. Tiger was great. Jack won more majors but played against weaker competition. Tiger won more everything else and played against tougher competition. They both are the greatest of their generations.

[70sSanO]

Different sport... Serena Williams.  6 years ago a I remember a discussion as to whether Serena was one if the greatest of all time.  Most if the sentiment was that she was top 10, but hadn't won enough majors.  Fast forward to 2017 and she is probably the greatest, especially if she gets a couple more.

She is every bit as dominant as Tiger and has had injury issues that forced her to skip some majors, but she has the numbers now to claim the title.  I can't say that she was smarter in maintaining her body to continue her career than Tiger, but she was very selective on what tournaments she played.  It was a concerted effort to win majors, not just tournaments.  In 2010, no one knew if she was going to be able to keep playing.

I can't say that Tiger could have addressed his back/knees early on to lengthen his career, maybe, maybe not, regardless, he didn't and has come up short.

John

[ScouseJohnny]

5 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

They both are the greatest of their generations.

A few hundred pages ago, I pointed out that a man can only move in his own times. As you say, they are the greatest of their respective generations.

Actually, though, you are quite right now, too. Jack comes out of retirement at 77 and, like some golfing Marvel super-hero, in the alternate reality where his expired exemptions don't matter, wins the next five majors on the trot before returning to peaceful retirement. The reaction of this thread would be: He never played against Tiger when Tiger was in his prime, so...

 

Edited April 10, 2017 by ScouseJohnny

[Jack Watson]

2 hours ago, boogielicious said:

How? Jack played against club pros, Tiger did not. That is what people are saying. Jack was great. Tiger was great. Jack won more majors but played against weaker competition. Tiger won more everything else and played against tougher competition. They both are the greatest of their generations.

Tom Watson dropping 65-65 to beat Nicklaus

yeah pretty much a club pro along with Arnold Palmer and Gary Player.  Casper?  Another club pro. Trevino? Another

Tigers fields were deeper by far but they were not filled with champions with real hunger.

 

 

[skydog]

33 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Tom Watson dropping 65-65 to beat Nicklaus

yeah pretty much a club pro along with Arnold Palmer and Gary Player.  Casper?  Another club pro. Trevino? Another

Tigers fields were deeper by far but they were not filled with champions with real hunger.

 

 

Most accurate comment in this thread IMO.

At age 59 Tom Watson could/should have won a major against Tiger's field. The net differences in fields over the span of 30 years is not as significant as many like to believe.

I think Jack competed against ~10 real champions and then a bunch of relatively insignificant guys....Tiger competed against maybe 1-3 real champions and then 100 or so really good players.

As for the likes of Tiger vs. Jack GOAT discussion, their careers are apples and oranges. One had a better career while one reached a higher pinnacle. It's Beatles vs. Stones.

Edited April 10, 2017 by skydog

[mvmac]

I think Tiger was so dominate that by comparison he made his competition look weak.

And he did play against a lot of great players. Duval, Els, Mickelson, Singh, Furyk, Garcia, Goosen, Scott. It's tough to accumulate wins when one guy is winning 1/3 of the tournaments he plays in.

[Lihu]

2 minutes ago, mvmac said:

I think Tiger was so dominate that by comparison he made his competition look weak.

And he did play against a lot of great players. Duval, Els, Mickelson, Singh, Furyk, Garcia, Goosen, Scott. It's tough to accumulate wins when one guy is winning 1/3 of the tournaments he plays in.

So obviously true that it's funny!

 

[ScouseJohnny]

Quote

One had a better career while one reached a higher pinnacle. It's Beatles vs. Stones.

Damn, can't I just claim the Stones for both? (And remember, I'm a Liverpudlian born and bred). Show me the Beatles' equivalent to Exile and then we'll talk.

OK, apologies, off-topic. Sorry.

[boogielicious]

2 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

Tom Watson dropping 65-65 to beat Nicklaus

yeah pretty much a club pro along with Arnold Palmer and Gary Player.  Casper?  Another club pro. Trevino? Another

Tigers fields were deeper by far but they were not filled with champions with real hunger.

