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

[Lihu]

I think Tiger is TBD, but he has a lot of years left in his professional career. Even in 2013, he was able to dominate the field of the 50 best players in the world. TBD, but you might be right that he will dominate in all ways someday. We won't know until it happens.

[Righty to Lefty]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Don't you think that the circumstances in which each played and the strength of the fields are relevant points?  And when people mark Tiger down for his private pecadillos don't you think it is fair to point out Jack's moral failure to take any kind of stand whatsoever against the rampant discrimination that existed in golf for at least the first half of his career?

As far as dominating the field, Jack was the best player over the period 1962 to 1980, or so, but you would be surprised at the relatively few number of those years he was actually the best player for that year he was always in the top 2 or three but not #1 all that many times - in that 19 years he was POY 5 times).  And that number is nowhere near the number of years that Tiger was the best player for the year (for example, POY 10 times - twice as many as Jack in a shorter period of time). And Jack's years as best player of the year were nowhere near as dominating as Tiger's years as best player for the year.  If you doubt that, list the years in which you consider Jack to have been the best player of the year and we can compare them to Tiger's years as best player of the year, both as to number and as to degree of domination.  But I assure you, it will not be close.  18>14 is about the only argument left for Jack's supremacy.  Virtually every other metric goes Tiger's way.

While I believe that Tiger is already the greatest to ever tee it up even if he retired today you present very compelling evidence proving it.  Well stated.

[Mulligan Jeff]

It all comes down to "how many majors", it doesn't matter what era, quality of the competition, etc. Tiger has to get to 19 majors to be called "the greatest golfer in history".

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Mulligan Jeff

It all comes down to "how many majors", it doesn't matter what era, quality of the competition, etc. Tiger has to get to 19 majors to be called "the greatest golfer in history".

So long as you realize that Jack is the ONLY player in the history of golf who was considered the GOAT on the basis of having the most majors.  When he got the record for pro majors with his 12th, surpassing Walter Hagen's, 11 NO ONE had considered that Hagen was the GOAT because he had the most pro majors.

Into the early 60s there was a raging debate whether Snead or Hogan was the greatest, with Hagen and Sarazen (and maybe some Brits justifiably arguing for Vardon) thrown into the mix for good measure.  How could that be, since Hogan had more majors than Snead?  And Hagen had more majors than any of them?  Maybe because we had not yet entered the soundbite world where everything has to be boiled down to a single number because otherwise we have to THINK about a variety of factors and make a judgement on a little more complicated basis than just one number being bigger than another.

We don't even retroactively apply Jack's metric.  Even now, if you ask knowledgeable golf fans who was the greatest pro golfer before Jack came along very few will answer Walter Hagen.  It will probably be Hogan or Snead.  So they don't REALLY believe that solely looking at the number of majors is the right metric, but they accept it in one and only one case.  Jack.

Even the venerable Bobby Jones, if we open it up to the amateur side, was no longer considered the GOAT long before Jack passed him.  His status was (rightfully) the greatest amateur ever, but not greatest golfer - except among purists who believed (completely falsely) that amateurs were better than pros.  Parenthetically, Tiger's 6 straight USGA Amateur title, including the 3 juniors, gives him a colorable claim to best amateur ever, but most people, including me, would consider that one would have to stay an amateur to be eligible for that.

So the ONLY player who got to be GOAT solely (now, since he can't stand up to Tiger's record on any other basis) is Jack.  And HE is largely responsible for shifting the metric to majors.

So be happy with 18>14 "reasoning" but understand that there is very little history or logical basis for that particular argument.  The fact that it is widely accepted right now is a temporary thing.  Whether or not Tiger gets to 18 or 19, in fact if he were to retire today, 50 years from now when the emotion has waned and rationality has re-asserted itself (because it is far easier to be rational about something no one had a rooting interest in because it happened 50 years ago) it will be seen as a no-brainer that Tiger was the greatest of all time.  Unless some Tiger level player comes along in the interim.  Jack will (rightfully) be considered an all-time great, but not THE all-time great.

