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

[GolfSwami]

14 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

And that gap between Tiger’s total wins against Jack’s is massive. And aside from your obsession with majors, Tiger’s accomplishments are massive compared to Jack’s. And stop using other sports as an example. This is golf. Have you not looked at the lists of Tiger vs Jack accomplishments and records? It’s comical to look at both of them and derive that Jack is the GOAT.

Majors are the primary yardstick that most people use.  No one cares about winning some 30 person tour championship or some defunct tournament with 50 people. Those are exhibitions.

I use other sports to show that I have a coherent thought process because this debate seems fraught with emotion because of the names. Jack and Tiger are just nouns to me. I have no emotional attachment to either one. The thought process would be no different in evaluating Jeongeun Kim5 or Jeongeun Kim6.

 

Quote

You acknowledge the weak fields Jack played in then turn around and state how amazing his major records are. That makes no sense at all.

It is not hard to comprehend.  I even gave you a helpful example of Clemson football so that you would understand.  If you can't understand that, life is going to be too much for you.  

Charlie Munger Quote: “Without numerical fluency, in the part of life most of us inhibit, you are like a one-legged man in an ass-kicking conte...”

---

“Without numerical fluency, in the part of life most of us inhibit, you are like a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest.” — Charlie Munger quotes from QuoteFancy.com

 

Edited May 11 by GolfSwami

[iacas]

4 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

I don't agree with them, but people can and do argue about Jack being the GOAT. I don't believe anyone can argue that Tiger isn't the BOAT though. Not in good faith.

Best and Greatest are synonyms IMO.

1 hour ago, GolfSwami said:

But does that make Tiger the greatest?

Yep.

1 hour ago, GolfSwami said:

But does that make Tiger the greatest? To you maybe. Not to those of us who combine dominance with longevity.

Longevity is a stupid way to determine something like this.

If someone took 30 years to amass a certain record, and someone else accomplished the same thing or more in ten years, the second player is better.

Golf wasn't nearly as athletic, as taxing, or as well paid, when Jack played. Careers were longer. It's becoming more explosive, with shorter careers. Guys hit more balls now, train harder now, etc.

1 hour ago, GolfSwami said:

He made 14 Pro Bowls and was All Pro 10 times. Gronk was only 5 and 4 on those stats.

Dude, 14/10 vs. 5/4 is not remotely the same as 18/72 vs. 15/82.

1 hour ago, GolfSwami said:

Jack's total output, particularly in majors, is lightyears beyond Tiger.

It requires context. Jack was playing against club pros.

1 hour ago, GolfSwami said:

They aren't close even when you adjust for field strength.

I agree - Tiger blows Jack's record out of the water when you adjust for field strength. 😉 

1 hour ago, GolfSwami said:

If Tiger started his career in 1960, the odds are 0.0000% he would have Jack's overall record in the majors if his career trajectory were the same.

We agree again: Tiger might have won 30 majors.

1 hour ago, GolfSwami said:

Tiger would not get to 50 top 10s in majors let alone 73 based on how his career played out.

🤣

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

No, dude.

1 hour ago, GolfSwami said:

But saying Tiger has the better major record because fields were weaker is clearly wrong.

No, it's not "wrong" and the fields were significantly shallower and weaker when Jack played.

Pretend Jack amassed his record against ten-year-olds. How impressive would that be?

There's context. Jack amassed his record against significantly weaker/shallower competition.

This has all been discussed a hundred times.

1 hour ago, GolfSwami said:

Jack's strokes gained in the majors are so far ahead

As it would be if he played against ten-year-olds.

Compare Tiger's SG in the PGA Championships against only the club pros and let me know how that shakes out. Strokes gained is against the competition at the time.

1 hour ago, GolfSwami said:

Jack has 37 top 2s in majors.

Competition.

1 hour ago, GolfSwami said:

There were no shortage of guys in the 70s who would be top players in the late 90s

Jack strongly disagrees with you, and you're casually leaving off the 2000s, too.

1 hour ago, GolfSwami said:

And the simple way to know this is those guys from the 70s were often still relevant playing against Tiger. 

No, they weren't. Once in a great while they popped up, but no, they weren't.

---

Given all of the conversation that's been had in this topic, this ranks as one of the dumbest posts ever in this topic. If it was made in the first ten pages, cool. But, no. You made it on page 390-something.

