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

[Weed Whacker]

Wins are tangible.  Not a point to discuss..  because you will just throw this point away once I say Jack's Senior tour wins are not included.  With his senior wins he is ahead.  So Jack has now won more golf tourneys than tiger... Do not reply to me saying thats not fair to use because you want to use it as your measuring stick for your reason why Tiger is better. Now your measuring stick says jack is better based on Wins alone simply because you want to use WINS.  Don't come back at me telling me PGA wins because I already stated why stacking wins up to compensate for lack of majors is simply painting with a wide brush and not all to accurate.   Or do you want to use Vardons like some people... HAHA

Major wins are the tangible measuring stick (as I see it) which I referenced in previous post.   For reasons I mentioned in previous posts.

Why does Jack have more natural talent.... hum..... start another thread on this one as it could get messy.... look at their approach to the game for starters, Tiger is a hard worker and took his natural abilities and grew up on a golf course (basically- don't argue this point as it is not worth the time for anyone). He strived to be the best and number 1.

Jack as I mentioned in a previous post looked to be an insurance salesman. Why didn't he succeed in selling prudential life insurance?  Well his natural talents were such that his path chose him and his success is now in the history books as the best.  Tiger is not there, YET.   So back to the real question of this thread.... Jack is better than Tiger...

Can I get an Amen?

[saevel25]

Originally Posted by Weed Whacker

Why does Jack have more natural talent.... hum..... start another thread on this one as it could get messy.... look at their approach to the game for starters, Tiger is a hard worker and took his natural abilities and grew up on a golf course (basically- don't argue this point as it is not worth the time for anyone). He strived to be the best and number 1.

Jack as I mentioned in a previous post looked to be an insurance salesman. Why didn't he succeed in selling prudential life insurance?  Well his natural talents were such that his path chose him and his success is now in the history books as the best.  Tiger is not there, YET.   So back to the real question of this thread.... Jack is better than Tiger...

Can I get an Amen?

Doesn't matter yes? Jack wanted to win, he wants to win at life, he became a professional golfer. Who cares if he wanted to sell insurance first. Doesn't matter. All what matters is there ability to play golf, if you want to measure that in wins or not. People could say because Tiger practiced more than Jack and is struggling that Jack had more talent. It could be, but does that make jack a better golfer. Is someone a better quarter back because we think they underachieved due to lack of work ethic at there sport? I say the guy who worked hard and surpassed the other golfer is better. I do not rate a underachiever as the better golfer, when clearing Tiger has the better scoring average.

Talent DOES NOT EQUAL greatest ever.

[Weed Whacker]

Eh boy....     Now we get to scoring average......

Vardon's anyone?

My summary statement Jack is better than Tiger as of right now... Unless Tiger wins more majors.  Overall wins looks great in the history books but just doesn't get the excitement and awe as major wins.

Tiger is a hard worker not a point of contention...  His hard work hasn't produced 18 major wins....

Major's gentleman..... MAJORS

not Vardons, not scoring averages, GIR or shoe size, or women successfully pulled from a waffle house.

Tiger is chasing Jack's record... you can't chase if you are in the lead....

Jack is still better.....

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by Weed Whacker

Jack is still better.....

Actually, Tiger is way better. Jack would lose by probably 15 strokes if they played right now.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

Here's the thing, no one can be completely objective. Its like asking someone who's the greatest musical artist of all time. Most people are highly swayed by who there favorite person is. I know most people, when it comes to golf, will conclude its between tiger and jack, but from there there is some form of bias favoritism involved.

If i honestly thought about it, lets ask what makes a golfer?

1) ball striking

2) scrambling

3) putting

Basically all these things add up to what your going to score. Throwing out wins, who's the best? Tiger is. how can i come up with that.

Ball Striking - Jack played pretty much a fade majority of the time. Tiger has been known through out the years to hit it high, low, left, right. Tiger is the better ball striker. I am not saying jack couldn't, he chose not to, or maybe it wasn't something he was comfortable with. But tiger willingly curves the ball at will, showing his ability to have superior ball striking.

Just because he played his natural fade by preference most of the time, you don't think he was as good a ball striker?  Come on, get serious.  How often has Tiger played a 1 iron?  Nobody plays a 1 iron if he isn't a precise ball striker.  Jack played to his strengths, something Tiger could take a lesson on.  He might actually be able to find a fairway with his driver.

Quote:

Scrambling - i think is probably the most underrated part of Tiger's game. Not sure about jacks scrambling.

Was always the weakest part of Jack's game - even he admits that.

Quote:

Putting - Tiger is one of the best putters of his generation. I think they are both very much clutch putters. You ask them to make a putt under pressure, especially jack, they made it. Right now, not so much for Tiger. But overall i think Tiger was a much better putter of the ball.

And Jack was one of the acknowledged best putters of all time.  He remained a great putter even through major changes in putting green turfs.  He stayed at the top of his generation through the evolution from shag rugs to linoleum greens.

Quote:

But this can be seen in the stats. Look at scoring average through out the years. Jack only had 4 times when his scoring average was bellow 70 in his career. Tiger has 16 times his scoring average was bellow 70.

Sorry, but that's dominantly better. Were courses easier back then they were now, if so then it points more towards tiger. When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter the field your playing against. If your going to say who is the greatest GOLFER, its ability to put the ball in the hole in the least amount of strokes possible. If some other golfer got hot and beat you that weak, just means they were better that weak. To me, Tiger is above Jack in playing the game of Golf.