[saevel25]

Purely on Talent, i would say Jack beats tiger. People say Tiger has a knack for golf. Tiger puts everyone to shame on working out. Before Tiger hardly anyone used the weight room. Now its backed with people, trying to get better. There's a reason why Tiger fell off the face of the earth, his personal life transcended his golf game. When he couldn't get the practice in, his game became erratic. I would say Jack is much more of a natural golfer than Tiger is. Tiger is the best ever because his hard work made him the best.

http://thesandtrap.com/b/the_numbers_game/tiger_and_jack

A great little inside look at the numbers. You can see Tiger even has more percentage of wins than jack and they played similar number of tournaments per year. Though i do think Jack got up for the Majors better than any other person. The number of 2nd place finishes he's had in majors is absurd. Also, I think jack handles the pressure of coming from behind better than Tiger. Tiger doesn't come from behind in majors. He's not a person who can flip the switch and catch people. He's the get out in front early, get comfortable, and just par the field to death.

When it comes to winning majors any which way possible, i think Jack is the best ever. Just being the best golfer, i think Tiger is overall the better golfer.

Driving the golf ball - Jack

Long irons - Jack

Mid to low irons - Tiger

Putting - Tiger

Short game - Tiger

Winning % - Tiger

[Lihu]

I am not really a regular spectator of golf, but I have seen some Youtube videos of Jack during the latter part of his prime. He was really good. I wonder how far he could hit with today's equipment?

Tiger is also really good, but the number of Majors is a good metric of your "GOATness". I am relatively confident he will be able to beat Jack's record. Mush in my face if he doesn't.

[Jakester23]

Who would most people say is the best hitter in baseball history? I bet no one would say maris or aaron. There is more to it than just hr's. There's more to being the best golfer than just majors.

[Mulligan Jeff]

There are variables to look at when choosing who is better. Don't think Tiger would win the Driver category lol When it comes to iron play and distance Tiger appears better sand play as well but Jack, back in the day would drain any putt when needed. This year Tiger played in 12 events and won 5, now that is amazing!

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mulligan Jeff

It all comes down to "how many majors", it doesn't matter what era, quality of the competition, etc. Tiger has to get to 19 majors to be called "the greatest golfer in history".

So long as you realize that Jack is the ONLY player in the history of golf who was considered the GOAT on the basis of having the most majors.  When he got the record for pro majors with his 12th, surpassing Walter Hagen's, 11 NO ONE had considered that Hagen was the GOAT because he had the most pro majors.

Into the early 60s there was a raging debate whether Snead or Hogan was the greatest, with Hagen and Sarazen (and maybe some Brits justifiably arguing for Vardon) thrown into the mix for good measure.  How could that be, since Hogan had more majors than Snead?  And Hagen had more majors than any of them?  Maybe because we had not yet entered the soundbite world where everything has to be boiled down to a single number because otherwise we have to THINK about a variety of factors and make a judgement on a little more complicated basis than just one number being bigger than another.

We don't even retroactively apply Jack's metric.  Even now, if you ask knowledgeable golf fans who was the greatest pro golfer before Jack came along very few will answer Walter Hagen.  It will probably be Hogan or Snead.  So they don't REALLY believe that solely looking at the number of majors is the right metric, but they accept it in one and only one case.  Jack.

Even the venerable Bobby Jones, if we open it up to the amateur side, was no longer considered the GOAT long before Jack passed him.  His status was (rightfully) the greatest amateur ever, but not greatest golfer - except among purists who believed (completely falsely) that amateurs were better than pros.  Parenthetically, Tiger's 6 straight USGA Amateur title, including the 3 juniors, gives him a colorable claim to best amateur ever, but most people, including me, would consider that one would have to stay an amateur to be eligible for that.

So the ONLY player who got to be GOAT solely (now, since he can't stand up to Tiger's record on any other basis) is Jack.  And HE is largely responsible for shifting the metric to majors.

So be happy with 18>14 "reasoning" but understand that there is very little history or logical basis for that particular argument.  The fact that it is widely accepted right now is a temporary thing.  Whether or not Tiger gets to 18 or 19, in fact if he were to retire today, 50 years from now when the emotion has waned and rationality has re-asserted itself (because it is far easier to be rational about something no one had a rooting interest in because it happened 50 years ago) it will be seen as a no-brainer that Tiger was the greatest of all time.  Unless some Tiger level player comes along in the interim.  Jack will (rightfully) be considered an all-time great, but not THE all-time great.