---

14 minutes ago, GolfSwami said:

Majors are the primary yardstick that most people use. No one cares about winning some 30 person tour championship or some defunct tournament with 50 people. Those are exhibitions.

Try this on for size: every one of Tiger's 82 PGA Tour wins faced stronger/deeper fields than any of Jack's major victories.

I also don't really care about top-tens in majors.

15 x > 18 y, where x and y are the respective strength/depth of field.

14 minutes ago, GolfSwami said:

I use other sports to show that I have a coherent thought process

It may be coherent, but so is someone saying 2 + 2 = 7 or someone trying to explain chemtrails. You can understand what they're trying to say, but it can still be a bad, lousy argument.

14 minutes ago, GolfSwami said:

 I have no emotional attachment to either one.

This implies that I do. I do not. I've made the mathematical argument throughout.

You're literally counting things with little to no regard for the freaking competition.

Guess what: NHL scoring went down when goalies got more pads and learned to take away more parts of the net by learning to go butterfly, etc. The competition changed, and so scoring records aren't the same now as when Wayne Gretzky played most of his hockey.

Because the competition is different now.

14 minutes ago, GolfSwami said:

It is not hard to comprehend.

Neither is someone trying to say that 2 + 2 = 7 or that the earth is flat. I can comprehend what they're saying, but they're still a wacko.

14 minutes ago, GolfSwami said:

It is not hard to comprehend.  I even gave you a helpful example of Clemson football so that you would understand.  If you can't understand that, life is going to be too much for you.

Dude.

[Vinsk]

@GolfSwami When you choose to completely ignore the facts and mathematics of Tiger’s dominance over Jack, I find it hard to believe you have no emotional tie to this. SOF HAS to be factored. Hell, you’re so fond of using other sports….SOS is a huge determinant in the NCAA Football playoffs. Gee, why wasn’t UCF the number one team when they went 13-0? That’s crazy right!?😜

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

@GolfSwami When you choose to completely ignore the facts and mathematics of Tiger’s dominance over Jack, I find it hard to believe you have no emotional tie to this. SOF HAS to be factored. Hell, you’re so fond of using other sports….SOS is a huge determinant in the NCAA Football playoffs. Gee, why wasn’t UCF the number one team when they went 13-0? That’s crazy right!?😜

Poppycock! It was just as difficult to score goals in this video as it is now:

It was just as difficult to finish T5 in a major in 1966 as it is in 2006, too.

Those ten-year-olds, errrr, club pros and part-time "tour" players were every bit as good as the guys who, today, have been playing high level golf since they were children.

[Vinsk]

Lemieux would’ve had his ass handed to him out there! He’d be lucky to even score 5 goals a season back then!

[GolfSwami]

9 minutes ago, iacas said:

Pretend Jack amassed his record against ten-year-olds. How impressive would that be?

 

Jack strongly disagrees with you, and you're casually leaving off the 2000s, too.

 

 

You're literally counting things with little to no regard for the freaking competition.

 

1. Hale Irwin. Don't need to go through numerous other examples. https://vault.si.com/vault/1995/02/06/hale-and-hearty

2.I don't care what former athletes say, I don't care what Jack says on any topic.   But as a matter of record. Jack has never said the top guys he played with in the 70s would struggle in the 90s.  He in fact said the opposite. He said the guys Tiger faced at the top were weaker an after some hurt feelings with Ernie Els took it back.  He's even said Bobby Jones would do well.  It doesn't make him right but it what he said.

3. I am factoring in competition. 

 

The odds Tiger would have 37 top 2s over the same span are zero. The odds he would have had 30 top 2s over the same time are not good.  You can make the emojis and insults you want. It is your site. But the odds are zero. And not zero as in it is an opinion or there is some uncertainty. It is zero as in it is an impossibility for him to have 37 top 2s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[iacas]

22 minutes ago, GolfSwami said:

1. Hale Irwin. Don't need to go through numerous other examples. https://vault.si.com/vault/1995/02/06/hale-and-hearty

Uhmmm, what about Hale Irwin?

