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

[klineka]

8 hours ago, csh19792001 said:

Please let me know what to query.

Im new here and I’m learning.

You joined over 3 years ago and you've made 40+ comments. 

I think you can figure out how to use the search function. Or at the very least read the FAQ section.

[turtleback]

36 minutes ago, iacas said:

Oh, and look at that: he copied and pasted the post of someone else. At least a year ago he gave credit and linked to the original post. This time around he just posted it as if it was his own thoughts.

We don't do that here. I've replaced your original post in this topic with a link to that other post.

Seems like a little disingenuity going on with him  To what end I don't know.

[snapfade]

2 hours ago, Vinsk said:

Yeah. It’s because of the equipment:

Jack looks like he just came from a buffet. Plus, I think the hat has to have something to do with it. WTF is on Jacks head? Oh, BTW, that's @boogielicious two-tone Chrysler back there. 

[boogielicious]

9 hours ago, snapfade said:

Oh, BTW, that's @boogielicious two-tone Chrysler back there. 

And it matches my Sea Foam Green Stratocaster!

Players are better trained and educated on their game nowadays than in previous eras.

[jolter1]

Going ot use the words of Jack and Tiger, majors determine greatness and Jack has 18 major wins with 19 runnerups. Therefore Jack.

[saevel25]

14 minutes ago, jolter1 said:

Going ot use the words of Jack and Tiger, majors determine greatness and Jack has 18 major wins with 19 runnerups. Therefore Jack.

Go back to page 1 and read the thread. This has been debunked. Jack and Tiger do not get to decide this discussion. 

[klineka]

30 minutes ago, jolter1 said:

Going ot use the words of Jack and Tiger, majors determine greatness and Jack has 18 major wins with 19 runnerups. Therefore Jack.

[boogielicious]

1 hour ago, jolter1 said:

Going ot use the words of Jack and Tiger, majors determine greatness and Jack has 18 major wins with 19 runnerups. Therefore Jack.

TIGER! And its not even close.

[Vinsk]

3 hours ago, jolter1 said:

Going ot use the words of Jack and Tiger, majors determine greatness and Jack has 18 major wins with 19 runnerups. Therefore Jack.

Jack originally stated that ‘most wins’ was the criteria for GOAT. Once he realized he wasn’t gonna be able to beat Sam Snead’s number, he moved the goal posts to better fit his portfolio. What may I ask are your thoughts on this statement by Jack?

[turtleback]

5 hours ago, jolter1 said:

Going ot use the words of Jack and Tiger, majors determine greatness and Jack has 18 major wins with 19 runnerups. Therefore Jack.

Wow, if only someone had made that point at the start of this thread we wouldn't have had to have over 7,000 posts.

[iacas]

7 hours ago, jolter1 said:

Going ot use the words of Jack and Tiger, majors determine greatness and Jack has 18 major wins with 19 runnerups. Therefore Jack.

I'll pass.

[Moxley]

AI has weighted in on the issue: 

Quote

if you had to pick, make a binary choice, who is the GOAT golfer, Tiger or Jack?

 

Quote

If forced to pick between Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus for the title of greatest golfer of all time (GOAT), I’d lean towards Jack Nicklaus by a small margin. Here's why:

• Major Championships: Nicklaus holds 18 major titles compared to Woods' 15. The significance of majors in defining a golfer's legacy is immense, and Nicklaus’ lead here is a strong point in his favor.

• Longevity and Consistency: Nicklaus competed at an elite level for a longer period, regularly contending in majors into his 40s and even 50s. His ability to remain competitive across decades adds weight to his claim for GOAT status.

That said, there are compelling arguments for Tiger Woods:

• Peak Dominance: Woods' peak, particularly in the early 2000s, was perhaps the most dominant run in golf history. His ability to crush fields and win tournaments by wide margins is unmatched.

• Global Impact: Woods revolutionized the sport, making it more accessible and popular worldwide. His influence on the game, in terms of visibility, athleticism, and earnings for players, is unparalleled.

Ultimately, it comes down to major wins and longevity versus peak dominance and cultural impact. But if we’re sticking to pure golf achievements, Nicklaus slightly edges it out.

 

[Vinsk]

@Moxley That’s why it’s called artificial intelligence.

[klineka]

2 hours ago, Moxley said:

AI has weighted in on the issue: 

Maybe I should write a model that automatically spits out "Tiger is the GOAT" no matter what the prompt is.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Moxley said:

AI has weighted in on the issue:

AI isn't that smart:

[saevel25]

AI is created by humans which can be pretty stupid. Human's notion that AI will immediately be smarter or wiser than humans is just another idiotic thought. Not saying it won't get there, but the initial hyperbole of AI is typical. 

[Golfnutgalen]

I've done a lot of number crunching over the years.

This is pretty astonishing. Up until the end of 2009 Tiger played in 253 PGA Tour events. That is including all starts as an amateur. He won 71 of them or 28%. 

Do you want to guess how many events it took Jack or even Sam Snead to win title #71? It took Jack 425 (16% rate) and Snead 381 (19%). Jack was 42 by then, Snead I think 43. Those of course are the only players to ever win 65 or more tour events. That was not a typo, it took Jack 172 more tries and about 9 more years to reach Tiger's figure.

People don't realize how insane Tiger's win percentage was. 

If Scottie Scheffler can have 5 more consecutive seasons like this year it would put his career rate at 23%. And Scottie just had the best non-tiger season in modern history. 

[Golfnutgalen]

And those numbers by the way included the Olympics as an official victory which it currently is not. Using the official numbers his rate would be 21% which is below Tiger's lifetime figure.

Sheer insanity.