You're working way too hard to run your guy's colors up the flagpole.  You can't win, no matter how may you may get to agree with because the data is inherently flawed.

I'd much rather go with the more measurable metric and state that each was the best of his era.  Since no realistic or valid comparison can be made from era to era because of the dramatic changes that the game has been subjected too, it's a useless endeavor to try and invent criteria for evaluating the different careers.

[saevel25]

Originally Posted by Jakester23

Who would most people say is the best hitter in baseball history? I bet no one would say maris or aaron. There is more to it than just hr's. There's more to being the best golfer than just majors.

Actually check out sabermetrics, they do a hell of a job putting together correlation factors for different hitting eras. Meaning they will adjust a players historical numbers to a constant baseline, so you can judge them from year to year. So you can take babe ruth's numbers and show them up against Barry Bond's numbers.

[saevel25]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

You're working way too hard to run your guy's colors up the flagpole.  You can't win, no matter how may you may get to agree with because the data is inherently flawed.

I'd much rather go with the more measurable metric and state that each was the best of his era.  Since no realistic or valid comparison can be made from era to era because of the dramatic changes that the game has been subjected too, it's a useless endeavor to try and invent criteria for evaluating the different careers.

Not sure about that. I might say,

If you take a guy who's won 4 masters, versus a  guy who's one each of the 4 majors, and say the guy whose won each of the 4 majors is a better golfer because his game fit the whole spectrum of golf. To me when it comes down to it, distance of courses dont matter because the balls and clubs back then went less as far. Basically the scores on the courses haven't changed much on tournaments, so golfers have been shooting the same at the majors for decades.

To me, Jack has won ever major at least 3 times. So has Tiger Woods. There games transcend just being good at one golf course. Look at Phil, he's come in 2nd 6 times at the US open. There's something in his game that hasn't let him win the US open. He's even shocked he's won the British Open. But, Tiger and Jack were able to win those two tournaments multiple times. Just tell me they have the complete golf game. Look at Tom Watson. His game was tailored towards the british open. Probably the greatest British open player ever, and he almost won it this past decade.

So to me, i think Tiger is the better golfer because his winning % is better overall. He just wins more. But i think jack is a slight better major winning golfer, cause he's able to win the majors coming back and while in the lead. Tiger doesn't win majors with out a lead. So there is a slight quality edge there for jack.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by saevel25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

You're working way too hard to run your guy's colors up the flagpole.  You can't win, no matter how may you may get to agree with because the data is inherently flawed.

I'd much rather go with the more measurable metric and state that each was the best of his era.  Since no realistic or valid comparison can be made from era to era because of the dramatic changes that the game has been subjected too, it's a useless endeavor to try and invent criteria for evaluating the different careers.

Not sure about that. I might say,

If you take a guy who's won 4 masters, versus a  guy who's one each of the 4 majors, and say the guy whose won each of the 4 majors is a better golfer because his game fit the whole spectrum of golf. To me when it comes down to it, distance of courses dont matter because the balls and clubs back then went less as far. Basically the scores on the courses haven't changed much on tournaments, so golfers have been shooting the same at the majors for decades.

To me, Jack has won ever major at least 3 times. So has Tiger Woods. There games transcend just being good at one golf course. Look at Phil, he's come in 2nd 6 times at the US open. There's something in his game that hasn't let him win the US open. He's even shocked he's won the British Open. But, Tiger and Jack were able to win those two tournaments multiple times. Just tell me they have the complete golf game. Look at Tom Watson. His game was tailored towards the british open. Probably the greatest British open player ever, and he almost won it this past decade.

So to me, i think Tiger is the better golfer because his winning % is better overall. He just wins more. But i think jack is a slight better major winning golfer, cause he's able to win the majors coming back and while in the lead. Tiger doesn't win majors with out a lead. So there is a slight quality edge there for jack.

Different competition, different equipment, different course setup and conditioning, radically different prize purses change players' incentives for playing, and probably more that I haven't even considered.  There are simply too many differences to make any sort of valid comparison.  You  are just kidding yourself if you think that any of this makes any sort of sense.  Statistics only works when there is a relationship in the data.

[saevel25]

Its not statistics, its actually results. Are purses bigger, yea, but don't kid your self if these golfers care about that with those four majors. If they do, then they don't deserve to win one. I think tiger would gladly throw away the purse and take the trophy.

