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

[ThominOH]

Originally Posted by turtleback

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.

WoW.. are you butt hurt because people don't agree with your opinions?  Cry me a river

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by ThominOH

WoW.. are you butt hurt because people don't agree with your opinions?  Cry me a river

Not butt hurt at all.  You are certainly entitled to your opinion.  But you are not entitled to your own facts.

[allin]

Turtleback, posts like yours are why I visit this forum less often than I once did. You present historical records, but your conclusion includes all kinds of assumptions, then you post a self congratulatory post. What a crock, you assume that the best players were pros then, many of the best players were amateurs then. You compare different generations and assume that everything is equivalent except the superiority of modern golfers, what you have done is give us a 9th graders level post, without the reasoning, perspective and thoughtfulness of a truly knowledgeable person. Perhaps what is really amazing is how well players like Jones played, he completed an advanced education while competing, had inferior equipment, no video, no mental guru etc. The only thing you have proved is you are arrogant and your perspective as shallow as a child's wading pool.

[brocks]

Turtleback, posts like yours are why I visit this forum less often than I once did. You present historical records, but your conclusion includes all kinds of assumptions, then you post a self congratulatory post. What a crock, you assume that the best players were pros then, many of the best players were amateurs then.

Everybody's conclusions include all kinds of assumptions; if you think yours don't, you are kidding yourself. turtleback's posts have the virtue of also being based on facts, while yours seem to be based on stuff you heard somewhere. You can delude yourself all you want about how much reasoning, perspective, and thoughtfulness your own posts contain, but if your facts are wrong, then your conclusions will be wrong. To take this latest example, "many of the best players were amateurs then" is BS, unless you define "many" as three or four. Very few of the best players of the Jones era were amateurs (and since you were the one who previously claimed that Jones faced the best PROS in the opens he won, you have moved the goalposts, but we'll ignore that). It's a very common mistake among people who don't know much about golf history to think that there was something close to parity between the pros and amateurs in the 1920's, because Jones was an amateur, and he was THE best player, but it doesn't take much research to show that there were very few world class amateurs other than Jones. All you have to do is look at the results when the amateurs played against the pros, i.e. in the open championships. Since World War I (which for the SEC alumni here, ended in 1918), and excepting Jones, the grand total of pro majors won by an amateur is --- one, the 1933 US Open won by Johnny Goodman. But he was only 20 years old when Jones retired, and that was his only pro win. He had only one other top ten (in 1937) in a pro major in his life. And if you look through the final results of the US and British Opens during the 1920's, you will see that the number of amateurs other than Jones who finished better than 50th averages just 3 or 4, with never more than one better than 10th, and several years with no ams in the top ten, or even the top 20. In other words, over 90% of the world class players of the Jones era were pros. Bottom line, Jones was the greatest player of his day, but he never had to deal with anything like the fields in a modern major, WGC, Players, or even the stronger PGA tour events. He never faced all the best pros in his open wins, and there were only a handful --- probably not even half a dozen --- of truly world class amateurs in any given year. As tb says, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

[Contango]

Jack. He's Jack.

[brocks]

Jack. He's Jack.

Finally, an honest man. I tip my hat to you, sir.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by allin

Perhaps what is really amazing is how well players like Jones played, he completed an advanced education while competing, had inferior equipment, no video, no mental guru etc. The only thing you have proved is you are arrogant and your perspective as shallow as a child's wading pool.

Inferior to whom? His peers? Or to Tiger Woods and Tiger's peers? Did Bobby's peers have video, mental gurus, etc.?

And allin, perhaps you're taking things too personally if you feel the need to lash out with that last sentence?

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by allin

Turtleback, posts like yours are why I visit this forum less often than I once did. You present historical records, but your conclusion includes all kinds of assumptions, then you post a self congratulatory post. What a crock, you assume that the best players were pros then, many of the best players were amateurs then. You compare different generations and assume that everything is equivalent except the superiority of modern golfers, what you have done is give us a 9th graders level post, without the reasoning, perspective and thoughtfulness of a truly knowledgeable person. Perhaps what is really amazing is how well players like Jones played, he completed an advanced education while competing, had inferior equipment, no video, no mental guru etc. The only thing you have proved is you are arrogant and your perspective as shallow as a child's wading pool.

No, many of the best players were not amateurs.  Bobby Jones was an outlier.  In the 4-year stretch between 1913 and 1916 3 amateurs won it, Ouimet, Chick Evans, and Jerome Travers.  Jones won when he did.  Goodman won in 1933.  So not counting Jones who was, as I said, an outlier, 4 amateurs have wont he US Open in its whole history.

