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

[Wally Fairway]

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.

I think that there is a discussion in Hagen having 11 majors > Jack at 19 or Tiger at 14.

the discussion is along the lines of Hagen played won on the pro tour from 1914-1936; the Masters did not begin until 1934 and there were 8 majors that were not played from 1915-1919 due to the war to end all wars. So in the 16 years of his prime (when he won majors) there were 40 majors that were held and Hagen didn't play in 5 of them (I'm guessing due to travel). So he won 16 out of 35 majors - translate that into today with 4 majors and schedules/air travel to the British and for 16 years @ 4 majors per year and winning 30+ % you get the equivalent of 20 modern majors.

I figure that is as strong a mathematical "proof" as the earlier posts about strength of competition.

And for what it is worth, by the time this argument is settled, there will be a younger superstar that will drive a whole new generation to prove that the young star and tour are the greatest ever.

[Clambake]

Originally Posted by Wally Fairway

I think that there is a discussion in Hagen having 11 majors > Jack at 19 or Tiger at 14.

the discussion is along the lines of Hagen played won on the pro tour from 1914-1936; the Masters did not begin until 1934 and there were 8 majors that were not played from 1915-1919 due to the war to end all wars. So in the 16 years of his prime (when he won majors) there were 40 majors that were held and Hagen didn't play in 5 of them (I'm guessing due to travel). So he won 16 out of 35 majors - translate that into today with 4 majors and schedules/air travel to the British and for 16 years @ 4 majors per year and winning 30+ % you get the equivalent of 20 modern majors.

Very slightly off topic here, but just to add to Hagen's accomplishments he also won 5 Western Opens during that time, a tournament that was widely considered to be about the same status as what are now called the majors - it attracted the strongest fields, and was a tournament that everyone strongly coveted a win there more than nearly other tournament except the US Open.       He also didn't play in a number of the British Opens during the career due to the difficulty of travel at that time and his efforts doing exhibitions to raise money for war efforts (WW1), so his winning percentage of the events he participated in was really even greater.

[zipazoid]

Hagen, lol.

Look, if some are discounting Jack's record v Tiger's due to apparent weaker fields in Jack's day, who in the hell did Hagen beat?

I can tell you this - for his 5 PGA Championships, it was five players each, since it was match play.

And please - spare me an in-depth analysis of the players of Hagen's era & how great they were. I am just saying that anyone who wants to lessen Jack for winning majors in the 60s should use that same logic and essentially disqualify Hagen from this discussion.

[camper6]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Hagen, lol.

Look, if some are discounting Jack's record v Tiger's due to apparent weaker fields in Jack's day, who in the hell did Hagen beat?

I can tell you this - for his 5 PGA Championships, it was five players each, since it was match play.

And please - spare me an in-depth analysis of the players of Hagen's era & how great they were. I am just saying that anyone who wants to lessen Jack for winning majors in the 60s should use that same logic and essentially disqualify Hagen from this discussion.

Good post.  The defense rests?

[turtleback]

No, dumb post since the poster is one who touts the quality of Jack's competition.  And has it all down to a mindless 18>14.

And zipazoid also fails to realize that no one is claiming Hagen was better than Jack, they are pointing out the clear illogic of his 18>14 argument, when he never ever thought that since 11>10 that Hagen was the GOAT back when Jack only had 10 majors.  No one celebrated Jack's ascendance as GOAT when he passed Hagen.

But zippy's already demonstrated that logic is not his strong point, and you have already shown that you have that particular old man's syndrome where nothing is ever as good as it was in his youth.

[x129]

You are confusing 2 groups.

Jack>Tiger group that says it is all about the majors who cares about depth of competition.  If you believe that then you have to talk about Hagen. 11 wins with only 3 tournaments for pretty much all of his career, several years of no majors. You can debate if winning in match play is harder or easier than a normal tournament. Throw in those western opens and if winning important titles is all that matters, you can make a strong argument for Hagen. Heck Bobby Jones won something like 7/14 majors he played in. In modern times that would be like 30+ majors so clearly he should be the best ever

Tiger>Jack. Sure Jack has more wins but when the field has 10 good players in it they will all win more often. Against Hogan and Jones take this argument and times it by 10. Now the hard part is how to discount stuff. Who knows exactly how much harder it is to win now (almost 2x as many people in the pool but only 150 or so in each major. Who knows what percentage had chance to maximize their golf talent) but if you assume it is in the 20-50% range you can make the arguements that woods is the best ever.