Here's the thing though, the course sets ups have done one hell of a job keeping scores similar. If a guy is shooting at the US open around par, and they were doing the same in the 70's. That means that the course set ups are making things comparable. Because distance has been negated, and ability has been taken into account. If not then scores wouldn't be the same. There is a baseline, its called what the winning scores are.

[MS256]

Originally Posted by Jakester23

Who would most people say is the best hitter in baseball history? I bet no one would say maris or aaron. There is more to it than just hr's. There's more to being the best golfer than just majors.

Surely you are joking???

Hank Aaron would be at the top for a lot of people.

Lifetime .305 batting average. 755 HRs. 2.297 Runs. 3,771 hits. 6,856 total bases.

And tied for number one on this list.

http://www.mlbcenter.com/articles/best-all-time-hitters_052208.html

[phan52]

Originally Posted by turtleback

So long as you realize that Jack is the ONLY player in the history of golf who was considered the GOAT on the basis of having the most majors. When he got the record for pro majors with his 12th, surpassing Walter Hagen's, 11 NO ONE had considered that Hagen was the GOAT because he had the most pro majors.

Into the early 60s there was a raging debate whether Snead or Hogan was the greatest, with Hagen and Sarazen (and maybe some Brits justifiably arguing for Vardon) thrown into the mix for good measure. How could that be, since Hogan had more majors than Snead? And Hagen had more majors than any of them? Maybe because we had not yet entered the soundbite world where everything has to be boiled down to a single number because otherwise we have to THINK about a variety of factors and make a judgement on a little more complicated basis than just one number being bigger than another.

We don't even retroactively apply Jack's metric. Even now, if you ask knowledgeable golf fans who was the greatest pro golfer before Jack came along very few will answer Walter Hagen. It will probably be Hogan or Snead. So they don't REALLY believe that solely looking at the number of majors is the right metric, but they accept it in one and only one case. Jack.

Even the venerable Bobby Jones, if we open it up to the amateur side, was no longer considered the GOAT long before Jack passed him. His status was (rightfully) the greatest amateur ever, but not greatest golfer - except among purists who believed (completely falsely) that amateurs were better than pros. Parenthetically, Tiger's 6 straight USGA Amateur title, including the 3 juniors, gives him a colorable claim to best amateur ever, but most people, including me, would consider that one would have to stay an amateur to be eligible for that.

So the ONLY player who got to be GOAT solely (now, since he can't stand up to Tiger's record on any other basis) is Jack.  And HE is largely responsible for shifting the metric to majors.

Serious revisionist histrory there. Harry Vardon was a god of golf at the turn of the century and was certainly considered the GOAT, partly because he made a point to come to America to win another Major. And Walter Hagan was one of the most popular athletes in America in the twenties, rivaling Jack Dempsey and Babe Ruth, and was certainly considered the GOAT during his career, primarily because of his record in Majors and because he is the first American who went across the pond and won the British (four times, BTW). Anybody who was around in the forties would tell you that Byron Nelson would have broken every record if he hadn't stopped playing competitive golf, and was considered by many to be the GOAT (my Dad did till the day he died), and Ben Hogan gained his icon status because of how he persevered, particularly in the Majors after he was hurt, and that tilted things in his favor over Snead. .

Jack didn't invent the metric. It's been around since the beginning of the 20th Century.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by Jakester23

Who would most people say is the best hitter in baseball history? I bet no one would say maris or aaron. There is more to it than just hr's. There's more to being the best golfer than just majors.

LOL!! So, Hank Aaron just hit HR's?

Seriously, stick to golf.

[Jakester23]

Hey phan I wasn't saying that. I was saying because he has the most hr's doesn't mean he's the best hitter of all time. I'd say Ted Williams is or if the ped's don't bother you maybe Bonds Don't tell me to stick to anything dbag.

[saevel25]

Originally Posted by MS256

Surely you are joking???

Hank Aaron would be at the top for a lot of people.

Lifetime .305 batting average. 755 HRs. 2.297 Runs. 3,771 hits. 6,856 total bases.

And tied for number one on this list.

http://www.mlbcenter.com/articles/best-all-time-hitters_052208.html

Ted Williams, best hitter in baseball history.

0.344 batting average and batted above .400 for a season