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

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by jpfiddle

mkdrep, that was a very interesting and convincing post.  I do have to question your premise when you compare the records of people beaten by Jack and Tiger.

No doubt your numbers are right: Jack faced more multiple-major winners.  But I submit that this is actually evidence that it is harder to win now than ever before.

In Jack's day, the talent pool was so much shallower, a relatively small group of elite players   tended to do most of the winning.  Jack might face 6 serious contenders, plus another dozen who had a realistic shot at getting lucky and stealing a victory.

But today, with 10 times as many candidates for each tournament slot, with huge purses attracting more and more talent, and with modern training methods, darn near anyone in the field has a chance to win.  The skill levels are that much higher, especially among the "average" players.  Above them, the top echelons are teeming with incredibly gifted pros like Luke Donald and Steve Stricker.

For this reason, it is no surpass that there are so many one-hit wonders like Zach Johnsons and Trevor Immelmans than before.  The competition is tougher.

And since its harder to win then ever, Tiger's victories ought be given even more weight -not less - when comparing them to Jack's victories.

I wouldn't give Tiger's victories any more or less weight. The factors are relative. Back in Jack's day, the guys played with steel shafts and persimmon heads.  There were no fitness trailers and there were guys in many fields could win in any week.  Consider some of the winners in the 70s such as: Miller, Irwin, Player, January, Stockton, Trevino, Watson, Green, Weiskopf, Murphy, Zoeller, Maltbie, Littler, Casper, Floyd, etc. (this is just 74 and 75 PGA Tour winners).  There was so many good players then, just as there are now.  The difference now is that everyone has fitness, coaches, modern equipment etc.  saying it was easier to win then or now makes little sense. One could say the better player comes to the top with inferior equipment or you could argue that cream rises when conditions are similar. Either case both men dominated their day.  I pick Jack from the simple fact of more majors won and all the times he was top 2.  Tiger still has the ability to beat the record.  It should be close!

[x129]

Tiger dominated ~7 billion people. Jack dominated ~3.5. Which one do you think is harder? That is a very simplistic argument but in general it is getting harder to get to the top in any field and the depth is increasing.

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

I wouldn't give Tiger's victories any more or less weight. The factors are relative. Back in Jack's day, the guys played with steel shafts and persimmon heads.  There were no fitness trailers and there were guys in many fields could win in any week.  Consider some of the winners in the 70s such as: Miller, Irwin, Player, January, Stockton, Trevino, Watson, Green, Weiskopf, Murphy, Zoeller, Maltbie, Littler, Casper, Floyd, etc. (this is just 74 and 75 PGA Tour winners).  There was so many good players then, just as there are now.  The difference now is that everyone has fitness, coaches, modern equipment etc.  saying it was easier to win then or now makes little sense. One could say the better player comes to the top with inferior equipment or you could argue that cream rises when conditions are similar. Either case both men dominated their day.  I pick Jack from the simple fact of more majors won and all the times he was top 2.  Tiger still has the ability to beat the record.  It should be close!

[Kieran123]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Tiger plays an inferior ball

How so? He has one custom made to his exact wants/needs

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Kieran123

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Tiger plays an inferior ball

How so? He has one custom made to his exact wants/needs

Settle down fanboy - it's just a common thing people have said over the years about the Jack's MacGregor and Tiger's Nike balls.

[camper6]

Tiger dominated ~7 billion people. Jack dominated ~3.5. Which one do you think is harder? That is a very simplistic argument but in general it is getting harder to get to the top in any field and the depth is increasing.

That is not simplistic.  In fact it's not even a logical argument.

Who you beat, not how many can't beat you, is the logical argument.

From your interpretation I have to be pretty good because out of the 7 billion people, how many can't golf or even have picked up a club.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by camper6

Tiger dominated ~7 billion people. Jack dominated ~3.5. Which one do you think is harder? That is a very simplistic argument but in general it is getting harder to get to the top in any field and the depth is increasing.

That is not simplistic.  In fact it's not even a logical argument.

I disagree - I think it's a legitimate, logical argument.