If you discount Hagen for lack of depth, you would have to consider if Tiger is the best ever. If you discount Tiger for not having more majors, you have to consider Hagen.

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Hagen, lol.

Look, if some are discounting Jack's record v Tiger's due to apparent weaker fields in Jack's day, who in the hell did Hagen beat?

I can tell you this - for his 5 PGA Championships, it was five players each, since it was match play.

And please - spare me an in-depth analysis of the players of Hagen's era & how great they were. I am just saying that anyone who wants to lessen Jack for winning majors in the 60s should use that same logic and essentially disqualify Hagen from this discussion.

[brocks]

Hagen, lol. Look, if some are discounting Jack's record v Tiger's due to apparent weaker fields in Jack's day, who in the hell did Hagen beat? I can tell you this - for his 5 PGA Championships, it was five players each, since it was match play.

Since other people have already schooled you on your errors in logic, I won't rub that in. But I did want to address your facts. In Hagen's era the PGA had district qualifying to get the final field down to about 70 players, who then competed in 36 holes of medal play to determine the top 32 players. Those players immediately (as in the next day) moved on to match play, which was a series of 36-hole matches to determine the winner. So even if you were exempt from district qualifying, you had to play 12 rounds of golf, and beat around 70 other players, to win the Wanamaker Trophy. Not exactly a cakewalk. But if you want a good comparison of how difficult it is to win in the match play format vs. stroke play, you only need to look at Tiger's record in the WGC's. By a happy coincidence, the WGC's got started the same year Tiger's dominance started, namely 1999, so looking at 1999 to 2009 (the last year of Tiger's dominance) shows what the best player in the world can do in Match Play vs Stroke Play against the same fields. The stroke play events typically had a field of about the 70 top golfers in the world, vs the Match Play's 64, but neither had club pros, amateurs, legacy champs, or equal opportunity Asian players (except for the HSBC, which didn't become a WGC until 2009, and will be disregarded). To win a match play tournament with a field of 64, you "only" have to win six matches, so let's see how much easier that was than beating 70 players in stroke play. During that period, Tiger competed in 10 WGC Match Plays and won 3 of them, for a winning percentage of 30%, and made it past the Round of 16 in two other years, for a "high finish" percentage of 50%. Not bad. But for the two stroke play WGCs of the same years, he played in 20 of them, and won 13, for a winning percentage of 65%. And he got top tens in the other seven, for a "high finish" percentage of 100%. In fact, he got top 5's in all but two. So I guess match play isn't as easy as you seem to think. According to the best comparison available, and whether you look at wins or high finishes, it's about twice as hard as stroke play.

[camper6]

So I guess match play isn't as easy as you seem to think. According to the best comparison available, and whether you look at wins or high finishes, it's about twice as hard as stroke play.

Jack Nicklaus was no slouch either at match play having won the U.S. Amateur twice.  Correct me if I am wrong but that's match play.

[brocks]

Jack Nicklaus was no slouch either at match play having won the U.S. Amateur twice.  Correct me if I am wrong but that's match play.

You are 100% correct, and from now on I promise to include Jack in my list of great players.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by turtleback

No, dumb post since the poster is one who touts the quality of Jack's competition.  And has it all down to a mindless 18>14.

And zipazoid also fails to realize that no one is claiming Hagen was better than Jack, they are pointing out the clear illogic of his 18>14 argument, when he never ever thought that since 11>10 that Hagen was the GOAT back when Jack only had 10 majors.  No one celebrated Jack's ascendance as GOAT when he passed Hagen.

But zippy's already demonstrated that logic is not his strong point, and you have already shown that you have that particular old man's syndrome where nothing is ever as good as it was in his youth.

You got a PhD in Condescending?

First off, glad you think 18>14 is mindless. I consider it fact. That's because it is.

Now. To keep you from going back over my previous posts to see my, by your account, flawed logic, you will note that I stated Tiger has done many things Jack never did, like with the US Open by 15 or the Masters by 9 or win 4 majors in a row. Tiger is clearly & at worst - the 2nd best golfer ever, imo. The case could be made (and many have here) that he deserves to be GOAT. Not yet. Four majors behind is too far behind to supplant Jack's record, period. There's no old-man syndrome with me - for crissakes I'm 53. Tiger has impressed the shit out of me with his talent.