22 minutes ago, GolfSwami said:

2.I don't care what former athletes say, I don't care what Jack says on any topic. But as a matter of record. Jack has never said the top guys he played with in the 70s would struggle in the 90s.  He in fact said the opposite. He said the guys Tiger faced at the top were weaker an after some hurt feelings with Ernie Els took it back.

No, he definitely didn't say that. You don't even have to scroll back very far to see how wrong you are here.

22 minutes ago, GolfSwami said:

3. I am factoring in competition. 

No, you are not.

22 minutes ago, GolfSwami said:

You can make the emojis and insults you want. It is your site. But the odds are zero. And not zero as in it is an opinion or there is some uncertainty. It is zero as in it is an impossibility for him to have 37 top 2s.

It's not zero. And the only insult here lately was yours:

1 hour ago, GolfSwami said:

It is not hard to comprehend.  I even gave you a helpful example of Clemson football so that you would understand.  If you can't understand that, life is going to be too much for you.

Take a break, pal.

---

Since you like sports comparisons…

The best QB from a town of 50 people… is quite likely worse than the third-string QB from a city of 5,000,000 people.

[Phil McGleno]

@GolfSwami-If Jack played against 10yo kids as the other 140+ players in the field how many majors would he have won?-How many top tens would he have?

You are missing the point-Despite others pointing you in the right direction several times.

I played many PGA Tour events-A guy who cannot quite make it on the Korn Ferry Tour today is wayway way better than I ever was.

Jack was great, but Tiger is miles better-You keep making statements with certainty but you have no certainty and you are ignoring the facts to arrive at your conclusions.

[Vinsk]

@GolfSwami is making the same error of those who simply look at Snead’s total wins vs Tiger’s. You HAVE to acknowledge the criteria is grossly favored for Snead. If you apply the same criteria for Tiger ( which FFS is only fair) then Tiger has over 100 wins. 
Instead, people just say, ‘ well that’s just the way it is.’ That’s nonsense. Same with saying Nicklaus won more majors and has more top tens. Yeah, but he was playing in profoundly weaker fields. Oh..well…so what ? Jack has more! WTF? 

[GolfSwami]

2 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

@GolfSwami-If Jack played against 10yo kids as the other 140+ players in the field how many majors would he have won?-How many top tens would he have?

You are missing the point-Despite others pointing you in the right direction several times.

I played many PGA Tour events-A guy who cannot quite make it on the Korn Ferry Tour today is wayway way better than I ever was.

Jack was great, but Tiger is miles better-You keep making statements with certainty but you have no certainty and you are ignoring the facts to arrive at your conclusions.

Jack didn't face 10 year olds. Tom Watson was runner up at the 2009 British Open. He did however face weaker competition overall. 

I am not missing any point. I have read your thread.

I never said Jack was better. Tiger was better at his peak.  Jack has a better record even adjusted for field strength.

What you are missing is Jack was consistently better for approximately a decade longer.  You are completely ignoring the horrible stretch Tiger had.  The attached images are not because of field strength. 

7 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

@GolfSwami is making the same error of those who simply look at Snead’s total wins vs Tiger’s. You HAVE to acknowledge the criteria is grossly favored for Snead. If you apply the same criteria for Tiger ( which FFS is only fair) then Tiger has over 100 wins. 
Instead, people just say, ‘ well that’s just the way it is.’ That’s nonsense. Same with saying Nicklaus won more majors and has more top tens. Yeah, but he was playing in profoundly weaker fields. Oh..well…so what ? Jack has more! WTF? 

My reasoning is nothing like that and I have given you no reason to think that.

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, GolfSwami said:

Jack didn't face 10 year olds.

Not literally. But yes, he did.

6 minutes ago, GolfSwami said:

He did however face weaker competition overall. 

Much weaker, yes, which greatly inflated his record.

12 minutes ago, GolfSwami said:

I am not missing any point. I have read your thread.

No, you still are.

24 minutes ago, GolfSwami said:

What you are missing is Jack was consistently better for approximately a decade longer. 

I’m not missing it. I just don’t value achieving a worse record over a longer period of time.

[phillyk]

1 hour ago, GolfSwami said:

 It is zero as in it is an impossibility for him to have 37 top 2s.

Why do we care about 2nd place?! He LOST!!! You win or lose. Tiger’s accomplishments are of him being the best and winning. All anyone can come up with for Jack are majors and losing but “close.” 

