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

[brocks]

Bobby Jones won 13/31 majors he played in through the Grand Slam in 1930.  That's 42%.  Is he better than both Jack and Tiger?  Winning percentage is part of the equation, for sure, but it's not the whole equation.

Tell that to the guys who say "Majors are the ONLY thing that matters." You can't judge a career by one stat, but if you had to, I'd say winning percentage (for a player who has at least 100 starts against at least post-1950, world class fields) would be a better number than "majors won." For one thing, the winning percentage stat acknowledges that there are more than four events per year.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by k-troop

Bobby Jones won 13/31 majors he played in through the Grand Slam in 1930.  That's 42%.  Is he better than both Jack and Tiger?  Winning percentage is part of the equation, for sure, but it's not the whole equation.

You are correct.  There is no ONE magic stat tht determine things in any er.  In Jones' case you have to look at the fact that in none of those majors were substantially all of the world's top players entered.

[x129]

Win percentage is crap statistic.  Would Jack be a better golfer if he stopped playing PGA events at 40 (or even 46) instead of playing into his 50s? I don't think so.   There is no one stat that sums up a golfer. You need to look at a bunch and then put them in context. That requires a lot of judgement calls and some personal judgements on importance (wins versus strength of fields versus quality of wins,....).

I am wondering how many other sports where #1 and #2 are this clear with #3 trailing far behind.

Originally Posted by plum

in my opinion, the percentage of wins is what makes tiger the greatest. thats really the only fair way to compare the two. (and also majors)

[brocks]

Win percentage is crap statistic.  Would Jack be a better golfer if he stopped playing PGA events at 40 (or even 46) instead of playing into his 50s?

You can get some data to answer that [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/t/2203/jack-or-tiger-whos-the-greatest/3096#post_738274]here.[/URL] [quote]I am wondering how many other sports where #1 and #2 are this clear with #3 trailing far behind. [/quote] I know (at least through boards like this) some people who refuse to acknowledge that Tiger is in the top 5, and many who would put him no higher than fourth, after Hogan, Jones, and Jack in some order.

[ThominOH]

Impossible to tell who is/was the best..  For the past 100+ years golf has witnessed amazing feats by amazing golfers.. Each living in an era with different equipment, course layouts, competition and life in general..  OH.. and don't forget the value of an elite caddy to help..  This is like asking, Which car is the best car of all time.... Good Luck..  Personally.. I like Sam Sneak in a 1974 Stingray Corvette.. LOL

[x129]

I know the percentage goes up but do you really think less of Jack because he continued to play majors after 46? I can't believe many do.

No sane person would put Tiger below Hogan or Jones unless you criteria is something other than quality of golf. They don't have the wins or sustained excellence.  They might have had better looking swings and personal lifes though.

Originally Posted by brocks

You can get some data to answer that here.

I know (at least through boards like this) some people who refuse to acknowledge that Tiger is in the top 5, and many who would put him no higher than fourth, after Hogan, Jones, and Jack in some order.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by x129

I know the percentage goes up but do you really think less of Jack because he continued to play majors after 46? I can't believe many do.

You are right.  To make a fair comparison you would have to compare winning percentages, both for overall tour events and majors, based on comparable points in their respective careers.

Here is the year by year comparison on a total tour events as a pro.  The win percentages are cumulative.

	Tiger	Jack
Career	Win	Win
Year	Percent	Percent
1	25.00%	11.54%
2	20.69%	15.69%
3	14.29%	15.58%
4	21.43%	16.83%
5	26.67%	16.67%
6	26.61%	17.48%
7	26.77%	16.36%
8	26.90%	15.96%
9	24.39%	15.94%
10	24.86%	16.89%
11	27.00%	18.44%
12	28.37%	19.85%
13	29.41%	19.29%
14	29.83%	19.93%
15	28.40%	19.55%
16	27.41%	19.39%
17	27.41%	19.71%

A similar table based solely on majors.  Again, the win percentages are cumulative  Also note that in this table I disregarded Tiger's first year as a pro since he didn't play any majors as a pro.  Ignoring majors played as an amateur works to Jack's advantage since he played in 7 and Tiger only played in 6.

