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

[k-troop]

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".

From 1980 to 2005 (arbitrary date selected) there was no one to compare Jack to. He was the greatest. End of story. Then Tiger comes along and now we have to try and argue why one player is better than another even though they've never played each other. And how do you know that in 1960 the internet forum boards weren't awash with arguments about how you can never really compare between Bobby Jones and Hogan because they played in different eras?

[Hacker James]

again, this started out as a "poll" requesting everyone's personal opinion.  Its all subjective.

also, again.....Tiger Woods although has terrific ability and skills, is a spoiled little brat (in my opinion) with little  respect for anybody else, prone to blaming course conditions, weather, or anything else he can think of. I will admit however, that he has matured a great deal since his early, shunning everybody, refusing to sign autographs days.  Not that I think that Jack is without faults, he also can get his "nose up in the air" on occasion.  Arnold Palmer appeared to retain a class act however and I have never heard anything derogatory concerning him. (not saying there aren't any, just that "I" have never heard any).

As for his father.....only thing I know about him is that he fell asleep while he and Tiger were touring our club plant and was catching a few Z's behind the screen of the maintenance room.  (Titleist/Acushnet Escondido, CA).

[zeeratz]

...seriously...old versus new...could a driver with the length of 50 inches out drive one of 45 inches or 41 inches...small club vs big club head...in my small book...golf is about respect and getting rid of the negative that some players bring...the sly clink from a bag...talking self up when you take aim or concentration...ribbing done in an open friendly manner and after the shot is akin to companionship and individuate respect...the solid ethos of the keen or the gifted amateur cannot be overlooked within the magnificent game of golf...nor should it ever be...the transplanting of boyish gamesmanship into the professional advantage is absurd and akin to the politicians right to lie to the public...frankly disgusting, that may be a bit harsh but i do not think so...example, who would denigrate a child into an adult form of submission...could that be the real ethos of professional sport...example two, who gets a real kick out of watching anybody who is giving the effort to achieve...answer, like any like minded person who enjoys people...anyone out there watched a competition for "less abled" persons and really felt the effort and personal accomplishment...i have and its wonderful...not to mention humbling...debate occurs when two opposing forces disagree...it also involves neither here nor there because it is simply dealing with what isn't there...but usually bespeaks of some sort of advantage rather than learned skills and the advantage isn't necessarily from the two opposing forces...but from the check book...is that real ?..golf is about personal development full stop...the enjoyment of the same comes from sharing the within...if you can't do anything that brings a smile you are either doing the wrong thing or thinking in a wrong way...golf replicates the very facet of the true human spirit and endeavor therein...

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by k-troop

From 1980 to 2005 (arbitrary date selected) there was no one to compare Jack to. He was the greatest. End of story. Then Tiger comes along and now we have to try and argue why one player is better than another even though they've never played each other.

And how do you know that in 1960 the internet forum boards weren't awash with arguments about how you can never really compare between Bobby Jones and Hogan because they played in different eras?

How can there be no one to compare Jack to when it is impossible to compare players from different eras?  I didn't find it all that hard to make what I thought was a pretty good case for Hogan.  I think a pretty good case can be made for Vardon.  And since they are players of different eras than Jack's, the "can't compare players of different eras" argument should have prevented Jack from acclamation as GOAT.  YOUR statement makes my case, that the "can't compare players of different eras" argument never even existed until it was needed to try to defend Jack against a record that was obviously superior to his in all but one respect.

And while you are cute with your 1960s internet reference, the fact is that the venue of such discussions in the 60s was the media,  and once Jack got his "the fairest way to compare players of different eras is majors" statement accepted, even though it was actually the UNFAIREST way to compare, the media was virtually unanimous in its support of Jack as GOAT. And a lot of people got brainwashed accordingly, if it is true that you cannot compare players of different eras.

This is where I disagree with Erik's insistence that most people do not use 18>14 as their GOAT criterion.  Maybe not here, but that is still the basic criterion in the media.  And for folks who do not frequent golf discussion boards and do not know much about golf history, that criterion is generally accepted  Not on its merits but because that is the consensus of the media.  And it is easier than thinking about and analyzing the totality of a player's playing record.

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by k-troop

For those who argue Ben should get some leniency based on the fact that he had to "make a living"....

