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

[x129]

70 year old guys obviously can't understand how great todays golfers are. And under 35 year olds can't tell you how great Jack was. Only us 35-45 year olds can properly judge this.  It is amazing on how I am always most qualified to give the best opinion on anything.

I can also nick pick Jacks game. Look at the lack of flexibility which required him to lift his front leg and the poor short game ability that cost him several majors in the 60s and 70s. Heck I think it is Player that credits 3 of his major to Jacks poor wedge play.  But you would have to be insane not to be impressed by both of them. Of course I might just be easily impressed. As far as Tigers injuries, almost all of them are not golf related (golf aggravated a couple but most of the time he went in with a pre existing condition) and Jack's swing caused him to get his hip replaced.

As far as putting, I would take either of them. Yes Jack made a ton of big putts. Be he also  missed a bunch (look a couple posts back for him for examples). Tiger is in the same boat. He made an insane amount of clutch putts over 10+ years. You were always surprised when either of them missed a 6 footer when it counted.

Right now in my mind Tiger is better. At the same age he has more wins and the about the amount of majors as Jack.  If in 6 or 7 years, Tiger hasn't done anything else I will reconsider it. As far as after he retires, guys like Ben Hogan didn't get along great with the media and did ok in retirement. A lot will be up to tiger. Does he want to play senior tour events and be a public figure or does he want to fade away.

Originally Posted by camper6

I think people relate to golfers who played in the same era as their favorite golfer.

Golfers who watched both Tiger and Jack can make comparisons.

Frankly I was not impressed with Tiger.

He comes out of his shoes to hit the ball and that might account for his injuries.

Jack on the other hand had a more controlled swing.

And when it comes to clutch putting.  Who do you think is the better putter?

I do admire Tiger for one thing.  Anyone who can stay out all night partying and still dominate the opposition has to be good.

[brocks]

In other words, Casper had more wins than any of them, more wins than Palmer and Player combined, the same number of money titles as all three combined, more Vardons than all three combined, and more POYs than all three combined, even including Jack's self-awarded Vardons, and even not counting a POY that Casper deserved, but was cheated out of by PGA petty politics. And yet, he wasn't in the "Big Three." How's that for fair and balanced coverage?

Geez, I somehow forgot to put the cherry on top, namely Casper making up seven shots the last nine holes, to beat Arnie at the 1966 US Open. Surely the most dramatic win of that period, and in the running for all-time.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

But in the end it still comes down to the numbers. Jack has 4 more major wins than Tiger. So to supplant Tiger ahead of Jack takes either an overvaluation of what Tiger did (which is defendable) or a devaluation of what Jack did (which is reprehensible). If you think it's Tiger, you should be able to make your point without discounting what Jack did.

And in the spirit of disclosure, I am 53 & grew up in Ohio. So yes, I saw Jack play & am a 'Jack Man'. I named my son after him (Nicholas - different spelling). But that doesn't mean I will discount what Tiger has done. I've said it many times before - if Tiger gets to 19, he's GOAT. Until then, he's the player with the most dominant streak of professional golf, 14 majors in 12 years. Which places him 2nd on the list of GOAT.

Thank you or perfectly illustrating the mind-set that eschews critical thinking and looking at the whole career in favor of elevating one statistic over anything else.  And yet I will BET that you never considered Walter Hagen to be the GOAT when Jack only had 10 majors.

Originally Posted by brocks

Geez, I somehow forgot to put the cherry on top, namely Casper making up seven shots the last nine holes, to beat Arnie at the 1966 US Open. Surely the most dramatic win of that period, and in the running for all-time.

NO, that cannot have happened.  Everyone KNOWS that the guys in Jack's era were battle hardened players who never blew leads and who would fight you tooth and nail right down to the end.   LOL.  And yet Jack himself said that he won a lot of majors by just playing steady and letting everyone around him self-destruct.  Does that sound like the uber-competition that the "Jack had tougher competition: folks like to claim?

[brocks]

Thank you or perfectly illustrating the mind-set that eschews critical thinking and looking at the whole career in favor of elevating one statistic over anything else.  And yet I will BET that you never considered Walter Hagen to be the GOAT when Jack only had 10 majors.