	Tiger	Jack
Career	Win	Win
Year	Percent	Percent
1	25.00%	33.33%
2	12.50%	42.86%
3	16.67%	27.27%
4	31.25%	26.67%
5	30.00%	31.58%
6	33.33%	30.43%
7	28.57%	25.93%
8	25.00%	22.58%
9	27.78%	22.86%
10	30.00%	23.08%
11	29.55%	25.58%
12	30.43%	25.53%
13	28.00%	23.53%
14	25.93%	25.45%
15	25.00%	23.73%
16	23.33%	22.22%

[ThominOH]

And if you really want to be fair about PERCENTAGES..  Lets keep in mind the total number of PGA events each have been in.... Which in my opinion does have an effect on performance...

Tiger Woods 265 events

Phil Michelson 422 events

Jim Furyk 432 events

Fed Couples 591 events

Jack Nicklaus 594 events

Jack has played in twice as many events as Tiger.. This does effect your percentages.. PLUS we all know that the more you play, the more it effects your performance, so Tiger should score well, and spend more time tweaking the game..  Did it work out for him.. Sure.. However, keep in mind that if everyone played the minimum tour events, there wouldn't be many events with a good field for TV ratings.. Tiger had the luxury of taking time off..  Other players didn't, couldn't or wouldn't..

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by ThominOH

And if you really want to be fair about PERCENTAGES..  Lets keep in mind the total number of PGA events each have been in.... Which in my opinion does have an effect on performance...

Tiger Woods 265 events

Jack Nicklaus 594 events

Jack has played in twice as many events as Tiger.. This does effect your percentages.. PLUS we all know that the more you play, the more it effects your performance, so Tiger should score well, and spend more time tweaking the game..  Did it work out for him.. Sure.. However, keep in mind that if everyone played the minimum tour events, there wouldn't be many events with a good field for TV ratings.. Tiger had the luxury of taking time off..  Other players didn't, couldn't or wouldn't..

Jack played on the PGA Tour for almost 30 years, and Tiger has been a pro for 15ish years.  So if you're counting Jack's entire career, then their number of events played seems pretty close.

[dutchman1950]

so far, for me it is a tie. History will prove it, and I'll probly be dead by then.   lol....

[x129]

So all of the guys play about the same number events? I mean there is no way you expect a 36 year old to have played as many events as a 50+ year old.  I am sure Tiger has played slightly less PGA events per year because of injury and the ability to make big cash overseas. But the difference is not 2x+. It is <10%.

Originally Posted by ThominOH

And if you really want to be fair about PERCENTAGES..  Lets keep in mind the total number of PGA events each have been in.... Which in my opinion does have an effect on performance...

Tiger Woods 265 events

Phil Michelson 422 events

Jim Furyk 432 events

Fed Couples 591 events

Jack Nicklaus 594 events

Jack has played in twice as many events as Tiger.. This does effect your percentages.. PLUS we all know that the more you play, the more it effects your performance, so Tiger should score well, and spend more time tweaking the game..  Did it work out for him.. Sure.. However, keep in mind that if everyone played the minimum tour events, there wouldn't be many events with a good field for TV ratings.. Tiger had the luxury of taking time off..  Other players didn't, couldn't or wouldn't..

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by ThominOH

And if you really want to be fair about PERCENTAGES..  Lets keep in mind the total number of PGA events each have been in.... Which in my opinion does have an effect on performance...

Tiger Woods 265 events

Phil Michelson 422 events

Jim Furyk 432 events

Fed Couples 591 events

Jack Nicklaus 594 events

Jack has played in twice as many events as Tiger.. This does effect your percentages.. PLUS we all know that the more you play, the more it effects your performance, so Tiger should score well, and spend more time tweaking the game..  Did it work out for him.. Sure.. However, keep in mind that if everyone played the minimum tour events, there wouldn't be many events with a good field for TV ratings.. Tiger had the luxury of taking time off..  Other players didn't, couldn't or wouldn't..

