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

[Fidelio]

2 hours ago, Pretzel said:

This is an example of exactly why the argument you're making is dead wrong.

There's not a golfer on the planet today "well into his 50's" that could dream on competing on either Ryder Cup team. 

If you're going to compare to Hale Irwin to a modern day player you'd have to compare him to someone like Vijay Singh. Vijay is 55 currently, 

The fact that a middling skill player well into his 50's was someone who could legitimately have played on Ryder Cup teams just goes to show how poor the fields in Jack's time were. There was NO depth to the fields outside of the top 10-20 players. Modern day fields have multiple times that many players capable of winning in the field each and every week.

Hale was not on the Senior Tour when Jack was in his prime. I am talking about like 15-20 years ago in Tiger's prime.  The whole point is even someone who was never at the very top in Jack's era like Hale would have near the top against the guys Tiger played against. 

Vijay is terrible now. Why would you compare Hale to Vijay? Hale at 55 was MUCH better than Vijay at 55. 

I have played competitively and casually with a number of tour winners from different eras.  I consider myself terrible but I have beaten guys like Jeff Overton and JB Holmes in competitive rounds I have played with them.   I have also played casually with duds like John Schroeder.  I played with 78 year old Jack Fleck and he was still basically a tour player with less strength. He shot even par on 6800 course.  The average level of play is better but not anywhere near to the degree people here think it is. The average player a generation ago was not some duck hooking dud.

Edited May 7, 2018 by Fidelio

[Pretzel]

1 minute ago, Fidelio said:

The whole point is even someone who was never at the very top in Jack's era like Hale would have near the top against the guys Tiger played against. 

Yet you proved the opposite. Jack's field was so bad that even their middle of the range pros like Hale were able to compete well into their 50's because Jack's fields lacked depth and true talent.

3 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

I have played competitively and casually with a number of tour winners from different eras.  I consider myself terrible but I have beaten guys like Jeff Overton and JB Holmes in competitive rounds I have played with them. I have also played casually with duds like John Schroeder.  I played with 78 year old Jack Fleck who was a middling tour player and he was basically a tour player with less strength. He shot even par on 6800 course.  The average level of play is better but not anywhere near to the degree people here think it is.

I'm going to stop you right there and call you out. I'm willing to bet $20 that you cannot provide proof of such competitive rounds of golf, of which there should undoubtedly be some record of happening if they truly happened and were in competition like you say. There was a member on this forum who well-documented his opportunity to play golf with Graeme McDowell, someone currently ranked 221 in the OWGR (J.B. Holmes is 108 and Jeff Overton is 1985). Graeme played casually with the group and cruised his way to a 63 while hardly trying during an easy practice round. 

You're either a very talented golfer yourself (at least a +2 or +3 handicap golfer) who had a good day while the pro had a poor showing, or you're just making up anecdotes at this point to try and support your flawed argument. Either way, very little of that provides evidence for you as it's only anecdotes and not quantifiable data. 

[Fidelio]

2 hours ago, Pretzel said:

Yet you proved the opposite. Jack's field was so bad that even their middle of the range pros like Hale were able to compete well into their 50's because Jack's fields lacked depth and true talent.

What?  I guess your whole point is Vijay and Hale are equals as Seniors and Vijay has only two senior wins because the competition is so brutally tough now and Hale had 45 Senior wins because the competition was so bad?  That is clearly wrong. 

2 hours ago, Pretzel said:

I'm going to stop you right there and call you out. I'm willing to bet $20 that you cannot provide proof of such competitive rounds of golf

You're either a very talented golfer yourself (at least a +2 or +3 handicap golfer) who had a good day while the pro had a poor showing, or you're just making up anecdotes

1. I am a very mediocre golfer. Very mediocre.

2. Feel free to confirm that the message I sent you  includes evidence of competitive rounds beating said players.  It would be a weird thing to make up. The only point is I have actually played with multiple generations of good players.

Edited May 8, 2018 by Fidelio

[iacas]

Funny how you routinely discard the tales of, say, @Phil McGleno who actually played against Jack.

And who say how in their own words they wouldn’t hold a candle to anyone with PGA Tour status these days.

[Fidelio]

26 minutes ago, iacas said:

Funny how you routinely discard the tales of, say, @Phil McGleno who actually played against Jack.

And who say how in their own words they wouldn’t hold a candle to anyone with PGA Tour status these days.