As to Jones' inferior equipment, he used the same equipment as everyone else did.  None of his competition had video or mental gurus.  So I don't get what your point is in bringing those things up.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings, but my posts are generally rooted in facts, not wishful thinking.

[allin]

I am expressing my frustration that topics and threads have increasingly become venues for simplistic ego fests. Topics are reduced to incredibly simplistic there is only one right answer, as if every topic was a math problem. The gladiators have at it then declare themselves victors as they are obviously superior. Intelligent adults recognize the limits of facts, comparing eras is not a science experiment, things are rarely that black and white. Yes Eric I hold you accountable for a significant part of this. Your recent post about an outdated swing thought by a fine old time player, emphasize the left side, is typical. Rigidity and intolerance to any point of view you don't share is frequent. You basically run the site, so you can do what you want . Of course if I respond with anything like that tone I am lashing out. Please look at your own house first. I have a 30 year background in social work, as far as I know experience you do not share. Please leave the analysis to someone more qualified.

[brocks]

I am expressing my frustration that topics and threads have increasingly become venues for simplistic ego fests.

Couldn't agree more. There is one poster in particular who can't seem to touch a keyboard without making some crack about what intelligent adults should know, or whose posts demonstrate perspective and reasoning, or which posters are as shallow as a wading pool. Then he calls other people self-congratulatory and arrogant. Then he tells us how his academic background should make him above criticism. Best of all, when people call him on his BS about golf history, he complains that facts are overrated. Too funny.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by allin

I am expressing my frustration that topics and threads have increasingly become venues for simplistic ego fests. Topics are reduced to incredibly simplistic there is only one right answer, as if every topic was a math problem. The gladiators have at it then declare themselves victors as they are obviously superior. Intelligent adults recognize the limits of facts, comparing eras is not a science experiment, things are rarely that black and white.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't think that's the way it is at all. I think - in this specific case since this is the thread in which you've chosen to say this - people are simply backing their personal opinions with the facts they feel are relevant. You're free to dispute those facts OR share some of your own facts that support YOUR opinion.

There's no right answer to "who is the greatest?" Those who feel it's Tiger will have different facts to support their claims than those who feel it's Jack. Both sides can (and have) told the other that "majors are all that matter is a lousy stat and here's why..." as well as "Jack played against weaker competition and here's why" (and so on - I'm not even going to check to see if those are both the same side because, well, who cares?).

I agree that things are rarely black and white, and I don't see this thread being an example of stuff that's too black and white. People who think it's Tiger can probably admit that it's not entirely obvious and the Jack people can make some valid points. And vice versa.

Originally Posted by allin

Yes Eric I hold you accountable for a significant part of this. Your recent post about an outdated swing thought by a fine old time player, emphasize the left side, is typical. Rigidity and intolerance to any point of view you don't share is frequent. You basically run the site, so you can do what you want . Of course if I respond with anything like that tone I am lashing out. Please look at your own house first. I have a 30 year background in social work, as far as I know experience you do not share. Please leave the analysis to someone more qualified.

This Eric fella sounds like a tool. Who is he anyway, and why does he run the site?

Leave the analysis of what to someone more qualified? I'm not sure what that means. Look, I'll respect people for the arguments they're able to make, or the knowledge they'll have. I'll respect them in an entirely different way for their accomplishments, but "teaching" and "playing" are two very different skills, and the knowledge gap between them is often quite wide. I don't care if Tiger Woods, Jack Nicklaus, and Ben Hogan risen from the grave come to me tomorrow to tell me something that I know is wrong - I'll tell them they're wrong and why. We question ourselves all the time at Golf Evolution, and all I ask of people here is to make me think. I have a thick skin, and a background not in social work, but in the hard sciences, where facts are just facts, and people don't take personal offense to them. If Nick Faldo says the ball starts on the swing path, I don't care how many majors he won - he's wrong, and worse than that, he's in a position of power to educate (or miseducate), and that annoys me, because I love and care for the game of golf, and people will want to listen to Nick Faldo, and he's screwing them up with incorrect baloney passed off as fact.