Now I apologize of such one-note-drumming on Major wins isn't a broadening the debate enough for your tastes, but I trust you will get over it.

If you can't then, at the least, please stop making stupid assumptions about me.

[brocks]

So even if you were exempt from district qualifying, you had to play 12 rounds of golf, and beat around 70 other players, to win the Wanamaker Trophy. Not exactly a cakewalk.

I have a correction to make. In the post above, I assumed that the top pros were exempt from district qualifying. But I looked around a little more, and I found that Johnny Farrell, the 1928 US Open Champion, failed to get through district qualifying for the 1928 PGA. http://www.pgamediaguide.com/pgachampionship_detail.cfm?tourn_name_id=2&date;=1928&tournament;_id=445&player;_id=381 So, apparently, there were no exemptions, and Hagen had to beat (indirectly) however many pros entered district qualifying, which was probably hundreds, and not just the 70 who qualified for the medal play portion of the PGA Championship. I apologize for my previous misleading post.

[Bunkers]

In their primes, I would have to say that Tiger is the better player.  However, if you examine their careers in full, Jack was more consistent and never had a slump as bad as what Tiger is dealing with.

[carrx]

I think Tiger played better golf in 2000 than any other player who has ever lived.  But I still say Jack is "better" considering the total body of work.  Of course, Tiger isn't done playing yet, so there's still time for my opinion to change.

[x129]

Well Jack didn't win one major between 81-86 which is a bit longer than Tigers current slump. Both of them had big gaps (2 years without winning) several times through out their careers.  Of course Jacks one of jacks slumps included this stretch (2,3,5,2,2,) which would be a good career for most of the pga tour.

Originally Posted by Bunkers

In their primes, I would have to say that Tiger is the better player.  However, if you examine their careers in full, Jack was more consistent and never had a slump as bad as what Tiger is dealing with.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by camper6

So I guess match play isn't as easy as you seem to think. According to the best comparison available, and whether you look at wins or high finishes, it's about twice as hard as stroke play.

Jack Nicklaus was no slouch either at match play having won the U.S. Amateur twice.  Correct me if I am wrong but that's match play.

And Tiger won **6** consecutive USGA match play titles, something that no one has ever come close to.

Originally Posted by zipazoid

You got a PhD in Condescending?

First off, glad you think 18>14 is mindless. I consider it fact. That's because it is.

Now. To keep you from going back over my previous posts to see my, by your account, flawed logic, you will note that I stated Tiger has done many things Jack never did, like with the US Open by 15 or the Masters by 9 or win 4 majors in a row. Tiger is clearly & at worst - the 2nd best golfer ever, imo. The case could be made (and many have here) that he deserves to be GOAT. Not yet. Four majors behind is too far behind to supplant Jack's record, period. There's no old-man syndrome with me - for crissakes I'm 53. Tiger has impressed the shit out of me with his talent.

Now I apologize of such one-note-drumming on Major wins isn't a broadening the debate enough for your tastes, but I trust you will get over it.

If you can't then, at the least, please stop making stupid assumptions about me.

Yes 18>14 is a fact, but the conclusions you draw from it are not only not facts they are what is mindless.  You talk about all of the ways Tiger's record is better than Jacks and then retreat to the mindless conclusion that none of it means anything because 18>14.

As to the old man syndrome, that is pure lack of reading comprehension on your part.  My message was a response to camper6, hence I addressed him by you, as I addressed you by your screen name.  (camper6:  Good post.  ME: no, dumb post)  camper6 had previously said that he was 79, which qualifies as old.  HE is the one I was talking about with old man syndrome. Heck, I'm 56, myself, and I lived through both eras and was and still are a big Nicklaus fan.  But unlike you and camper6 I retain the ability to keep an open mind and to think critically.

And don't give us any crap now about how 4 majors is too far behind to supplant Jack's record because you are already on record as saying that Tiger won't be GOAT until he has won 19.  So what you have already said is that even 0 is not enough to supplant Jack.  Tiger equaling Jack's 18 won't be enough for you, you require 19.  So don't try to sell us on the idea that you are balancing Tiger's superiorities against Jack's majors - you are basing EVERYTHING on majors.