Last I checked, Tom Watson lost in a playoff for the 2009 British Open. I strongly suspect Tom Watson isn't wondering if he would have had PGA Tour status if he played today. I watched an interview with Jack on Fox News a couple of months ago. He said he would have no problem in today's game. He did beat Tiger, Phil and Ernie at the 98 Masters after all. Not to mention he was paired with Faldo (who won) in the final round of the 90 Masters.

I only know about that guy from reading about him in a golf magazine when I was 10.  I know he seemed a little eccentric. I suspect he is prone to having non-standard opinions.  I am not sure what tales he shared. I will search the site.

Edited May 8, 2018 by Fidelio

[iacas]

FFS the Watson thing was an exception.

And he didn’t even win.

Keep disregarding the testimony of those who actually played in those times. Keep plugging your ears and humming a tune.

The strength and depth is significantly better now. 14 > 18, 79 >>> 72, etc.

Also, that’s not Mac O’Grady. He says so himself.

And…

On 5/4/2018 at 2:43 PM, mvmac said:

From this month's Golf Digest. WITB with Austin Cook, good example of how club pros were common in Jack's day.

 

[mvmac]

3 hours ago, Fidelio said:

I strongly suspect Tom Watson isn't wondering if he would have had PGA Tour status if he played today. I watched an interview with Jack on Fox News a couple of months ago. He said he would have no problem in today's game. He did beat Tiger, Phil and Ernie at the 98 Masters after all. Not to mention he was paired with Faldo (who won) in the final round of the 90 Masters.

No one is saying Watson or Jack wouldn't have status in today's game.

I think they would both be very successful players if they were teeing it up now but I don't see Jack getting to 18 professional majors. And I'm a big fan of Jack.

 

 

[HJJ003]

http://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/23441363/phil-mickelson-says-tiger-woods-peak-played-best-golf-ever

I always like Phil's take on things. More and more all time greats say that nobody played like Tiger at his best. 

Edited May 8, 2018 by HJJ003

[iacas]

On 5/7/2018 at 5:30 PM, Fidelio said:

I have played competitively and casually with a number of tour winners from different eras.  I consider myself terrible but I have beaten guys like Jeff Overton and JB Holmes in competitive rounds I have played with them.

Details, on these, please?

Incredibly small sample size (particularly if over 18 holes), and not even a good example at all if you played them when they were in high school or something like that (i.e. not when they were a PGA Tour player), but… deets?

2 hours ago, HJJ003 said:

http://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/23441363/phil-mickelson-says-tiger-woods-peak-played-best-golf-ever

I always like Phil's take on things. More and more all time greats say that nobody played like Tiger at his best. 

That was funny.

But beyond that, few argue that Tiger played perhaps the best golf ever. Jack "fans" just think he didn't do it "long enough." Because "18 > 14."

[HJJ003]

44 minutes ago, iacas said:

That was funny.

But beyond that, few argue that Tiger played perhaps the best golf ever. Jack "fans" just think he didn't do it "long enough." Because "18 > 14."

Yup very true. 

[Fidelio]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Details, on these, please?

Incredibly small sample size (particularly if over 18 holes), and not even a good example at all if you played them when they were in high school or something like that (i.e. not when they were a PGA Tour player), but… deets?

 

Played with them in college as well as played in the same tournament as them a number of times. I used them as examples because they both made Ryder Cup teams with Tiger.  I highly doubt they are better than the average Ryder Cupper from the 70's. I doubt either one is better than Jerry Pate for instance. There were a lot of other very good players I played rounds with who were also rans like James Lepp, Parker Mclachlan, Josh Teater, Robert Hamilton, Tom Johnson.  That should be a big enough sample size to at least be able to have perspective on this topic.

The fields Tiger played against were better but marginally so. 

2 hours ago, iacas said:

 Jack "fans" just think he didn't do it "long enough." Because "18 > 14."

I don't think 18>14 on its own. It is the context around it.   A golf career has a lot of randomness. Winning and losing is often very close.  If you took Jack and Tiger's careers and ran each major tournament with their skill levels a thousand times in a Monte Carlo simulation , I think you would find 14 majors for Tiger is on the high end, meaning he was somewhat lucky over his career.  He contended far fewer times and had an amazing conversion percentage when he was in the hunt.  Whereas Jack had 19 seconds and 9 thirds. Jack had a much lower conversion percentage which means he was probably slightly unlucky relative to his skill level. 

So I don't view it as 18>14. I think it is more like 20>12 or maybe even as high as 22>10

It is similar to the debate on who had the better career Soros or Buffett. The correct is most likely Soros because Buffett made so few trades and was so right on the few he made that he probably was lucky relative to his skill level over his career. https://www.cnbc.com/id/35300031

 

 

 

Edited May 9, 2018 by Fidelio

[iacas]

37 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

Played with them in college as well as played in the same tournament as them a number of times.

