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

[StuM]

37 minutes ago, 3jacker said:

You are both taking my words out of context.  There was a sentence that came before it. The whole response matters.  Read it again.  Also, lighten up.  It was done in jest.

Sorry, I noticed your "lol" after I reponded.  Sometimes sarcasm goes over my head.

[boogielicious]

1 hour ago, 3jacker said:

You are both taking my words out of context.  There was a sentence that came before it. The whole response matters.  Read it again.  Also, lighten up.  It was done in jest.

In their defense, this thread has had many that used those arguments in all seriousness. Thanks for clearing it up though. Plus everyone knows Old Tom Morris is the GOAT.😜

[iacas]

5 hours ago, turtleback said:

Jack is very fortunate that social media did not exist in 1994 when he made some unfortunate and ignorant racial comments.

Not just then.

Opinion: Jack Nicklaus' support of Donald Trump disappointing but not surprising

---

Jack Nicklaus full-throated Twitter endorsement of Donald Trump on Wednesday a reminder of how golf used to be, not where it is trying to go.

This is not an invitation to comment on politics.

P.S. And I realize you were joking, @3jacker. I'm not really replying to you here or anything.

[turtleback]

Augusta National was instrumental in helping Ike get the nomination in 1952.

Frankly I find it a little weird to lump in what candidate someone supports with making ignorant racial comments.  Golfers get to choose who they like just like everyone else.

[GolfSwami]

On this Masters weekend, I feel like it worth considering two questions that have  answers that are both solvable. The first question can be solved with  intuition that can be translated into mathematical assumptions. You can Google the answer. The second question can be solved with biomechanical analysis so we actually know with close to certainty how fast Owens would be under the same track conditions as a modern sprinter. I think the answers if properly understood are relevant to this thread.

A) If Babe Ruth were alive today would he be:

1. A superstar in the Mike Trout/Shohei Ohtani mold

2. An All Star level player

3.  A player around the league average

4.  Not a major league baseball player

 

B)  Where would Jesse Owens rank today:

 1. The current fastest person in the world

2. An Olympic caliber sprinter

3.  Not an Olympian but a good college sprinter

4. High school kids would beat him

 

 

 

 

Edited April 13 by GolfSwami

[dennyjones]

1 minute ago, GolfSwami said:

On this Masters weekend, I feel like it worth considering two questions that have  answers that are both solvable. The first question can be solved with an intuition that can be translated into mathematical assumptions. The second question can be solved with biomechanical analysis so we actually know with close to certainty how fast Owens would be under the same track conditions as a modern sprinter. I think the answers if properly understood are relevant to this thread.

A) If Babe Ruth were alive today would he be:

1. A superstar in the Mike Trout/Shohei Ohtani mold

2. An All Star level player

3.  A player around the league average

4.  Not a major league baseball player

 

B)  Where would Jesse Owens rank today:

 1. An Olympic medal winning sprinter

2. An Olympic caliber sprinter

3.  Not an Olympian but a good college sprinter

4. High school kids would beat him

 

 

 

 

Athletes today are bigger, stronger and faster than they were during the prementioned stars.   I don't believe their merits can be compared to today's athletes.   Some high school times are almost accomplishing Owen's times.

[iacas]

17 minutes ago, dennyjones said:

Athletes today are bigger, stronger and faster than they were during the prementioned stars.   I don't believe their merits can be compared to today's athletes.   Some high school times are almost accomplishing Owen's times.

Not only that, but there are significantly more of them getting better training.

Jack wouldn't have 18 majors or 71 PGA Tour wins if he played in Tiger's place from 1996 onward.

[pganapathy]

20 minutes ago, dennyjones said:

Athletes today are bigger, stronger and faster than they were during the prementioned stars.   I don't believe their merits can be compared to today's athletes.   Some high school times are almost accomplishing Owen's times.

The physical aspect of being bigger is one thing.  The most important though is the training today.  Kids start training for their sport at a young age and it has become very scientific.  Assuming the athletes of older generations also trained in the same way, the impact it would have is unknown.  There are professional athletes who have found that losing too much weight and gaining more muscle hasn't always benefited their game and natural abilities

[iacas]

14 minutes ago, pganapathy said:

Assuming the athletes of older generations also trained in the same way, the impact it would have is unknown. 

Yes, the impact of training and stuff is somewhat unknown. What's not unknown is how many more competitors they'd have to beat.

Jack played against club pros. Tiger faced stronger fields in all of his regular PGA Tour events than Jack ever faced in his prime.

[Vinsk]

This is important.

[pganapathy]

9 hours ago, iacas said:

Yes, the impact of training and stuff is somewhat unknown. What's not unknown is how many more competitors they'd have to beat.

Jack played against club pros. Tiger faced stronger fields in all of his regular PGA Tour events than Jack ever faced in his prime.

Are we taking here of quality, quantity or both

[iacas]

1 minute ago, pganapathy said:

Are we taking here of quality, quantity or both

Both. Can’t have quantity without increasing quality. Only so many players get PGA Tour cards every year.

[GolfSwami]

On 4/13/2024 at 11:24 AM, GolfSwami said:

On this Masters weekend, I feel like it worth considering two questions that have  answers that are both solvable. The first question can be solved with  intuition that can be translated into mathematical assumptions. You can Google the answer. The second question can be solved with biomechanical analysis so we actually know with close to certainty how fast Owens would be under the same track conditions as a modern sprinter. I think the answers if properly understood are relevant to this thread.

