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

[Chas]

No attempt at statistical analysis could be rigorous because the many variables that differ between the 2 golfer's situations couldn't be accurately controlled for. The effort would be entertaining but ultimately unenlightening. Still, pay me the money and I might give it a shot .... Conclusion: this thread will continue endlessly and without statistical resolution.

[brocks]

The undeniable conclusion (for anyone without a pre-determined bias towards Tiger) is that we simply cannot discount either Tiger or Jack's numbers based on some perceived difference in the level of competition.

Glad that's settled. Next topic?

[Chas]

Perhaps we should all declare our experience in statistical matters, including sufficient details of methodology used to allow others to assess competence. Why don't you start Brock - you've got the mathematical bent it seems. Or is that asking too much? I tried to do it already but the post was deleted by someone other than myself.

[brocks]

Still, pay me the money and I might give it a shot ....

Maybe your post got deleted for being spam.

[brocks]

Perhaps we should all declare our experience in statistical matters, including sufficient details of methodology used to allow others to assess competence.

I think I can confidently predict that nobody but you would be interested in that.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Chas

Perhaps we should all declare our experience in statistical matters, including sufficient details of methodology used to allow others to assess competence.

Why don't you start Brock - you've got the mathematical bent it seems. Or is that asking too much? I tried to do it already but the post was deleted by someone other than myself.

Now I can start to get a glimmer of why iacas deleted your posts.  As far as whether I approve of how he moderates these boards, which you asked me about, I don't have a problem with it.  It is his ballpark and he does a much better job than the old Golf Channel board moderators did.  If you don't like how he does things there are other boards.  Or start one of your own and run it however you want.

[camper6]

Originally Posted by brocks

Since we're comparing apples to apples now, Tiger has higher career earnings.

O.K. so now can we compare purses from the previous to the present for the apples if that's what you're going to use as a criterion.

The guy in tenth place now probably has higher career earnings than Jack Nicklaus.

[brocks]

O.K. so now can we compare purses from the previous to the present for the apples if that's what you're going to use as a criterion. The guy in tenth place now probably has higher career earnings than Jack Nicklaus.

Good guess. Jack is currently 209th on the career PGA earnings list. Numbers don't lie. The undeniable conclusion (for anyone without a pre-determined bias towards Jack) is that Jack should be 209th on the all-time greats list. 209 > 1, and that's ALL that matters.

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by camper6

Jack is in the Hall of Fame.  Tiger isn't.

Jack has won Senior US Open titles, Tiger hasn't.  Searing logic.  Phil is in the HOF and Tiger isn't.  Does that put him ahead of Tiger?

You do understand the concept of an age eligibility requirement that is completely unrelated to merit?  Well, maybe not.

Chick Hafey must be a better baseball player than Derek Jeter since Chick is in the HOF and Jeter isn't.

Quote:

They made the claim of Greatest Golfer.

Not me.

Tiger also has three complete cycles? Then it's a tie?

You may not have made the Greatest Golfer claim from the HOF bio, but you quoted it in support of your position, ignoring the fact that the declaration was made in 1974 before Tiger was even born .  You used it so you own it.  But I understand why you now want to disavow it since it is such a ridiculous argument.  Using your logic, Harry Vardon is the Greatest Golfer because undoubtedly he was declared as such before a whole bunch of later golfers were born.  Or maybe it is Tom Morris Jr.  Or maybe his dad, Tom Morris Sr.

And why am I not surprised that you didn't know that Tiger had 3 Grand Slam cycles?

[camper6]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Jack has won Senior US Open titles, Tiger hasn't.  Searing logic.  Phil is in the HOF and Tiger isn't.  Does that put him ahead of Tiger?

You do understand the concept of an age eligibility requirement that is completely unrelated to merit?  Well, maybe not.

Chick Hafey must be a better baseball player than Derek Jeter since Chick is in the HOF and Jeter isn't.

You may not have made the Greatest Golfer claim from the HOF bio, but you quoted it in support of your position, ignoring the fact that the declaration was made in 1974 before Tiger was even born.  You used it so you own it.  But I understand why you now want to disavow it since it is such a ridiculous argument.  Using your logic, Harry Vardon is the Greatest Golfer because undoubtedly he was declared as such before a whole bunch of later golfers were born.  Or maybe it is Tom Morris Jr.  Or maybe his dad, Tom Morris Sr.

And why am I not surprised that you didn't know that Tiger had 3 Grand Slam cycles?

And what you didn't notice either is that you can't get into the Hall of Fame until you are forty years old.

I posted it as a point of interest.  That's all.  Having seen both players in action I have an opinion.  Have you seen both players in action?