My post said simply "Garbage." That was probably harsh, but I think I've done a reasonable job lately of expanding on things and explaining my thoughts. That one was a mistake. It didn't educate, it was just snarky. But I also think it's possible you read into it too much, and I was hardly the first person in that thread to say something bad about the advice. It was given without context and is just flat out wrong. Someone else said it - the "always/never" type of of advice is typically poor in golf, because different people need different things. I don't know how took the comment I made later about "so we have to die first?" but that was a bit of fun. For all I know you were somehow personally offended by that, too.

Again, I come from the sciences. If I said "garbage" and nothing else, it was a mistake, and while I don't remember the specifics, I may have been in a hurry and figured if people wanted more from me they'd ask, and I'd share it. It's a forum, and I post a LOT because again I both love and care about the game of golf, and you know, not every post is gonna be a winner. I'll screw some up. The best I can do is learn from them and move on. Like the math error I made on the 300+ thread. Stupid, but I admit it, correct it in this case, and move on. I don't know what more I can do, as I certainly feel like Mike and I offer a LOT of good stuff. We're human, though, and occasionally I screw up and just say "Garbage."

You're no saint, allin. You ignored my questions in this very thread and called someone "arrogant" and said his perspective was "as shallow as a child's wading pool." That's kind of rude too, especially when, from where I'm sitting, the person was right. Turtleback posted some facts to back his case, and someone responded about him being butt hurt and crying himself a river. I don't see how turtleback's posts warrant the responses they've gotten, including some from you. Are you upset that the facts you said (like "the best pros played in both") were called into question and, from my perspective, disproven? Not everyone here deals in emotion and is okay with playing fast and loose with the facts. If you have an opinion, be prepared to back it. That's all I ask.

In other words, let's get back to the topic (Tiger vs. Jack).

[bwdial]

Originally Posted by brocks

Couldn't agree more. There is one poster in particular who can't seem to touch a keyboard without making some crack about what intelligent adults should know, or whose posts demonstrate perspective and reasoning, or which posters are as shallow as a wading pool. Then he calls other people self-congratulatory and arrogant. Then he tells us how his academic background should make him above criticism.

Best of all, when people call him on his BS about golf history, he complains that facts are overrated.

Too funny.

And there's a guy that posts childish, elitist bullshit like this...

Since World War I (which for the SEC alumni here, ended in 1918), and excepting Jones, the grand total of pro majors won by an amateur is --- one, the 1933 US Open won by Johnny Goodman. But he was only 20 years old when Jones retired, and that was his only pro win. He had only one other top ten (in 1937) in a pro major in his life.

Seriously?

[brocks]

Seriously?

I kid because I love. And because I used to live in Eugene (quack!)

[x129]

Who knew the SEC was such a hot bed of political correctness. I thought it was funny. And a lot more polite than just saying LSU grads

Quote:

I kid because I love. And because I used to live in Eugene (quack!)

[iacas]

Originally Posted by x129

Who knew the SEC was such a hot bed of political correctness. I thought it was funny.

Ditto. And I can't even name a team in the SEC. I don't care one bit about college sports.

[bwdial]

Originally Posted by brocks

I kid because I love. And because I used to live in Eugene (quack!)

That explains a lot actually.

Originally Posted by x129

Who knew the SEC was such a hot bed of political correctness. I thought it was funny. And a lot more polite than just saying LSU grads

Quote:

Well then... thank God I'm an Alabama grad.  And it has nothing has less to do with political correctness, and more to do with tiring of all the whiny, butt-hurt anti-SEC sentiment around the country.

Originally Posted by iacas

Ditto. And I can't even name a team in the SEC. I don't care one bit about college sports.

If I were from Big 10 country, I'd probably try to blot college sports out of my consciousness as well.  Nothing but a bunch of beating victims and pedophiles.

Back on topic... wait... what were we talking about?  Walter Hagen is the best ever, right?

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by x129

Who knew the SEC was such a hot bed of political correctness. I thought it was funny. And a lot more polite than just saying LSU grads

Quote:

I once heard that people who went to LSU were actually dyslexics who intended to go to the University of Southern Louisiana.

[bwdial]

Originally Posted by turtleback

I once heard that people who went to LSU were actually dyslexics who intended to go to the University of Southern Louisiana.

It's kind of funny, but a lot of LSU grads only went there for a semester or so.  Some weird rule in the state of Louisiana - go figure - allowed them to go to other state universities, and then transfer in for a semester and be an LSU grad.  Used to piss the folks that went to LSU for four or five (or six or seven) that folks could do that.  They may have changed it... I was told that nearly two decades ago... but they said there were tons of LSU grads who couldn't tell you where a damn thing on campus was because they'd only attended four classes there.