Heck, lots of guys who think majors are everything don't even rank Hagen above Hogan or Watson, even though he only had one major a year to play during some of his best years, and zero during others. He got top tens, including two US Open wins, in all six majors he could play the first seven years of his career.

[Moonnerd]

To me, its not that 18>14, but Jack held it together for decades.  I love watching Tiger and hope he can win a few more majors and be the dominating factor he once was.  If he does then I will seriously reconsider, even if he doesn't reach 18.  But for now I think Jack is still the greatest.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by brocks

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

Thank you or perfectly illustrating the mind-set that eschews critical thinking and looking at the whole career in favor of elevating one statistic over anything else.  And yet I will BET that you never considered Walter Hagen to be the GOAT when Jack only had 10 majors.

Heck, lots of guys who think majors are everything don't even rank Hagen above Hogan or Watson, even though he only had one major a year to play during some of his best years, and zero during others. He got top tens, including two US Open wins, in all six majors he could play the first seven years of his career.

Speaking of thin fields.

[brocks]

Speaking of thin fields.

Not as thin as Jones faced in his amateur events, and he's invariably ranked over Hagen, and often in the top two or three of all time. But your point is well taken. Golfers got steadily better from the 1700's to the 1970's, peaked about 1975, and have been declining ever since. Some people say that golf is unique because the players police themselves, but what really sets golf apart is that it is the only sport where the players have gotten worse over the last 40 years, in spite of all the advances in training, coaching, and equipment.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by brocks

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Speaking of thin fields.

Not as thin as Jones faced in his amateur events, and he's invariably ranked over Hagen, and often in the top two or three of all time. But your point is well taken. Golfers got steadily better from the 1700's to the 1970's, peaked about 1975, and have been declining ever since.

Some people say that golf is unique because the players police themselves, but what really sets golf apart is that it is the only sport where the players have gotten worse over the last 40 years, in spite of all the advances in training, coaching, and equipment.

You're welcome.

[VOX]

Originally Posted by brocks

Not as thin as Jones faced in his amateur events, and he's invariably ranked over Hagen, and often in the top two or three of all time. But your point is well taken. Golfers got steadily better from the 1700's to the 1970's, peaked about 1975, and have been declining ever since.

Some people say that golf is unique because the players police themselves, but what really sets golf apart is that it is the only sport where the players have gotten worse over the last 40 years, in spite of all the advances in training, coaching, and equipment.

Jones is lauded because he was a true amateur sportsman who held down a real job and still played championship golf vs the paid entertainers who played for pay. The most exclusive clubs still do not allow professional golfers ("paid entertainers") become regular members.

[brocks]

Jones is lauded because he was a true amateur sportsman who held down a real job and still played championship golf vs the paid entertainers who played for pay.

He wasn't as pure an amateur as you seem to think, and he didn't exactly slog away in a coal mine. In 1927, at the age of 25, Jones was still a perpetual student, with stints at GTech, Harvard, and Emory. He'd never had a real job (he would soon join his father's law firm), and he and his wife lived with his wealthy parents. After he won the 1927 British Open and US Amateur, the fat cats of Atlanta decided that a player of his caliber should have his own house, so they presented him with a brand new $50,000 house, which in those days was a lot of dough. For comparison, the richest tournament in the history of golf up to that point was the 1927 Southern Open, which had a total purse of $12,000. Jones had recently been named to the executive committee of the USGA with the support of his pal, USGA secretary Prescott Bush (it is no coincidence that several of Prescott's descendants have Walker, as in "Walker Trophy," as a middle name), and the committee members took care of each other. He was already allowed to write a paid golf column as an amateur, which would not be allowed today, and his pals on the board approved the gift of the house, too. But when word got out, it didn't pass the smell test with the press and public, so Jones publicly announced that he was refusing the gift. Privately, his grandfather "loaned" Jones the $50K so he could move into the house anyway. The mortgage terms called for the loan to be repaid at the rate of one dollar per year. Details in Curt Sampson's book, "The Slam."

[newtogolf]

The point I was making in the analogy of baseball using Games Won as the measuring stick to determine the GOAT pitcher is that the current game has evolved and it's very unlikely there will be another 300 game winner again.   Currently we're using Majors won to measure golfs GOAT but Jack set this record during a time when even he admits the competition wasn't as high as it is today, especially outside the United States.  If the competition continues to increase it becomes highly unlikely for someone to break Jack's record, especially if Tiger doesn't before he retires.