I'll use an analogy from auto racing:  Spec Miata is an SCCA (Sports Car Club of America) class that began around 2000. I got into it around 2003, and was able to get a couple top 10 finishes (in fields of around 60) in local races my first year. By the time I got out of it in 2008 though, the best I could do was maybe 20th or 25th. The reason is, the low cost and high availability of cars and parts made the class one of the most popular and competitive in SCCA. This brought in more drivers, and the more drivers there are, the more *fast* drivers there are.  So even though my lap times were improving, there were simply more and more drivers every year who were simply better than me, coming in and raising the average skill level.

The increase in talent happened at an accelerated rate in Spec Miata, but the principle is the same with any sport - as time goes on, the pool of people you are competing against gets larger, and the average skill level of that pool gets higher. (This is particularly true when the purses have increased, as they have with professional golf.) To me, this is a valid argument that if you are dominant in a sport today, you are most likely better than someone dominant in that sport in times past.

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by x129

Tiger dominated ~7 billion people. Jack dominated ~3.5. Which one do you think is harder? That is a very simplistic argument but in general it is getting harder to get to the top in any field and the depth is increasing.

Your argument is overly simplistic and I am not sure what the point of it is.  In the last decade the number of people that played in the US went down by 3 million people (National Golf Foundation) yet in those same years the general population increased by 27 million people (US Census Data).  If you are trying to say that more people play golf as the population increases making it harder to stand out, I would have to disagree as this is not the case in the US.  One can argue that golf is becoming a world game, however, I would have to point out that Northern Ireland, with the population of less than 2 million, has defied the odds in the last few majors. Certainly, there are emerging countries, but the masses are not in a position to access golf like in Europe or the US.

If the talent is deeper it isn't because of a population increase or even an increase in golfers which is in a state of decline in the US. It would be more of a function of golf becoming more athletic, with better equipment, instruction, nutrition, strength conditioning, coaching, etc. I still think that Jack played against some heavy duty competition and dominated just like Tiger did just a couple of years ago and most likely will do in the near future.

[camper6]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

I disagree - I think it's a legitimate, logical argument.

I'll use an analogy from auto racing:  Spec Miata is an SCCA (Sports Car Club of America) class that began around 2000. I got into it around 2003, and was able to get a couple top 10 finishes (in fields of around 60) in local races my first year. By the time I got out of it in 2008 though, the best I could do was maybe 20th or 25th. The reason is, the low cost and high availability of cars and parts made the class one of the most popular and competitive in SCCA. This brought in more drivers, and the more drivers there are, the more *fast* drivers there are.  So even though my lap times were improving, there were simply more and more drivers every year who were simply better than me, coming in and raising the average skill level.

The increase in talent happened at an accelerated rate in Spec Miata, but the principle is the same with any sport - as time goes on, the pool of people you are competing against gets larger, and the average skill level of that pool gets higher. (This is particularly true when the purses have increased, as they have with professional golf.) To me, this is a valid argument that if you are dominant in a sport today, you are most likely better than someone dominant in that sport in times past.

Yeah but.  Think of how many people can't beat you because they don't even have any kind of a car.  That was the logic applied to the argument which I questioned.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

I wouldn't give Tiger's victories any more or less weight. The factors are relative. Back in Jack's day, the guys played with steel shafts and persimmon heads.  There were no fitness trailers and there were guys in many fields could win in any week.  Consider some of the winners in the 70s such as: Miller, Irwin, Player, January, Stockton, Trevino, Watson, Green, Weiskopf, Murphy, Zoeller, Maltbie, Littler, Casper, Floyd, etc. (this is just 74 and 75 PGA Tour winners).  There was so many good players then, just as there are now.  The difference now is that everyone has fitness, coaches, modern equipment etc.  saying it was easier to win then or now makes little sense. One could say the better player comes to the top with inferior equipment or you could argue that cream rises when conditions are similar. Either case both men dominated their day.  I pick Jack from the simple fact of more majors won and all the times he was top 2.  Tiger still has the ability to beat the record.  It should be close!

Jack was never nearly as dominant in his prime as Tiger has been in his.  From 1997 through 2008 there are only a couple of years where Tiger was not clearly the best player.  You would be hard pressed to find a similar period in Jack's career where that is the case.  Jack was always among the best 3 players in any given year, but clearly the best player for the year?  Not so much.  You can pick any 5 year period out of Jack's career and I can find a 5 year period out of Tiger's career that was clearly more dominant.