 

 

There were no club pros in any field Tiger played in. Should I start naming all the major champions Tiger beat too? That is all you are doing. Fact remains that the fields were much stronger for a Tiger just as they are even stronger now. 

[skydog]

Thinking about the all time greats that Jack competed against in their primes- Player, Watson, Palmer, Seve, Trevino (combined 35 majors)...and then the next tier down- Casper, Irwin, Floyd, Weiskof, Miller (combined 13 majors)

Compared to Tiger's field- the only three that are probably in the conversation for top 20 all time greats are Phil, Ernie, and Vijay (combined 12 majors) and then a bunch of guys who have 1-2 majors. At the top it's not even close between the two eras.

Now you can argue that the likes of Watson and Trevino only racked up a bunch of majors because of the weak fields...but again, I think Watson all but winning the '09 Open against Tiger's field blows a bit of a hole in that theory. Great champions are great champions regardless of the era, but the fact is Tiger's fields had a bunch of guys who didn't have the fortitude/hunger/whatever you want to call it to show up when it mattered.

Again, no doubt  that Tiger's fields were stronger and deeper, but I don't the quality (albeit shallow quality) that Jack competed against should be overlooked. Either way, I think the strength of field argument is overstated here. Jack had the better career and Tiger reached the higher pinnacle.

Edited April 11, 2017 by skydog

[iacas]

7 hours ago, 70sSanO said:

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.

Jack's second-place finishes are looked up to by many, but… are also a result of the weaker fields against which he played.

Same is true of the other players who were "great" during Jack's time.

Arnold Palmer comes onto the scene in 2005? He might not a major. Gary Player? Forget it. He'd be lucky to win a few PGA Tour events.

If you have ten good players and 140 sucky players, those 10 players are going to win a lot of events. They too benefit from the weaker fields.

If you have 100 good players and only 40 or 50 players who are just a step behind them, the wins are going to be spread out a lot more.

It's very simple.

7 hours ago, 70sSanO said:

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.

IMO Tiger doesn't have to continue. He's already the GOAT.

And his "relationship with the fans and media" has nothing to do with it, also IMO.

7 hours ago, 70sSanO said:

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.

Lemieux was the best. Even Gretzky will tell you that if you're asking him in confidence.

7 hours ago, 70sSanO said:

I can't say that Tiger could have addressed his back/knees early on to lengthen his career, maybe, maybe not, regardless, he didn't and has come up short.

That's your opinion. I think he did enough to be considered the GOAT, and he did it against much stronger, deeper fields.

5 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

yeah pretty much a club pro along with Arnold Palmer and Gary Player.  Casper?  Another club pro. Trevino? Another

A third to a half of the fields against which Nicklaus competed were club pros.

Again, Trevino, Casper, Palmer, Player… they all benefited from the weak fields as well.

Sports like golf, when you're judging wins and losses, are a zero sum game - someone wins, someone loses. If you put a scratch golfer against a bunch of 10 handicappers, the scratch golfer's going to win quite often.

Yet in every other sport, players have arguably gotten better. People run faster, swim faster, hit the ball farther, throw harder… etc. Why would golf be any different? It's not. Players are better today than they were 50 years ago.

12 minutes ago, skydog said:

Thinking about the all time greats that Jack competed against in their primes- Player, Watson, Palmer, Seve, Trevino (combined 35 majors)...and then the next tier down- Casper, Irwin, Floyd, Weiskof, Miller (combined 13 majors)

Jack himself said that a modern-day average player would have been a star in his day, and the greats would have been superstars.

Fields are deeper AND significantly stronger.

12 minutes ago, skydog said:

Compared to Tiger's field- the only three that are probably in the conversation for top 20 all time greats are Phil, Ernie, and Vijay (combined 12 majors) and then a bunch of guys who have 1-2 majors. At the top it's not even close between the two eras.

I don't think you're being realistic at all. Take little ol' Gary Player and put him on the PGA Tour in 2000 and he likely struggles to win a single major.