A) If Babe Ruth were alive today would he be:

1. A superstar in the Mike Trout/Shohei Ohtani mold

2. An All Star level player

3.  A player around the league average

4.  Not a major league baseball player

 

B)  Where would Jesse Owens rank today:

 1. The current fastest person in the world

2. An Olympic caliber sprinter

3.  Not an Olympian but a good college sprinter

4. High school kids would beat him

 

 

 

 

 

A) 8400 people responded to the first poll question. 55% said Ruth would be average or worse.  The correct answer is Babe Ruth would be a superstar.  Saying that Babe Ruth would be a below average major leaguer would be like saying Arisotle would be a below average college student if he were alive today.  Bill James explains why that would be the case. 

On Babe Ruth Lost In Time | Articles | Bill James Online

B) Jesse Owens would be the fastest man alive today now that Usain Bolt no longer races. If you took 1936 Jesse Owens with no additional training and ran on the same track with starting blocks and the same shoes, he would be less than one stride slower than Usain Bolt.   This was originally put forward in 2014and then the CBC tested the idea with a bronze medalist running a 100m on the same track surface without starting blocks and replicas of Owens' shoes. 

Today's Fastest Sprinters Would Probably Have A Hard Time Beating Jesse Owens In A Race

---

Canada's fastest man vs. one of the all-time greats.

 

Humans are not evolving at nearly the rate many like to think.  Most gains are from technology, knowledge that people from any era would easily pick up (e.g the turn in swimming)  and more people are specializing in sports that match their body types.

Edited April 14 by GolfSwami

[GolfLug]

Humans are evolving faster because there are more genetic lotteries courtesy of more cross pollination between races, regions, etc. in today's 'smaller' world. There are more Jesse Owenses today. Some of them marginally better. Period. 

[ScouseJohnny]

On 7/20/2023 at 7:31 PM, iacas said:

Not just then.

Opinion: Jack Nicklaus' support of Donald Trump disappointing but not surprising

---

Jack Nicklaus full-throated Twitter endorsement of Donald Trump on Wednesday a reminder of how golf used to be, not where it is trying to go.

This is not an invitation to comment on politics.

P.S. And I realize you were joking, @3jacker. I'm not really replying to you here or anything.

 Oh dear, Jack. How to make the scales fall from my eyes (c'mon man, you were my Dad's favourite....!)

You document the past while acknowledging you're not, yourself, a blue collar schlub from the midwest. But why would anyone think otherwise? The son of a prosperous pharmacist, and, yourself, a graduate of The Ohio State University. Grandpappy worked on the railroads. So what? You're 84. He probably did that when Grover Cleveland was President. You were raised during the Great Prosperity post-WWII; your post does nothing to explain how that will be rediscovered, today, by the man you proclaim to be the most likely to realize it. This is fanzine stuff, not an analytical article.

I am mindful of @iacas's instruction that this is not an invitation to discuss politics, so shall demur (and comply). But there is something incredibly disingenuous about Jack's post. I always thought him a gentleman. How sad he should be in awe of someone who (to be fair, I think) wouldn't give a toss if that description should be attached to him or not.

[iacas]

7 hours ago, GolfSwami said:

A) 8400 people responded to the first poll question. 55% said Ruth would be average or worse. The correct answer is Babe Ruth would be a superstar.

This topic isn't about Babe Ruth, and Bill James assumes that Babe Ruth would have pursued the same career path: he was a pitcher, and so you never know: he may have been kept a pitcher and undergone two TJ surgeries. I have other issues with James' analysis, too (but I'll also admit I skimmed it).

I also don't really care about taking a modern athlete and giving him old gear and seeing what he could do without much if any training or anything. I think it's a really bad way of determining how generations stack up. Just like when DJ or Rory are given an old ball and a persimmon wood with no time to adjust or get used to it (months, perhaps, may be necessary).

I've laid out my argument re: Jack and Tiger many, many times. Golf, unlike a time you get in running, is played against others. You can be just as good… and Jack would be… but if your competition is better… you're not going to win as often. Jesse Owens probably always ran at about the same pace. He didn't have races where he shot 77 and races where he shot 64. Jack did. So did Jack's fellow "racers."

7 hours ago, GolfSwami said:

Humans are not evolving at nearly the rate many like to think.  Most gains are from technology, knowledge that people from any era would easily pick up (e.g the turn in swimming)  and more people are specializing in sports that match their body types.

I'll encourage you to stick to the topic, please. It's not Babe Ruth or Jesse Owens.

[saevel25]

21 hours ago, GolfSwami said:

Humans are not evolving at nearly the rate many like to think.  Most gains are from technology, knowledge that people from any era would easily pick up (e.g the turn in swimming)  and more people are specializing in sports that match their body types.

It is this and it is also there are much more people on this earth. Back with Babe Ruth played, he mostly played against American athletes. The US population is over 2x then it was in 1925. Let alone the influx of foreign players playing the US sport. 

This can be the same with Jack. He played in an era where people traveled less, tournaments needed to fill spots with club pros. For years, people would not travel to Europe to play in The Open because it cost too much. Any tournament Jack played in was against a weaker field than most of all the PGA tournaments today. If Jack played today, I might put the over/under majors at 10. I would put him closer to Phil's production than Tiger's. 

 

[Zeph]

An important reason for why it's more competitive today is that more people on earth are able to practice and spend time on any sport or activity. There are potentially talents better than Tiger out there that never picked up a golf club.