In college? Buddy, c'mon.

37 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

I highly doubt they are better than the average Ryder Cupper from the 70's.

Jack Nicklaus likely continues to disagree with you.

37 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

That should be a big enough sample size to at least be able to have perspective on this topic.

It's not… because you played against them in college, not when they were playing PGA Tour level golf.

I played against Tiger Woods once. Beat him over three holes. Two were par threes, and I chipped in eagle on a short par four in between. Ergo, Tiger Woods sucks? No.

(I wasn't in the same group as him. I was about six holes behind him.)

37 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

The fields Tiger played against were significantly better. 

FTFY.

37 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

I don't think 18>14 on its own. It is the context around it. A golf career has a lot of randomness. Winning and losing is often very close.  If you took Jack and Tiger's careers and ran each major tournament with their skill levels a thousand times in a Monte Carlo simulation , I think you would find 14 majors for Tiger is on the high end, meaning he was somewhat lucky over his career.

Ha!  Yeah, okay.

Guess he also got lucky 65 other times in regular PGA Tour events, WGCs, etc.

I'm done, man. "Tiger Woods was lucky". That takes the cake.

But hey, @turtleback, a Jack guy has come up with something beyond 18 > 14! Now it's "Tiger was lucky."

37 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

He contended far fewer times and had an amazing conversion percentage when he was in the hunt.  Whereas Jack had 19 seconds and 9 thirds. Jack had a much lower conversion percentage which means he was probably slightly unlucky relative to his skill level.

Jack - like Tom, Arnie, etc. - finished high in more events… wait for it… because the fields were significantly weaker/shallower back then.

37 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

So I don't view it as 18>14. I think it is more like 20>12 or maybe even as high as 22>10

Oh for f***'s sake.

[Fidelio]

9 minutes ago, iacas said:

Ha!  Yeah, okay.

Guess he also got lucky 65 other times in regular PGA Tour events, WGCs, etc.

I'm done, man. "Tiger Woods was lucky". That takes the cake.

But hey, @turtleback, a Jack guy has come up with something beyond 18 > 14! Now it's "Tiger was lucky."

 

You are a product of America's poor job educating in math and science. And even worse, you are condescending. You are the perfect example of the high self esteem know-nothing that this country produces.

"Tiger was lucky" in the context I described is a very reasonable statement to any non-math illiterate. 

 

[iacas]

23 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

You are a product of America's poor job educating in math and science.

Ha. Yeah, except… no. Got three degrees. The one in French didn't involve much science or math. The other two did.

I think your argument is stupid. "It's not 18 > 14, it's 22 > 10"? Cripes. And "I once beat Jeff Overton over 18 holes in a college tournament"? Oy.

You've demonstrated quite clearly that you're incapable of having a good discussion here, and now you've resorted to name-calling. So I'm done.

[MarvChamp]

21 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

You are a product of America's poor job educating in math and science. And even worse, you are condescending. You are the perfect example of the high self esteem know-nothing that this country produces.

Wow! I was kinda sorta enjoying the interchange until that! Too bad, man! -Marv🤔

[Vinsk]

2 hours ago, Fidelio said:

Whereas Jack had 19 seconds and 9 thirds. Jack had a much lower conversion percentage which means he was probably slightly unlucky relative to his skill level. 

I’ve never read a finer example of exquisite mathematics than this. 

[mvmac]

3 hours ago, Fidelio said:

If you took Jack and Tiger's careers and ran each major tournament with their skill levels a thousand times in a Monte Carlo simulation , I think you would find 14 majors for Tiger is on the high end, meaning he was somewhat lucky over his career.  He contended far fewer times and had an amazing conversion percentage when he was in the hunt.  Whereas Jack had 19 seconds and 9 thirds. Jack had a much lower conversion percentage which means he was probably slightly unlucky relative to his skill level. 

LOL, yeah Tiger got lucky winning majors by these margins.

 

https://www.golfchannel.com/article/golf-central-blog/stats-incredible-tigers-40-greatest-numerical-records/

Quote

From the 1999 PGA Championship through the 2002 U.S. Open, Woods won seven of the 11 majors contested. Woods was a cumulative 94 under par in those tournaments – 60 shots better than any other player. 

Jack also benefitted from "luck", he shot 65 in '86 but plenty of players collapsed coming down the stretch.

3 hours ago, Fidelio said:

So I don't view it as 18>14. I think it is more like 20>12 or maybe even as high as 22>10

[Vinsk]

e=mc2 /luck