[saevel25]

3 hours ago, GolfSwami said:

What you are missing is Jack was consistently better for approximately a decade longer.  You are completely ignoring the horrible stretch Tiger had.  The attached images are not because of field strength. 

What are you talking about, logevity. Jack had one magical tournament in 1986. Outside of that, he pretty much non-existent after 1982. 

When you consider that the PGA Tour career length, and how most PGA Tour golfers don't have a window at all, and the best golfers have a maybe 3 year window if they are lucky. Tiger had a stellar 18 year career. Of which, he had multiple win seasons 14x, and was the #1 golfer for most all of it. 

Guess what Jack had about an 18 year relevant career if you take out the 1986 masters. Of which he 1 year he didn't have multiple wins.

So, if they were basically equivalent in career length, Tiger has slightly less majors, and more PGA Tour wins. If you take Jack's 18 seasons versus Tiger's, and rank them 1 thru 36. Tiger would dominate the top half. Especially if you look at strength of competition. 

This longevity argument is mute. Jack didn't have any significantly longer career than Tiger. 

[GolfSwami]

5 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

What are you talking about, logevity. Jack had one magical tournament in 1986. Outside of that, he pretty much non-existent after 1982. 

 

This longevity argument is mute. Jack didn't have any significantly longer career than Tiger. 

Moot not mute. 

Jack had a significantly longer career. It is gaslighting and nuts to say otherwise.  I am not even going to try to refute with an avalanche of data because it would be giving sanction to a beyond silly view.

[Zeph]

This is a discussion of facts vs feelings. Those kind of discussions have a tendency to never end, as the 7088 posts so far in this topic is a good indication of.

Edited May 11 by Zeph

[saevel25]

19 minutes ago, GolfSwami said:

Moot not mute. 

thank you!

19 minutes ago, GolfSwami said:

Jack had a significantly longer career. It is gaslighting and nuts to say otherwise.  I am not even going to try to refute with an avalanche of data because it would be giving sanction to a beyond silly view.

People think Jack had a long career because he "ATTEMPTED" golf in the 90's. He wasn't a significant player after 1986. I am giving you 1986. 

Here is a graph, overlaying the start of Tiger's Career with Jack's. Showing cumulative wins. You can see the curves are identical, yet Tiger has more wins. Even the little bump at the end were Tiger got his last major and last few wins. Very similar to Jack's career. Both Tiger and Jack won about 3 tournaments after year 22 in their careers. 

Since this is by years played, their careers length, are identical. If you want to say, "Oh Jack played in the 1990's!" Sure, go ahead. It is more gaslighting on your part if you think that actually means something. Guess what, after 1986, Jack never won again, never had a 2nd place finish ever again. Never cracked the top 100 in money list ever again. Never average under 71 scoring average ever again. Those years statistically MEAN NOTHING to his career. 

Again, Tiger's career was not short, it was a LONG career. It matched Jack's in longevity as the graphs shows it. Let's all get off the romanticizing the past argument here and look at the facts. 

Edited May 11 by saevel25

[iacas]

21 minutes ago, GolfSwami said:

Moot not mute. 

Jack had a significantly longer career. It is gaslighting and nuts to say otherwise.  I am not even going to try to refute with an avalanche of data because it would be giving sanction to a beyond silly view.

In addition to what Matt just shared, again I will point out that it is pretty silly to credit a player that built a less impressive career over a longer time span.

[GolfSwami]

31 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

 

Again, Tiger's career was not short, it was a LONG career. It matched Jack's in longevity as the graphs shows it. Let's all get off the romanticizing the past argument here and look at the facts. 

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

Outside of that, he pretty much non-existent after 1982. 

I am killing brain cells by thinking about this and responding but I looked up the data out of curiosity.

Jack was third in True Strokes Gained in 1983 and 1st in the world  in 1984. I would say that qualifies as existence.  Jack did have a big drop off after age 44. But Tiger had a big drop after age 32 with a sporadic handful of good years after that time. Jack was in the McCormack top 10 to age 44. Tiger was ranked like 1400th in the world in his mid 30s.

The chart you put up is a chart of nothing. Tiger has more wins. No one is debating that.   There is a big difference between not winning on tour and not making cuts in majors and not winning but finishing second in majors.

Edited May 11 by GolfSwami