Hogan struggled on tour for a few years, and we've all heard the famous story of how he coasted into (I think) the LA Open with $5 left and won the tournament. Or maybe he made a top-5 and got a decent check, then won a few weeks later. Regardless, once Hogan won, his money troubles disappear from the story line.

If he had won in his first season as a pro, as both Jack and Tiger did, then (sadly) we'd have never heard that story. It is part of the Hogan mystique, but it's a mystique that only exists because Hogan basically sucked for a long time as a pro.

That's not GOAT worthy, and his $$ troubles are not an excuse for his failure to win more, they are the product of it.

We will never know how great Hogan could have been given his best years were stolen by his service to our country and a car accident.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

We will never know how great Hogan could have been given his best years were stolen by his service to our country and a car accident.

And yet he put up a record that compares very favorably with the greats of the game, of which he is one.  My argument for Hogan was not based AT ALL on his physical challenges, it was based purely on his record.

As for Hogan sucking for a long time as a pro, as k-troop put it, he still put up a better winning percentage in the majors, including all of those sucking years, than Jack did in his prime.

[Shorty]

We will never know how great Hogan could have been given his best years were stolen by his service to our country and a car accident.

Elvis did military sevice. Hogan did "sevice to our country". ;-)

[k-troop]

Hogan's military service and car accident are irrelevant. Either he won 70 times or he didn't. And he didn't. Jack did, including 18 majors. The only players who could be compared to Jack in 1980 with any form of a straight face were Snead and Hogan, but both fell woefully short: Snead based on majors and failure to win the US Open, and Hogan based on total wins. Which is why, in 1980, there was no discussion about GOAT: it was Jack, hands down. Prior to 1965ish there may have been legitimate debates about Snead, Hogan, Jones, et al. But in 1980 there was no debate. In 2013 there is a valid debate again. The other contender's name is Tiger. There are myriad arguments for and against either, but no argument for any other player that will be accepted by more than 1% of informed fans.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by k-troop

Hogan's military service and car accident are irrelevant. Either he won 70 times or he didn't. And he didn't.

Jack did, including 18 majors. The only players who could be compared to Jack in 1980 with any form of a straight face were Snead and Hogan, but both fell woefully short: Snead based on majors and failure to win the US Open, and Hogan based on total wins.

Which is why, in 1980, there was no discussion about GOAT: it was Jack, hands down. Prior to 1965ish there may have been legitimate debates about Snead, Hogan, Jones, et al. But in 1980 there was no debate.

In 2013 there is a valid debate again. The other contender's name is Tiger. There are myriad arguments for and against either, but no argument for any other player that will be accepted by more than 1% of informed fans.

But wait.  I thought it was impossible to compare players of different eras.  I guess that is only when it is convenient.

If Hogan fell short on total wins then so did Jack, since he never matched Snead.  And now does not match Tiger.

And Jack does not match Vardon, since he falls short in the number of British Opens won.

And Jack does not match Tiger in 5 win seasons.

And Jack does not match Tiger in money titles

And Jack does not match Tiger in Vardons (and don't give me any crap about Jack not playing enough rounds - you set the standard when you said " Either he won 70 times or he didn't. And he didn't." about Hogan.  And Jack's failure to play enough rounds was his choice, WW2 and the accident weren't Hogan's choice.

And Jack didn't match Tiger in 8+ win seasons.

And Jack didn't match Tiger in 3 major win seasons

And Jack didn't match Tiger in consecutive majors won.

And Jack didn't match ANY of Tiger's top three consecutive win streaks

And Jack didn't match Tiger's no cut streak.

And Jack didn't match Tiger's 10 Player of the Year awards.

Wow, this game is fun!!

But all of that is meaningless in the face of 18>14

See, Erik they SAY that is not their metric but when it comes right down to it, that is all they have.

[k-troop]

But wait.  I thought it was impossible to compare players of different eras.  I guess that is only when it is convenient.

I don't know why you're railing on me in this thread. I never said you can't compare players from different eras. I only said there's no point in comparing Jack or Tiger to Hogan (or anyone else for that matter) because they're leagues beyond the next closest challenger. And FWIW in my opinion Tiger passed Jack this year when he had his second "comeback" and passed Jack in total wins. But keep quoting me and extrapolating at will.

[nehemiah]

By the time Tiger's done, there will be a clear consensus.  Once he passes Snead and then runs up the total even more, it will be difficult to still argue for Jack.

