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

[iacas]

Originally Posted by dsc123

Who started this topic?

It's a tangent from another thread, and he started it because I asked that he stick to the topic in the "Jack or Tiger" thread. For better or worse, that's what the thread was called so many years ago, so that's the topic.

Originally Posted by dsc123

Turtleback made three points: (1) total major's isn't a good barometer of GOAT; (2) major winning percentage is a better barometer; and (3) the widespread use of total major's was at least in part due to Jack's own focus on that as the barometer.

As simply as I can put it, I disagree that #2 is a great barometer. I also supported #3 in the Jack/Tiger thread (that was Jack's metric - I disagree that it was "self-serving" in the connotative sense of the word) . And since I apply more than "total majors" I agree with #1 as well.

Originally Posted by dsc123

The only thing you've said that's relevant to any of those was that winning percentage doesn't account for level of competition--and even that isn't particularly insightful since it equally affects the total major count.

And it's kind of a big point. It argues against any single "metric" being used because we can't really establish how field strength has varied.

I've also argued against turtleback's opinion that the majority of people view "Total # of Wins" as the one and only metric. I don't think most people have only one metric, or weight it as heavily as he feels they do.

Originally Posted by dsc123

Meanwhile you repeatedly accuse the guy who started the thread of missing your irrelevant point that people consider factors in addition to total majors? Not to mention calling him rude when he says you're missing his point, then making it "simple" so he can understand that he's the one missing your point.  Fantastic.

Because he keeps missing my two very simple points:

a) most people shouldn't just go by winning % for the same reasons that they shouldn't just go by major win totals

b) most people don't go by a single metric, regardless of what that metric is, when they determine for themselves who is the GOAT

turtleback is just arguing for a different single metric to be used. I feel that very few people apply a single metric.

Originally Posted by turtleback

The fact is that most of the golf world still holds to the "most majors = GOAT" metric.

As I've said many times now, I think you're wrong about that.

As Golfingdad points out, the poll argues against you by a fairly significant margin. Your claims are unsubstantiated and opinion. My opinion differs. I don't think most everyone applies "total majors" as the only metric. It has weight, but it's not given a weight of 1 or even 0.9 by the majority of people.

Since neither of us can prove this, we have to rely on what we've got. The poll is one such thing that supports my opinion. I suppose you'd have media quotes to support your position, but "the media" is a fairly small group in terms of the golfing population. Heck, I suspect for many "who was playing during their 20s and 30s and 40s" matters most to them.

Originally Posted by turtleback

Since we can never know how two players of different eras would stack up against each other in real time I think that the best way to make an assessment between players is how they stack up relative to their contemporaries.

And so again we're back to the level of competition thing. Hogan played against some pretty weak fields. The level of competition is not the same - just as golf courses are not the same through the years (even the Old Course has changed - greens have changed speed, holes have been lengthened, etc.) and golf equipment has not stayed the same.

So again, no single metric really works… nor do I think most golf fans apply a single metric.

Originally Posted by dsc123

But its easier to rack up wins if the competition is weak, right?

Absolutely.

I think many believe it was easier to win 18 majors in Jack's day than it is to win 14 these days (since 1997). These people would vote for Tiger as GOAT if they applied a blend of three metrics: PGA Tour wins, major wins, and competitive strength. They might even include other factors like "excitement factor" (Tiger's fist pumping might give him the edge), Honor/Integrity (Tiger takes a knock there, of course), etc.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by k-troop

Short answer: yes. (See Colin Montgomerie)

Agreed. Majors matter. They may not be ALL that matters, but they matter a good bit.

Originally Posted by MSchott

It's been said in this thread that it's hard to compare among different eras and that's true. But this thread once again, is about comparing Jack and Tiger so none of that matters. And in the last 40-50 years, winning majors has been the metric. Arnie started the modern major talk, Jack ran with it and Tiger measures Jack's record.

It matters. They didn't play against each other, so if you feel it was easier to win 18 majors in Jack's day than 14 now, you probably pick Tiger as the GOAT. If you feel 18 was tougher to get than 14, and you don't value other PGA Tour victories as much, you might still lean towards Jack.