You simply cannot be this dumb.  I was comparing them at equivalent points in their careers and you bring up Jack's lifetime total number of events??  What does that have to do with the price of beans in Bavaria?

Over the period I was illustrating Jack played in 345 events and Tiger played in 270 events.  Now take into account that the first year Tiger was only a pro for a few months at the end of the year and played 8 events.  This year is incomplete and he has only played in 11 events.  And he had 2 injury shortened years where he only played 8 and 9 events respectively, and it is apparent that there really is not a big difference between their rates of play.

What you really cannot spin is that Jack played in 75 more events up to that point in their respective careers, and won one fewer events.

And if you don't like my comparison try your own.  I suggest winning percentage after 50, 199, 150, 200, and 250 events.  That would be interesting.

[Connorgolfer96]

Originally Posted by brocks

I'm not sure where you got the 14%, but if you're looking at Jack's whole career, that's not really fair, since he played till he was over 60.

It's more work than it should be to get his exact percentages, because most compilations of his record include unofficial events, and some exclude the British Open (which was not sanctioned by the PGA during Jack's prime). His own website lists two different figures for the number of events played in most years. But using the lower numbers (which is the most favorable to him when calculating his win percentage), he won 15.8% of his events through 1986, his last winning year.

As you indicated, Tiger's winning percentage to date is 27.3%. At the time he hit the fire hydrant, it was 29.7%.

To try to make it more apples to apples, Jack's winning percentage was 19.55% through 1976 (when he was the same age as Tiger is now), and it was 19.26% through 1974 (when he had played as many events as Tiger has to date). He never reached 20% at the end of any year in his career.

It's notable that Tiger's winning percentage is not only the highest (by far) of anyone who played over 100 PGA events, but that he compiled it against the toughest fields in history. He typically plays only majors, WGCs, and elite invitationals, with a few exceptions to keep his sponsors or the Tour happy. The old Buick Open had a weak field, and he played Fall Finish events to get his card in 1996, but I think it's safe to say that his overall strength of schedule is second to none.

I took the amount of tournaments Jack won and divided it by the amount he played in, I now see that my original stats were uneven because I calculated all of the tournaments Jack played in until he was about 60 when he didn't win on the PGA Tour.

[allin]

While the number of non major events is a small part of the equation I question how much weight it should be given. Because the money and rules now alllow it Tiger selects courses he plays best on. Much of the money in Jacks era was made playing exhibitions, something Tiger does little of. Jack played 5 years before he had access to private flights Tiger has used them from the beginning. If you base it on percentage of majors won what was Bobby Jones 's percentage? The players seem content with total majors won as the primary criteria. These other statistics are interesting but there are so many differences in eras that total majors won will be the yardstick.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by allin

While the number of non major events is a small part of the equation I question how much weight it should be given. Because the money and rules now alllow it Tiger selects courses he plays best on. Much of the money in Jacks era was made playing exhibitions, something Tiger does little of. Jack played 5 years before he had access to private flights Tiger has used them from the beginning. If you base it on percentage of majors won what was Bobby Jones 's percentage? The players seem content with total majors won as the primary criteria. These other statistics are interesting but there are so many differences in eras that total majors won will be the yardstick.

Why should that be?  The difference in eras is larger in the majors than other things.  All players have access to planes, hi-tech equipment, better balls, better training methods, etc.  When Jack was flying around most player were driving, but now everyone flies.  But players before the 1960s did not have the same access to majors.  As a practical matter it was too expensive for many of them to go play the British Open.  Until Arnie started going in the early 60s it was unusual for American pros, the best in the world at that time, to play the British Open.  It was a major by courtesy and tradition only.