Is the measuring stick we're using (Majors won) the best test of greatness or like "Games Won" by a pitcher will it face reduced importance in evaluating greatness going forward because of the changes we're seeing today occurring in professional golf?

Originally Posted by zipazoid

But in the end it still comes down to the numbers. Jack has 4 more major wins than Tiger. So to supplant Tiger ahead of Jack takes either an overvaluation of what Tiger did (which is defendable) or a devaluation of what Jack did (which is reprehensible). If you think it's Tiger, you should be able to make your point without discounting what Jack did.

[zipazoid]

Quote:

Thank you or perfectly illustrating the mind-set that eschews critical thinking and looking at the whole career in favor of elevating one statistic over anything else.  And yet I will BET that you never considered Walter Hagen to be the GOAT when Jack only had 10 majors.

And thank you for ignoring the part of my post where I utilized the 'critical thinking' you crave and went straight to my conclusion to criticize.

I would suggest you apply your own test - critical thinking - and see my whole reasoning & not just disagree with the conclusion I reached. It's not a 'mind-set' - it was a well thought out and reasoned argument. But of course, you missed all that.

But to play along, who cares what the order was when Jack had 10? He finished with 18. I am well aware Hagen had 11. Five of them PGA Championships when it was played at match play. So I would say that Hagen was (arguably of course) the best match-play player in history. Jones was the best amateur in history. Hogan the best ball-striker. Tiger the most dominant during his time.

Jack the GOAT. And yes, mainly due to most major wins. And I find it very amusing that you consider major wins "one statistic."

Dude it's the statistic. The one that matters most. Otherwise, make Moe Norman the GOAT. After all, nobody hit a ball as well as him, no?

[brocks]

And thank you for ignoring the part of my post where I utilized the 'critical thinking' you crave and went straight to my conclusion to criticize. I would suggest you apply your own test - critical thinking - and see my whole reasoning & not just disagree with the conclusion I reached. It's not a 'mind-set' - it was a well thought out and reasoned argument. But of course, you missed all that.

I guess I missed it, too. I just reread your last several posts, and to my feeble attempts at understanding, they all say pretty much the same thing: you bring up some decent points in favor of both, but you always conclude by saying, for example, "But in the end it still comes down to the numbers. Jack has 4 more major wins than Tiger." So it seems to me that you are the one who is ignoring your all your well thought out and reasoned arguments, and just coming back to 18 > 14. You concluded one post with "do the math," but I have a hard time with your math, because in post #2884, which I will quote in its entirety, you say, "No bias with me. If Tiger goes 20 majors/100 wins he's the best of all time. For that matter, if he gets that 19th major. But as of right now it's 18 to 14." Now I concede that it was very generous of you to drop the requirement to 19, rather than 20, but why does Tiger even need 19? If Tiger wins four more majors (for a total of 18), he'll have 76 PGA wins, even if he MCs in every other event he plays. That means he's tied for first in majors, and second in wins, while Jack is tied for first in majors, and third in wins. And Tiger is ahead of Jack in everything else --- money titles, scoring titles, POYs, win percentage, etc., etc. Even US Am titles. So how is he not the GOAT?

[zipazoid]

Well, why do I come up with 18 greater than 14?

Cuz 18 is greater than 14.

And the rationale of that is, as I have stated ad nauseum but seems to be difficult to grasp, is you have to make a pretty compelling argument to supplant the guy with 4 more majors than anyone else at the top. Four majors is Phil's career to date. So Jack is a Phil Mickelson career ahead of Tiger in therms of major wins. Look at it that way.

Or not.

I'm guessing not.

And it's all good. That's why we debate it here. But this is a game of numbers. Lowest score wins. Most wins means best. Most major wins means GOAT.

I mean, if this was close, say Tiger & Jack were one major win apart, then there's wiggle room. But not at this point. Not when they're separated by four.

Let's revisit this when Tiger's career is done. Perhaps this will change.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by brocks

He wasn't as pure an amateur as you seem to think, and he didn't exactly slog away in a coal mine.