[dbuck]

I will say up front that I still hold Jack as GOAT. I think Hogan would say so, I think Jones would say so, I think Tiger would say so, (until he catches Jack in majors but that is off topic). That said if not Jack, then Hogan? I would say Tiger. If not Tiger then I would put Jones, Nelson, and Snead in the mix. That said, I would have a hard time picking a top 5. Top 4 I would have to say Jack, TIger, Jones, and Hogan probably in that order. The fifth would be hard for me to pick between Nelson and Snead, and of course Arnie goes somewhere in there close as well as Player. So by that logic, I guess I pick Hogan over Snead and Nelson. Snead won more tournaments and Nelson retired early. Of course, Jones retired from competitive golf at 28, but truthfully his health may have still reduced his tenure soon had he not retired. Hogan is and will always be revered as one of the greatest ball strikers, among other great accomplishments.

[9iron]

Percentage of majors won is going to cause problems simply because great players will keep trying to win majors long past their prime. Jack only won 1 major past age 40. I'm guessing he played in close to all 40 of them between age 40 and 50. So he starts his career going 17 out of about 100 and finishes going 1 for 40 at the end. His winning percentage drops significantly due to all of those majors over age 40 that he did not win.

Bobby Jones won a very high percentage of the majors he played in, but did not even try to win past age 28. Had he kept trying until age 50, his winning percentage would undoubtedly have declined. The same thing is going to happen to Tiger and all others in the future.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by 9iron

Percentage of majors won is going to cause problems simply because great players will keep trying to win majors long past their prime. Jack only won 1 major past age 40. I'm guessing he played in close to all 40 of them between age 40 and 50. So he starts his career going 17 out of about 100 and finishes going 1 for 40 at the end. His winning percentage drops significantly due to all of those majors over age 40 that he did not win.

Please read the first post:

Originally Posted by turtleback

Starting in 1962 when he turned pro, Jack played in 31 majors in the 1960s (I didn't count the 1962 Masters as he was still an amateur).  In the 1970s he played in 40 majors. Up to the '86 Masters he had played another 25 majors.  That gives him a total of 96 majors played in that period for the 18 wins.  That is a winning percentage of 18.8%.  If we were to count EVERY major Hogan played in there was a total of 58, including majors he played when he was well over age 50.  Even counting ALL of his majors played, his winning percentage only drops to 19.0% still a hair above Jack.  But of course if we count ALL of Jack's post-86 Masters majors his winning percentage plunges.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by iacas

Please read the first post:

Thanks.

I'm not sure if there is an incredible lack of reading comprehension or I am just a poor communicator.  Anyone who could read my messages and conclude that

a) I am arguing FOR Hogan as GOAT or,

b) I am arguing for percent of majors won as the metric that should be used

is just off.

Yes the poll here says Tiger, but I would argue that the population here is not typical.  As someone else said, there are almost no public figures in the golf world nor the media who at this point would publicly dethrone Jack as GOAT in favor of Tiger.  I thought it was obvious that I was using the Hogan argument as being a counter to the 18>14 mentality.  I tried to use it in the Jack/Tiger but was told it was off point, which still makes no sense to me but oh well.

But I now give up.

[far and sure]

Would it matter much if players,Hall of fame players like Gary Player and even Jack himself and Trevino have said that Hogan was the best they ever saw,then and now,and given the equipment today,Gary Player has consistently said guys like Snead ,Hogan and Nelson would dominate.

Whether or not Snead and Nelson,Hogan and others of that era,couldnt afford the passage to the british open every year,and the fact that it was always the same week as the PGA,has to account for any calculation in your metric,they didnt have the Oppurtunity to Play four majors a year consistently,like the players of today.

you cant tell me it doesnt make a difference when you can hop a lear jet and fly to st andrews as opposed to sitting on ocean liner for a week.doesnt factor in.

even arnold palmer only started going over to the british open when he was able to fly.therefore expanding his oppurtunity to win majors.

There will be some people and i know a few myself,that will only determine the goat by wins period,specifically majors.and i think that is not a fair calculation,look at Hagan he won 11 and is even not in the conversation.he didnt even get to play in the masters until way after his prime,and he would even make the trip over to the british,and he competed against Sarazen,Jones,ect.

[far and sure]

Thats my point,Regardless of the  number of golfers in any era,if they are not winning it deosnt matter if they are in the field.how many guys on the pga tour today merely make a living making the top twenty five every week .in the 40s and 50s.if your not in the top three week to week your not making a dime.so i  think the competition was stiffer based on the fact you had to win to stay on the tour,otherwise you packed up and went home,as Hogan had done three times previous.Do you think the competition was stiffer then or now?