The fields are stronger AND deeper now. You know this. You say it later on.

12 minutes ago, skydog said:

Now you can argue that the likes of Watson and Trevino only racked up a bunch of majors because of the weak fields...but again, I think Watson all but winning the '09 Open against Tiger's field blows a bit of a hole in that theory.

It doesn't.

It was a freak event, and one that could have only taken place on a hard, baked British Open where distance was essentially equalized, where local knowledge and an ability to play the winds and different types of shots than what the Tour plays the other 50 weeks or so of the year come into effect… etc.

12 minutes ago, skydog said:

Great champions are great champions regardless of the era, but the fact is Tiger's fields had a bunch of guys who didn't have the fortitude/hunger/whatever you want to call it to show up when it mattered.

I think you're seeing what you want to see. An objective and logical look at things supports the idea that the fields are much deeper and much stronger now.

12 minutes ago, skydog said:

Again, no doubt  that Tiger's fields were stronger and deeper, but I don't the quality (albeit shallow quality) that Jack competed against should be overlooked. Either way, I think the strength of field argument is overstated here. Jack had the better career and Tiger reached the higher pinnacle.

The quality appeared higher because they were also benefiting by playing against the same weak fields.

[ScouseJohnny]

Quote

I don't think you're being realistic at all. Take little ol' Gary Player and put him on the PGA Tour in 2000 and he likely struggles to win a single major.

So what? He didn't play competitively on the PGA Tour in 2000.

I often wonder in this time-traveling conversation that prevails in this thread....If Sergio ended up in 1973 a la Life on Mars, would he hand Tommy Aaron his ass?

 

Edited April 11, 2017 by ScouseJohnny

[Jakester23]

6 minutes ago, ScouseJohnny said:

So what? He didn't play competitively on the PGA Tour in 2000.

 

Tiger didn't play in the 60's and 70's whats your point?

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, ScouseJohnny said:

So what? He didn't play competitively on the PGA Tour in 2000.

Uh, obviously.

I'm saying that people like Gary Player are listed as all-time greats… but benefited from playing against weak fields just like Jack. He might have been a top-50 player in the modern era, but may have never won a single major, let alone the many he did win.

[ScouseJohnny]

15 minutes ago, iacas said:

Uh, obviously.

I'm saying that people like Gary Player are listed as all-time greats… but benefited from playing against weak fields just like Jack. He might have been a top-50 player in the modern era, but may have never won a single major, let alone the many he did win.

Do you honestly believe Nick Faldo would be a six time major winner if he was competing today, in his youthful prime, against Rory, Jordan, Jason, Dustin, Sergio, etc?

Would your answer to that question diminish his achievements?

Edited April 11, 2017 by ScouseJohnny

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, ScouseJohnny said:

Do you honestly believe Nick Faldo would be a six time major winner if he was competing today, in his youthful prime, against Rory, Jordan, Jason, Dustin, Sergio, etc?

No. But that's the point I'm making… that the strength and depth of field is tougher now than in the 1960s/1970s.

3 minutes ago, ScouseJohnny said:

Does your answer to that question diminish his achievements?

In the context of "all time," yes.

In the context of his own era? No.

Scoring 44 goals this year was enough to win the Rocket Richard in the NHL. Yet Sidney Crosby is universally accepted as a better hockey player than two-time winner Pavel Bure, who scored 58 and 59 less than 20 years ago to win.

Because goalies, even now, are better. Goal scoring is more difficult.

It doesn't diminish Bure's records… but it does establish a context by which you can judge "59" and "44."

[70sSanO]

Well, I guess Hogan would be in same category as all the others.  

The logic would probably hold true for everyone before Tiger.  None of the greats would be great in the modern era... Bobby Jones, Byron Nelson would be getting beat by the journeymen of today.

But alas, history is already recorded and those that won in any era are sitting on that list without the asterisk.  Fifty years from now there will probably be someone who wins 20 majors and Jack and Tiger will both be just winners that couldn't compete in that future era.  Kind of a fitting conclusion to this discussion.

John