So in your book WHO was the GOAT before Jack?  My own choice would be Hogan but that is because I look at the total career, not try to boil it down to one thing so I won't have to actually think.  Player had the same number of majors as Hogan and Hagen had 2 more than Hogan, but I put Hogan higher based on total career and competitive level.  And winning 8 of 11 majors entered between 1948 and 1953.  Tiger came close, winning 7 of 11 entered between the '99 PGA and the 2002 US Open.  And then 6 of 14 between 2005 masters and the 2008 US Open.  Jack never came close to Hogans dominant major period nor did he ever come close to either of Tiger's dominant major periods.  The best Jack managed was winning 7 of 21 majors between the 1962 US Open and the 1967 US Open.

[camper6]

But unlike you and camper6 I retain the ability to keep an open mind and to think critically.

(camper6:  Good post.  ME: no, dumb post)

Just by saying something like that you don't have the ability to keep an open mind and to think critically.

You are horribly biased and a legend in your own mind.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by turtleback

And Tiger won **6** consecutive USGA match play titles, something that no one has ever come close to.

Yes 18>14 is a fact, but the conclusions you draw from it are not only not facts they are what is mindless.  You talk about all of the ways Tiger's record is better than Jacks and then retreat to the mindless conclusion that none of it means anything because 18>14.

As to the old man syndrome, that is pure lack of reading comprehension on your part.  My message was a response to camper6, hence I addressed him by you, as I addressed you by your screen name.  (camper6:  Good post.  ME: no, dumb post)  camper6 had previously said that he was 79, which qualifies as old.  HE is the one I was talking about with old man syndrome. Heck, I'm 56, myself, and I lived through both eras and was and still are a big Nicklaus fan.  But unlike you and camper6 I retain the ability to keep an open mind and to think critically.

And don't give us any crap now about how 4 majors is too far behind to supplant Jack's record because you are already on record as saying that Tiger won't be GOAT until he has won 19.  So what you have already said is that even 0 is not enough to supplant Jack.  Tiger equaling Jack's 18 won't be enough for you, you require 19.  So don't try to sell us on the idea that you are balancing Tiger's superiorities against Jack's majors - you are basing EVERYTHING on majors.

So in your book WHO was the GOAT before Jack?  My own choice would be Hogan but that is because I look at the total career, not try to boil it down to one thing so I won't have to actually think.  Player had the same number of majors as Hogan and Hagen had 2 more than Hogan, but I put Hogan higher based on total career and competitive level.  And winning 8 of 11 majors entered between 1948 and 1953.  Tiger came close, winning 7 of 11 entered between the '99 PGA and the 2002 US Open.  And then 6 of 14 between 2005 masters and the 2008 US Open.  Jack never came close to Hogans dominant major period nor did he ever come close to either of Tiger's dominant major periods.  The best Jack managed was winning 7 of 21 majors between the 1962 US Open and the 1967 US Open.

Hey look. Think 'critically' to your little heart's content. Manufacture rationalizations that puts Tiger ahead of Jack if it makes you sleep well at night.

But if I lack critical thinking, so does Jack. His career goal was, among other things, 14 majors. So he could beat Bobby Jones' record. So in response to your claim that Hogan would have been GOAT, realize that the man who owns the record for most major wins disagrees with you. He thought it was Jones.

Ah, but what does he know, right? You're the one with the superior mental intellect.

How many majors have you won with that big brain of yours?

[x129]

Jack's career goal at one point was to have the most PGA wins so he would be the GOAT. When he came up short, majors became the measuring stick. Part of me hopes that Tiger ends up with something like 85 pga wins and 16 majors just so having this debate is possible. If Tiger gets 85 wins and 18 majors, it will just be such a no brainer.

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Hey look. Think 'critically' to your little heart's content. Manufacture rationalizations that puts Tiger ahead of Jack if it makes you sleep well at night.

But if I lack critical thinking, so does Jack. His career goal was, among other things, 14 majors. So he could beat Bobby Jones' record. So in response to your claim that Hogan would have been GOAT, realize that the man who owns the record for most major wins disagrees with you. He thought it was Jones.

Ah, but what does he know, right? You're the one with the superior mental intellect.

How many majors have you won with that big brain of yours?