[saevel25]

honestly though, i think if your going to look at wins, % of wins is the best way to do it. Its like saying, in basketball, you have volume shooters or efficient shooters. If a guy reaches 10,000 pts scored in 20% less shots taken, i count that as a better basketball shooter.

Honestly i am not sure i would count majors much more than other wins. If a guy has 120 wins and 2 majors, lets say a 15% winning percentage, versus a guy who has 50 wins and 10 majors, lets say a 5% winning percentage. I would say the 120 guy is a better golfer. He might have not just caught the majors right. Look at phil, won a ton, should have won a few majors earlier in his career, but sometimes they don't fall your way. So i can't discredit those who happen not to win the majors.

Ok i might retract my claim on Hogan a bit, he might be up there. He did win 17% of his majors. Tiger won 20% of his majors. Not sure how Hogan would have handled the other majors if he played in them. I think his percentage would have gone down, but yea Hogan could play.

This one will just blow your minds,

Bobby Jones Major winning % is 30%. That's a fun stat, still my favorite golfer of all time, so i am biased on it.

[iacas]

honestly though, i think if your going to look at wins, % of wins is the best way to do it.

That's your opinion, and opinions vary. People have different reasons.

[boogielicious]

One issue with polls is newer players tend to get a bit more credit because they are familiar to the average poll taker.  Very few of us ever saw Hogan play.  I did see Nicklaus play toward the the end of his career, but have seen all of Tiger's.  So my reference point leans toward the one I have the most familiarity with.

We see this in other sports when they talk about GOAT.  Basketball - Everyone picks Jordan because most never saw Bill Russell play, etc.  Jordan has the stats and Russell has the rings.

[waldo]

"And so again we're back to the level of competition thing. Hogan played against some pretty weak fields. The level of competition is not the same"

Snead, Nelson, and Palmer were weak competition?

[Spitfisher]

Originally Posted by iacas

Agreed. Majors matter. They may not be ALL that matters, but they matter a good bit.

It matters. They didn't play against each other, so if you feel it was easier to win 18 majors in Jack's day than 14 now, you probably pick Tiger as the GOAT. If you feel 18 was tougher to get than 14, and you don't value other PGA Tour victories as much, you might still lean towards Jack.

18 is jacks number, but 19 is also another number for jack 19 second places and 53 is another number, that's jacks top 10 finishes in majors. My point is if you use majors as the bench mark, something I subscribe to, Tiger may very well get 20 wins but if level of finishes drops off, then I would still give the edge to jack based on his wins, 2nd and top ten finishes

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Spitfisher

18 is jacks number, but 19 is also another number for jack 19 second places and 53 is another number, that's jacks top 10 finishes in majors. My point is if you use majors as the bench mark, something I subscribe to, Tiger may very well get 20 wins but if level of finishes drops off, then I would still give the edge to jack based on his wins, 2nd and top ten finishes

Good. That's how you want to determine it.

I couldn't care much less about second-place finishes.

[Mulligan Jeff]

Upon holding a 54 hole lead and going on to win Tiger is the best. Coming from behind and going on to win Tiger lacks and I'm not sure why. Any thoughts?

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by Spitfisher

18 is jacks number, but 19 is also another number for jack 19 second places and 53 is another number, that's jacks top 10 finishes in majors. My point is if you use majors as the bench mark, something I subscribe to, Tiger may very well get 20 wins but if level of finishes drops off, then I would still give the edge to jack based on his wins, 2nd and top ten finishes

What would 2nd and top 10 finishes have to do with anything? If that's the case, Phil Mickelson might be the greatest US Open player of all time. Haha.

If Tiger finishes with 19 majors, and had 0 2nd place and 0 top 10 finishes in majors outside of those wins, he'd still beat out Jack.

[9iron]

Ben Hogan is the greatest at one thing for sure, getting his picture on golf clubhouse walls. That pic of him just after hitting that 1 iron on the last at Merion in 1950 adorns more pro shop walls than any other I have ever seen.

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by waldo

"And so again we're back to the level of competition thing. Hogan played against some pretty weak fields. The level of competition is not the same"

Snead, Nelson, and Palmer were weak competition?

Palmer started as a pro near the end of Hogan's career. Good point about Snead and Nelson and Thomson and  Locke as Open Champion specialists but the key point is the depth of the field. Jack had Arnie, Casper, Watson, Player, Floyd, Trevino, Miller and Seve in his time and Tiger has had Phil, Singh, Goosen, McIlroy and Els.