In 1927, at the age of 25, Jones was still a perpetual student, with stints at GTech, Harvard, and Emory. He'd never had a real job (he would soon join his father's law firm), and he and his wife lived with his wealthy parents. After he won the 1927 British Open and US Amateur, the fat cats of Atlanta decided that a player of his caliber should have his own house, so they presented him with a brand new $50,000 house, which in those days was a lot of dough. For comparison, the richest tournament in the history of golf up to that point was the 1927 Southern Open, which had a total purse of $12,000.

Jones had recently been named to the executive committee of the USGA with the support of his pal, USGA secretary Prescott Bush (it is no coincidence that several of Prescott's descendants have Walker, as in "Walker Trophy," as a middle name), and the committee members took care of each other. He was already allowed to write a paid golf column as an amateur, which would not be allowed today, and his pals on the board approved the gift of the house, too. But when word got out, it didn't pass the smell test with the press and public, so Jones publicly announced that he was refusing the gift.

Privately, his grandfather "loaned" Jones the $50K so he could move into the house anyway. The mortgage terms called for the loan to be repaid at the rate of one dollar per year.

Details in Curt Sampson's book, "The Slam."

Not to mention the fact that as soon as he retired he made a large boatload of money out of golf, endorsing Spalding clubs and doing the instructional movie series.

[camper6]

To: X129

Yes I do notice how qualified you are to respond to posts.

You used to be conceited but you got over that and now you are perfect? LOL

On a serious note.

Jack Nicklaus has designed quite a few golf courses.

I would hate to play one that Tiger Woods designed.

Every hole over 600 yards including the par 3's?

That's all Tiger had over the opposition when he was racking up all the wins and he intimidated everyone.  They had to Tiger Proof the Masters course.

Now everyone has caught up and passed him and no one is intimidated anymore.  He's just part of the group now.

He's going to have a tough time squeezing in those wins needed to pass Jack Nicklaus's records.

[x129]

Well I thought I made a mistake once. Then I realized I was right all along.  I really hope that the smiley was enough to let people know that I was making fun of the idea that people of a certain age were more qualified.

I always wonder how much design Jack or Tiger does.  Do they start from scratch or do they just suggest a couple of modifications after a designer draws up a course. I find it hard to beleive that Tiger can spend more than a couple hours a week working on a course.

I also find it amusing that you think distance is what Tiger had since that was one of the things Jack was know for. Heck it was the only part of his game that I think was clearly better than Tigers. Tiger has had periods of brilliance with the driver but he has also had long periods of struggling. Maybe it is memory but I don't remember Jack struggling the same way.

Originally Posted by camper6

To: X129

Yes I do notice how qualified you are to respond to posts.

You used to be conceited but you got over that and now you are perfect? LOL

On a serious note.

Jack Nicklaus has designed quite a few golf courses.

I would hate to play one that Tiger Woods designed.

Every hole over 600 yards including the par 3's?

That's all Tiger had over the opposition when he was racking up all the wins and he intimidated everyone.  They had to Tiger Proof the Masters course.

Now everyone has caught up and passed him and no one is intimidated anymore.  He's just part of the group now.

He's going to have a tough time squeezing in those wins needed to pass Jack Nicklaus's records.

[Chas]

Nice post brocks (#2898), you make some good points.  I remember watching Billy Casper at the time but not as well as I remember watching Jack - maybe I was smitten ....

But really, Casper was not Nicklaus in my book, he just didn't have the intensity and controlled aggression that made Jack numero uno to me.  Yes, Casper was a very successful and superb golfer - hats off to him.

I do agree that just counting Majors doesn't allow for a proper comparison.  I suppose you have to:

1) integrate all of the play of each player, in every event, including all the near-wins, unlucky/lucky breaks, etc etc

2) have been there, on the course, to fully appreciate what happened

3) have a perfect memory

Us mere mortals have to use certain surrogate markers and strain our memories to the max.  This is partly why the thread is so long and entertaining.

So basically I'm agreeing with you re: methodology BUT I STILL THINK JACK IS THE GREATEST!

..

p.s. "Tiger may have been overhyped ...." ranks as one of the biggest understatements on the forum.