And the only thing that counts here is an opinion.

Both players have dominated the game.  Which player is going to dominate longer?

[brocks]

And what you didn't notice either is that you can't get into the Hall of Fame until you are forty years old.

Aha. Don't know how we missed that. [quote] Both players have dominated the game.  Which player is going to dominate longer? [/quote] Tiger has already dominated longer than Jack, if you take the word literally. Jack was one of the top five players in the world for about 20 years, and he was a world class player for over 25 years. But not even his mom would say he dominated every year of that period. He went over three years without winning a major in the late 60's, and nearly three years without one during the late 70's. And even if you think majors are the most important thing, they don't necessarily indicate dominance. Padraig Harrington won two majors in 2008, and won the Player of the Year award almost solely on that basis. But would anybody say he was dominant that year, when he wasn't even on anyone's radar until the middle of July? IMO "dominant" doesn't just mean you played well, or won a couple of tournaments. It doesn't even mean you were the Player of the Year. Jim Furyk was POY in 2010. Was he dominant? No. Dominant means you were so much better than everybody else that there was no question that you were the best player of the year, by any reasonable standard. It means you won more majors than anybody else (which means you won at least two majors that year), more events than anyone else, the money title, the scoring title, and Player of the Year. That's dominance. And dominance is not common in pro golf. The POY Award was first awarded in 1948, and Ben Hogan was dominant that year. He won two majors (out of three, since like most Americans, he didn't play the British Open), ten events, and the money title, the Vardon, and POY. In other words, my definition of dominance is not impossible to attain, because Hogan did it the very first year they had a POY award. But possible doesn't mean easy. Nobody did it again until 1962, when Arnold Palmer won 8 events, two majors, the Vardon, the scoring title, and POY. And nobody did it after that until Tom Watson, in 1977. And that was it for the 20th century. Three players, one year each, in the 42 years since the POY Award was created. And then Tiger did it four times in the next 7 years. In each of 2000, 2002, 2005, and 2006, he won at least two majors, and had the most wins, the money title, the scoring title, and the POY. So by that definition of dominance, it's Tiger over Jack, 4-0. I'll admit that my definition is not fair to Jack for the first five years of his pro career, because the PGA rules at that time made him ineligible for the Vardon. But that doesn't change the results, because in none of those years did he lead in all the other stats. The closest he came was in 1965, when he led all the stats, but didn't win two majors. It's still Tiger, 4-0. So let's see how we can help Jack out. I'll start by giving him Vardons for 1964 and 1965, when the rules made it impossible for him to win, and according to Jack, he had the lowest scoring average of the year. (I won't do that for the other six years that he claims he had the lowest scoring average, but didn't play enough events, since that was his choice. Palmer, Casper, Trevino, and Watson each won at least three Vardons under the same rules as Jack, so it's clear that playing the minimum number of rounds was not unreasonable for a top player. And Jack had more time to play his practice rounds at major venues by playing less regular events, so he gained advantage from his schedule). And just for Jack, I'll say you don't have to win two majors in a year to dominate, you just have to win one, as long as nobody else wins two. So does that give him a dominant year in 1965? No, because he didn't win the POY that year. He WAS eligible, but they had different standards then. The US Open and PGA were bigger than the Masters, and MUCH bigger than the British Open. Dave Marr was the 1965 POY, mostly for winning the PGA that year. So I'll pretend that we are going by today's standards, and give Jack a virtual POY to go along with his virtual Vardon trophy. And that, along with the relaxation of the majors rule, gives Jack a dominant year in 1965. He had the most wins, (tied for) most majors, and won the money title, the (virtual) Vardon, and the (virtual) POY. But that's the best I can do. Changing all those rules just gives him one dominant year. It doesn't help him any of his other years. And it puts him even farther behind Tiger, because now you have to add 1999, 2001, and 2007 to Tiger's dominant years. In those years, Tiger won a major, nobody else won two, and Tiger had the most wins, and won the money title, scoring title, and POY (all official). So it's now Tiger 7, Jack 1. OK, so by that definition, Tiger wins. But what if you relax it further, and just say dominating means being clearly the best player, whether or not you won the Vardon or whatever? That obviously gets a lot more subjective. I wrote a couple of very long posts a couple of years ago on another board, where I went through Jack's career year by year, and compared him with his peers. The bottom line was this: -- You can make a reasonable case for Jack being the best player of the year in nine different years. -- You can say that Jack was clearly the best player of the year, no reasonable dispute, in five different years. -- And Jack dominated the way Tiger dominated, leading every stat, just one year. By comparison, Tiger was: -- arguably the best player in 11 different years. -- indisputably the best player in 9 different years -- dominant, by the definition given above, for 7 years.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by camper6

And what you didn't notice either is that you can't get into the Hall of Fame until you are forty years old.