And I say that as someone who dislikes Tiger.

And somewhat dislikes Jack as well.

And yes, I've seen Jack play, including his 86' Masters win live with his silly big putter.

[Lihu]

Just had a discussion with someone about Tiger. He mentioned that he "broke all the records", I mentioned he has one more. More majors than Jack. He agreed. It's like saying who's the greatest Olympic athelete in a particular sport. Most people will acknowlege, the one who won the most gold medals. Btw, this is my 1000th post.

[nehemiah]

So if Tiger beats every record that Jack has, only then you will conclude that Tiger is better?  Way to go out on a limb with your 1000th post.

In horseracing, there is a debate on GOAT as well.  Man O' War (20 wins out of 21 starts and winner of the Belmont and Preakness, sire of Triple Crown winner War Admiral) vs. Secretartiat (Triple Crown in 1973 and still holds to recrod time for the Kentucky Derby and Belmont).

There have been horses that have more wins, and many horses that have been undefeated.  But there's really no question who belongs in the GOAT category.  It's one of the two above.

Please learn to think on your own.  It's not just numbers of major wins.  You play golf.  It's possible to take into account other factors.  Who had more quality wins?  How good were the other competitors in their respective era?  Who had the better swing?  Who hit it farther and straighter compared to his peers?  Who had the better short game?

It's better to make a more comprehensive and knowledgeable assessment than waiting until every single record is eclipsed and then wating until Phyllis George tells you that one is better because they have more majors.  Have some courage.

[Jakester23]

I think the wgc wins are huge for tiger. I know jack didn't have those events but that's not tigers fault. The quality of those fields is unbelievable and how tiger has just owned them is something special.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by nehemiah

So if Tiger beats every record that Jack has, only then you will conclude that Tiger is better?  Way to go out on a limb with your 1000th post.

In horseracing, there is a debate on GOAT as well.  Man O' War (20 wins out of 21 starts and winner of the Belmont and Preakness, sire of Triple Crown winner War Admiral) vs. Secretartiat (Triple Crown in 1973 and still holds to recrod time for the Kentucky Derby and Belmont).

There have been horses that have more wins, and many horses that have been undefeated.  But there's really no question who belongs in the GOAT category.  It's one of the two above.

Please learn to think on your own.  It's not just numbers of major wins.  You play golf.  It's possible to take into account other factors.  Who had more quality wins?  How good were the other competitors in their respective era?  Who had the better swing?  Who hit it farther and straighter compared to his peers?  Who had the better short game?

It's better to make a more comprehensive and knowledgeable assessment than waiting until every single record is eclipsed and then wating until Phyllis George tells you that one is better because they have more majors.  Have some courage.

Wait ... what???  Where in his post did he say "Somebody else told me that Jack is better because he has more majors than Tiger and therefore I am going to just agree with that person?"  Oh yeah ... nowhere. His opinion is that most majors is more important than any other stat.  Who the f**k are you to tell somebody to think for themselves or to "have some courage"  (over the internet no less) just because they don't share your opinion on some asinine subject?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Wait ... what???  Where in his post did he say "Somebody else told me that Jack is better because he has more majors than Tiger and therefore I am going to just agree with that person?"  Oh yeah ... nowhere.  His opinion is that most majors is more important than any other stat.  Who the f**k are you to tell somebody to think for themselves or to "have some courage"  (over the internet no less) just because they don't share your opinion on some asinine subject?

Wow, Drew. That's pretty aggressive for you.

[nehemiah]

Wait.  Who the F*k are you, Drew?

I'm not talking about opinions.  I'm talking about the best way to evaluate anything, whether it's horseracing or Miley Cyrus' ass.

You can consider one thing (like the size of the a*hole), or everything.  The better way is to consider everything, and that is what my point is and that is not a matter of opinion.

But from what I can tell, you've got Miley beat.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by iacas

Wow, Drew. That's pretty aggressive for you.

Yeah, I know ... but every once in awhile something gets under my skin more than it should.  When he told Lihu to "Please learn to think on your own" and to "Have some courage" I took those as being a personal attack on the guy.  He's a nice guy ... and I don't think that his opinion of Jack being better than Tiger means he lacks courage or doesn't think for himself.  That is really all I was responding to. :)