And then there is Jack's own assessment of players in Jack's prime versus players at the dawn of Tiger's era in Jack's 1996 autobiography:

Whether for the above reasons or any others, the fact is that, to be able to hold onto their cards, and earn a decent living, the golfers in the middle of the pack today have had to become as good as the players at the top were when I started out thirty and more years ago, while those in the top have become the equals of superstars of my generation.

“I am often asked to comment on the causes for the ‘decline of the superstar’, as many writers have chosen to call it. To my mind there are essentially three. Although it may not be the most critical, the first is golf equipment.”

…

“As equipment has improved, but particularly the ball, more of our great old courses have become less challenging or less interesting to play, or both. Merion is perhaps the best example” …

…

“Even more unfortunate to my mind than the impact of equipment advances on our finest courses is their contribution to the homogenizing of the players. Simply put, the more forgiving the tools, the tougher it becomes for the best to rise above the rest”. …

…

“Improved equipment is, of course, not the only reason for golf’s lack of dominating performers in recent years.”

“One of the biggest changes in professional golf during my time in the game has been the physical fitness of the players. Thirty years ago, with a few exceptions like Gary Player, nobody did anything to increase his athleticism or improve his physical condition. Some guys after they had played might hit balls for awhile – most notably Ben Hogan – but the majority would just sit around and tell each other stories while having a few beers.”

“Then there is the incentive factor.”

“Except for the Masters, the biggest purse on the tour in my first year as a professional in 1962 was the Thunderbird Classic’s $100,000, with most tournaments offering between one-third and one-half that amount, to be divided between thirty-five to forty players. Win and you generally took home between $5,000 and $9,000. Finish last and you hardly made the bus fare to the next event – usually well under $100.”

“Thirty-four years later, in 1996, the average purse on tour was $1,400,000, with highs of $3,000,000 (Players and Tour Championship).” …

“In evaluating these numbers, consider if you will how many more contenders your business would have attracted, and how much more competitive it would have become, given comparably huge increases in financial incentive over the same time span. By then imagining how much harder it would have become for you to remain a market dominator, you will get a sense what it takes to become a dominating golf champion as we approach the second millennium.”

“Whether for the above reasons or any others, the fact is that, to be able to hold onto their cards, and earn a decent living, the golfers in the middle of the pack today have had to become as good as the players at the top were when I started out thirty and more years ago, while those in the top have become the equals of superstars of my generation.”

This was Jack's opinion before Tiger started to threaten his records.  I think Jack knew what he was talking about.

[camper6]

This was Jack's opinion before Tiger started to threaten his records.  I think Jack knew what he was talking about.

We know that. But the topic here is which dominant player in comparison was better.

Jack or Tiger?

[jpfiddle]

to bwdial: that's a good point, but:

How would the early 60's Greenbay Packers cope with the 49ers of the 80's or the Cowboys of the 90's?

In golf as in football, performances tend to get better over the decades.  This is due to advancements in technique and training, plus a deepening of the talent pool.

How might Jack have performed had he been born in 1975?  He was a natural athlete, so he would have benefitted greatly from improved fitness and teaching methods.  He would have been less likely to take up smoking, as well.  Suppose, also, that he had been raised as a prodigy - like Tiger or Rory.

He would have been great, and he would have knocked the ball a mile.  But would he have had the numbers he did in real life against the relatively shallow fields of the 60's and 70's?

[Kieran123]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Settle down fanboy - it's just a common thing people have said over the years about the Jack's MacGregor and Tiger's Nike balls.

Errr....I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic - liking Nike golf has nothing to do with bring a fanboy of Tiger.

Or are they now one and the same?

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Kieran123

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Settle down fanboy - it's just a common thing people have said over the years about the Jack's MacGregor and Tiger's Nike balls.

Errr....I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic - liking Nike golf has nothing to do with bring a fanboy of Tiger.

Or are they now one and the same?

I thought this was thinly veiled sarcasm week.

I'm not gonna debate whether it's possible to be a Tiger fanboy and not be enamored with Nike equipment, because I was referring to your mancrush on Lucas Glover (yes - more sarcasm).

[Kieran123]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I thought this was thinly veiled sarcasm week.

I'm not gonna debate whether it's possible to be a Tiger fanboy and not be enamored with Nike equipment, because I was referring to your mancrush on Lucas Glover (yes - more sarcasm).