As far as selectivity, for most of his career Jack did not play more events than Tiger did.  So he also had the ability to pick his spots.

And as for Bobby Jones, the reality is that he never once played in a tournament when substantially all of the best players in the world were playing.

[allin]

Why should that be?  The difference in eras is larger in the majors than other things.  All players have access to planes, hi-tech equipment, better balls, better training methods, etc.  When Jack was flying around most player were driving, but now everyone flies.  But players before the 1960s did not have the same access to majors.  As a practical matter it was too expensive for many of them to go play the British Open.  Until Arnie started going in the early 60s it was unusual for American pros, the best in the world at that time, to play the British Open.  It was a major by courtesy and tradition only. As far as selectivity, for most of his career Jack did not play more events than Tiger did.  So he also had the ability to pick his spots. And as for Bobby Jones, the reality is that he never once played in a tournament when substantially all of the best players in the world were playing.

My point was that there are so many differences that comparing each to the players own generation is the valid way. For example Tigers win percentage compared to his contemporary players is probably better than Jacks. Bobby Jones did win both the US Open and British Open. In his era most of the best pros played both. This insistence in comparing players from past generations as if they were playing today is ridiculous. It shows a complete lack of perspective and really is the refuge of people who have already decided players now are better and lack the intellectual capacity to think in a rigorous way.

[brocks]

Bobby Jones did win both the US Open and British Open. In his era most of the best pros played both.

Walter Hagen was the best American pro of that era, and he played the British Open more often than almost any other American, but he only played half of the Opens held during his prime. In particular, he only played in one that Jones won. Conversely, Jones did not play in any of the four Opens that Hagen won. Gene Sarazen was the second best American pro of that era. He played only three of the 11 British Opens from 1920-30, and did not play in any that Jones won. The next three (Cooper, Diegel, and Armour) are close to a tie for third best American pro of the 20's: Harry Cooper was actually born in England, and his father had once served as an apprentice to Old Tom at St. Andrews. Harry played zero British Opens. Leo Diegel played the Open three times from 1920-30, including one that Jones won. Tommy Armour was born and raised in Scotland, served in the British Army during WWI, and moved to the US in 1920. He played in the Open three times from 1920-30, including one that Jones won. Jock Hutchinson was the first American ever to win the British Open, in 1921. He finished 4th in 1922, and never played it again, although he continued playing in the Masters until 1963. The only English golfer to win the Open during the Jones era was Arthur Havers, who won it in 1923, and was a fixture on England's Ryder Cup team until 1933. He continued playing in the Open until 1949. He played in the US Open twice in his life, neither of which Jones won.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by brocks

Walter Hagen was the best American pro of that era, and he played the British Open more often than almost any other American, but he only played half of the Opens held during his prime. In particular, he only played in one that Jones won. Conversely, Jones did not play in any of the four Opens that Hagen won.

Gene Sarazen was the second best American pro of that era. He played only three of the 11 British Opens from 1920-30, and did not play in any that Jones won.

The next three (Cooper, Diegel, and Armour) are close to a tie for third best American pro of the 20's:

Harry Cooper was actually born in England, and his father had once served as an apprentice to Old Tom at St. Andrews. Harry played zero British Opens.

Leo Diegel played the Open three times from 1920-30, including one that Jones won.

Tommy Armour was born and raised in Scotland, served in the British Army during WWI, and moved to the US in 1920. He played in the Open three times from 1920-30, including one that Jones won.

Jock Hutchinson was the first American ever to win the British Open, in 1921. He finished 4th in 1922, and never played it again, although he continued playing in the Masters until 1963.

The only English golfer to win the Open during the Jones era was Arthur Havers, who won it in 1923, and was a fixture on England's Ryder Cup team until 1933. He continued playing in the Open until 1949. He played in the US Open twice in his life, neither of which Jones won.

Thanks, saved me the trouble.  Sooner or later folks will figure out that neither of us make historical statements without having the facts and that we both know our golf history.