I posted it as a point of interest.  That's all.  Having seen both players in action I have an opinion.  Have you seen both players in action?

And the only thing that counts here is an opinion.

Both players have dominated the game.  Which player is going to dominate longer?

I didn't know about the age requirement???.  I'm not the one who made the ridiculous statement  "Jack is in the HOF and Tiger isn't" as if that had any significance in the debate..  I'm the one who said "You do understand the concept of an age eligibility requirement that is completely unrelated to merit?  Well, maybe not."  in response to that ridiculous statement.  So yes, I knew all about the age requirement.  So either you didn't know about the requirement, which makes you ignorant, or you knew about it but didn't care when you made your "Jack is in the HOF and Tiger isn't" statement, which makes you dishonest.

As to the blurb from Jack's HOF bio, you didn't post it as a point of interest you posted it as an argument for your position.  Which turned out to be (unintentionally? not sure based on your last couple of posts) an essentially dishonest argument since it was made before Tiger's record had even started to be built.

And yes, I saw both of them in action.  I was crushed when he lost the playoff at Merion to Trevino.  And much as I loved Jack and he was my favorite player in those years he was never as dominant as Tiger has been.

As to what counts here, what counts is the most is fact, not opinion.  Something your side of the argument has very few of, beyond 18>14.

And Brocks has already completely demolished your "which player is going to dominate longer" argument so there is no need for me to pile on.

You really need to stop.  You are making yourself look foolisher and foolisher by the post.

[camper6]

Turtleback.

My point was that the HOF stated that Jack was the Greatest.

Since Tiger is not in the Hall of Fame we will have to wait to see if the HOF says Tiger is the greatest when he gets there.

I don't think he's going to last as long as Jack Nicklaus and will drop out long before he is forty.

You get your shirt in a knot over the most trivial matters.

Anyone here making any kind of claims is voicing their opinion.

My opinion is just as valid as yours.

If I say I posted the HOF as a point of interest that was my reason..

Demolished which player is going to dominate longer?  He's not dominating much lately is he now since the drives are flying over his.

Lighten up man.  You are taking this too seriously.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by camper6

Turtleback.

My point was that the HOF stated that Jack was the Greatest.

Since Tiger is not in the Hall of Fame we will have to wait to see if the HOF says Tiger is the greatest when he gets there.

I don't think he's going to last as long as Jack Nicklaus and will drop out long before he is forty.

You get your shirt in a knot over the most trivial matters.

Anyone here making any kind of claims is voicing their opinion.

My opinion is just as valid as yours.

If I say I posted the HOF as a point of interest that was my reason..

Demolished which player is going to dominate longer?  He's not dominating much lately is he now since the drives are flying over his.

Lighten up man.  You are taking this too seriously.

It's important to some posters to establish Tiger is already the best ever, because he's not likely to add much to his legacy at his current pace (1 official win every year or two ).

[camper6]

Another viewpoint.

Good reading.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/golf-devil-ball-golf/teeing-off-jack-nicklaus-fare-today-223813268.html;_ylt=AlkOegaW8iPj0AG5uHh1zs05nYcB

Interesting article on how Nicklaus would fare today on Tour.

[newtogolf]

Thanks for posting.  They weren't very definitive, but seemed to agree that Jack wouldn't have won as many Majors as he did.

Originally Posted by camper6

Another viewpoint.

Good reading.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/golf-devil-ball-golf/teeing-off-jack-nicklaus-fare-today-223813268.html;_ylt=AlkOegaW8iPj0AG5uHh1zs05nYcB

Interesting article on how Nicklaus would fare today on Tour.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by camper6

Another viewpoint.

Interesting article on how Nicklaus would fare today on Tour.

I don't agree with their conclusions (or their assertions that Jack would be an average length driver), but that's obvious from reading posts here in this thread. :)

[GaryH]

My vote goes to Jack.

Tiger's A game is better than Jack's.  But Jack's longevity and character gives him the edge.  Tiger's incredible mental strength has gone and that's because of his own character flaws.  That's a huge part of golf and Tiger didn't have the longevity in this aspect.  His chickens came home to roost.

Also, there's the somewhat important issue of driving.  Tiger can't keep the damn ball in play!  I've been so disappointed with this aspect of his game.  He is an astonishing talent but he has no control over his driver, and this has been the case for years!  I just cannot reconcile this.  Why can he not work this out and get it sorted?  It's such a let down and a big black mark over him.  I've been very frustrated watching this over the years.  Jack was long and straight.