But, his beard.....it's lush

I would assume someone with a TW hat, shirt, TW blades and VR Pro driver would probably be a fan of Tiger

But someone playing Slingshots/Ignites with a Machspeed black and a plain Nike 20xi hat may not be.

I like Adidas - but I don't love DJ or Laird

My favourite golfer is probably K.J Choi, but I don't own any of the equipment he does ( actually...he uses Adams Hybrids - I have an Adams Wedge )

But yes, Tiger is a different story - and because of who he is people associate themselves with what he does.

[x129]

Yes most of those 7 billion don't have a chance but the same logic applied to the 3.5 billion that Jack competed against. Heck I wouldn't be surprised if half of Europe wasn't back in the golf swing yet as the recovery from WWII was underway when Jack was a kid. I would guess the barriers of entry have been dropping but I don't have a ton of proof.

Someone mentioned that the number of golfers have declined. The quick stats I have is in 1985 (20+ years after jack started) there were 20 million in the US. They peaked in 2005 at 30 million and are back down to about 25 million. That is still a 20% increase from 1985. Factor in 20+ years of growth (in a large part inspired by Jack and Arnold) and you will see how much harder it is.  It should be mentioned though that these numbers are not the ones that really matter. A 40 year old picking up golf doesn't add depth. A 12 year old picking up golf does. Unfortunately I haven't seen numbers for junior participation but my impression is that it is a lot higher now.

All this is before factoring in things like teaching (some people learn better with video while for others it hardly matters.) and the incentive (making 75k a year is good making 1 million+ is a lot more motivating) changing the rules.

Jack might still be better than Tiger but to win now is much tougher than it was in 1965.

Originally Posted by camper6

Yeah but.  Think of how many people can't beat you because they don't even have any kind of a car.  That was the logic applied to the argument which I questioned.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by x129

Yes most of those 7 billion don't have a chance but the same logic applied to the 3.5 billion that Jack competed against. Heck I wouldn't be surprised if half of Europe wasn't back in the golf swing yet as the recovery from WWII was underway when Jack was a kid. I would guess the barriers of entry have been dropping but I don't have a ton of proof.

Someone mentioned that the number of golfers have declined. The quick stats I have is in 1985 (20+ years after jack started) there were 20 million in the US. They peaked in 2005 at 30 million and are back down to about 25 million. That is still a 20% increase from 1985. Factor in 20+ years of growth (in a large part inspired by Jack and Arnold) and you will see how much harder it is.  It should be mentioned though that these numbers are not the ones that really matter. A 40 year old picking up golf doesn't add depth. A 12 year old picking up golf does. Unfortunately I haven't seen numbers for junior participation but my impression is that it is a lot higher now.

All this is before factoring in things like teaching (some people learn better with video while for others it hardly matters.) and the incentive (making 75k a year is good making 1 million+ is a lot more motivating) changing the rules.

Jack might still be better than Tiger but to win now is much tougher than it was in 1965.

Quote:

Originally Posted by camper6

Yeah but.  Think of how many people can't beat you because they don't even have any kind of a car.  That was the logic applied to the argument which I questioned.

Didn't someone hold an event (or conduct a study?) where current players used vintage equipment (top to bottom) on old school courses? If not, why not? The irons wouldn't make much difference to someone used to blades, but the ball and the woods sure might. Not saying it would either end or fuel this debate, but I'd watch that.

[x129]

Thats a much different question (i.e. more like how would 1965 jack compete do against 2011 Donald if they played the same equipment.). I am guessing some of it will depend on how far back you go.   Are we talking 1750,1850, or 1950 as the vintage equipment? I would also guess you couldn't get any of the top players to do it. Too much chance of messing up your swing if you went back to something like a hickory shaft and they would all need to take a couple of weeks to adapt to it.

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Didn't someone hold an event (or conduct a study?) where current players used vintage equipment (top to bottom) on old school courses? If not, why not? The irons wouldn't make much difference to someone used to blades, but the ball and the woods sure might. Not saying it would either end or fuel this debate, but I'd watch that.

[BigBird]

Tough question. 5 years ago it looked like Tiger was going to take this one with his eyes closed, but now I'm not so sure.

I remember years ago, Jack once saying he would be interested to see how Tiger did once he had wife and family. We all know what happened.