No courses weren't easier... don't know where you get that.  They weren't usually as perfectly manicured, greens were slow and bumpy, fairways weren't cut nearly as short.  Courses weren't as long, but nobody was hitting 340 yard drives either, not even 300 except on rare occasions.

You are pulling rabbits of of your behind on most of your statements here.  Most of your comments are purely opinion, not fact.  Which is in keeping with most of this thread.  You prefaced most of your comments with "I think".  That about makes my point.

[Lihu]

Actually, Tiger is way better. Jack would lose by probably 15 strokes if they played right now.

How old is Jack, now?

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by Lihu

How old is Jack, now?

That was my point. He said "Jack IS way better".

That is incorrect. Saying "Jack was better in his day than Tiger is now" is an opinion. Saying Jack is better than Tiger at golf, is incorrect. lol

He's 73 btw.

[Hacker James]

what was Jack's score on that last quasi exhibition round recently where he played with Arnie, Lee, Gary, Johnny, Dave Stockton and others?  I am not sure they even played the  entire round. This is another reason I am not too concerned about getting much better. I've simply run out of time.  I WILL break 80 though!( provided my health holds up another year or so and SWMBO lets me get out to the course as often as I want to.)  I would also have to say in my opinion, that Jack was better in his day than Tiger is now and no matter what metric is applied, my opinion won't change. I don't need reasons (on that point, I agree with Erik). Go figger.....

[Hacker James]

so, I googled it and found that The Legends was a team event and Nicklas's team scored a three under 69  and they alluded to a similar match in May.

[theworldengine]

BUT JACK WANTED TO BE A SALESMAN!!!!! He just rolled out of bed and was an amateur champion and young sensation on tour.

[saevel25]

Originally Posted by theworldengine

BUT JACK WANTED TO BE A SALESMAN!!!!! He just rolled out of bed and was an amateur champion and young sensation on tour.

You know that comment is total BS.

Jack started playing golf at the age of 10. Jack was a very good basketball player and recruited by Ohio State to play basketball as a shooting guard. He was also playing many junior events. To say he just decided to play golf was crap. He qualified for the US Amateur at the age of 15.

By the way it sounds, Jack was going to pull a bobby jones. He wanted to maintain his amateur status, and one of his goals was to win the Master's as an amateur. But then he got married and had a kid, and found he can make a better living playing golf. So he turned professional and never looked back. To say he wanted to be an insurance salesman rather than play golf is crap, he wanted both. He was going to compete in golf.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by theworldengine

BUT JACK WANTED TO BE A SALESMAN!!!!! He just rolled out of bed and was an amateur champion and young sensation on tour.

Somebody needs to read a book or two.

[mvmac]

I would take Jack's ballstriking over Tiger's any day.

[Mulligan Jeff]

Tiger's short game beats Jack hands down in Jack's hey day...

[framemaker]

I used to love to watch Tiger.  He was on the way to destroy Jack's major record.  His dad trained him how to be a winner but not to understand how important it is to have moral stability

and be respected world wide.  I'm not a prude by any means but if he wanted to be a playboy he shouldn't have married and had to great kids, it wasn't fair to them.

Because of this he threw away 5 important years in which he could have already had the major record.  Yes, he's had injuries but that didn't effect his mind.

You can see how out of touch he is in relationships when he left Butch and the most important partner, his caddie Stevie.

He's been a winner again this year, but he doesn't have the killer instinct he had in majors past.

Jack is from a different era. He had inferior equipment and shorter golf courses but I think he played against some of the finest golfers the world has ever seen.  They all seemed to have

a presence that followed them where ever they would go.  It's an attitude I guess but some have also seen it as snooty.

It's a tough call, haven't made up my mind yet

Framemaker

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Mulligan Jeff

Tiger's short game beats Jack hands down in Jack's hey day...

However.... Jack didn't need the recovery game as badly as Tiger, because he didn't spray his drives all over the county. Jack was every bit as good an iron play as Tiger, but he played more approach shots from better positions.

[zeeratz]

...there is no rational way to decide who is or was or is going to be the greatest, it actually defies logic, all pro's it would seem are great in their own right, the greatest could be decided when golf is finished with...hope bloody not !!! consider course layouts or golf gear or balls even, will the pull of sponsorship equate to greatness...who has played the most rounds in their career ? what is the percentage of wins, has the weather changed heaps thanks to ignorant and arrogant gore philosophy...when are we ever going to see a professional competition without caddies, no walking the course prior and every golfer using the same clubs and ball ??? would that be a good test...like perfection the greatest could possibly just be a myth...

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by zeeratz

...there is no rational way to decide who is or was or is going to be the greatest, it actually defies logic, all pro's it would seem are great in their own right, the greatest could be decided when golf is finished with...hope bloody not !!! consider course layouts or golf gear or balls even, will the pull of sponsorship equate to greatness...who has played the most rounds in their career ? what is the percentage of wins, has the weather changed heaps thanks to ignorant and arrogant gore philosophy...when are we ever going to see a professional competition without caddies, no walking the course prior and every golfer using the same clubs and ball ??? would that be a good test...like perfection the greatest could possibly just be a myth...

Great point.  Except that NO ONE made this argument until Tiger's record challenged Jack.  Before that everyone seemed to be pretty comfortable accepting the Jack is GOAT meme.  Now that it is a matter of dispute, all of a sudden it is "can't really compare".