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

[Golfingdad]

Greatest of all time has nothing to do with the personality.

This is where you lose me.  This topic is 100% subjective.  There are absolutely no rules that people are required to follow to choose who they think is the greatest.  Somebody else can decide that personality does matter and they are 100% correct.  It matters to them because its their opinion.  It's a mythical title that nobody really cares about.  If they say that personality matters to them, then it does, and they are right.  It doesn't matter to you and your criteria, obviously, but you don't get to decide the criteria for others.

[Slice of Life]

This is where you lose me.  This topic is 100% subjective.  There are absolutely no rules that people are required to follow to choose who they think is the greatest.  Somebody else can decide that personality does matter and they are 100% correct.  It matters to them because its their opinion.  It's a mythical title that nobody really cares about.  If they say that personality matters to them, then it does, and they are right.  It doesn't matter to you and your criteria, obviously, but you don't get to decide the criteria for others.

When you're talking about the greatest golfer of all time, personality should not be a factor. Opinion or not. In a "who do you like better?" argument, sure. But their personalities have nothing to do with this conversation...an opinion CAN be wrong in that sense.

Jason Dufner would beat out Tiger Woods if that was the case...

[9iron]

Greatest of all time has nothing to do with the personality.  Ty Cobb was a bastard, but he was still the greatest hitter for average in baseball history.

I wonder how Jack would cope with a world in which every player could, by using hybrids, hit the shots that he alone could hit with long irons, in his day.  And how he would cope with players whose short game has been tremendously improved by the use of 60* wedges.  It cuts both ways.  And Jack himself said it is HARDER for the best to separate themselves because of the equipment improvements.  They help the weaker players far more than the stronger players.

But not every player hits those shots, and only rarely do they hit them when it matters most like jack did. Jacks 3 iron on 15 in the 1986 Masters isn't a shot many players hit. His 1 iron at Pebble Beach in the US Open? Again, where are all the players winning majors with shots like that in the clutch to win a major?

Graham DeLeat, Kevin Chappell, Scott Piercy and Kev in Streelman are never gonna be Jack Nicklaus, even if they can lon occasion hit a great shot.

[phan52]

Greatest of all time has nothing to do with the personality.  Ty Cobb was a bastard, but he was still the greatest hitter for average in baseball history.

I wonder how Jack would cope with a world in which every player could, by using hybrids, hit the shots that he alone could hit with long irons, in his day.  And how he would cope with players whose short game has been tremendously improved by the use of 60* wedges.  It cuts both ways.  And Jack himself said it is HARDER for the best to separate themselves because of the equipment improvements.  They help the weaker players far more than the stronger players.

You are making a pretty good argument for Jack there.

The Fat Man in 1963. Look at that club. I am actually in this picture....

[k-troop]

When you're talking about the greatest golfer of all time, personality should not be a factor. Opinion or not. In a "who do you like better?" argument, sure. But their personalities have nothing to do with this conversation...an opinion CAN be wrong in that sense.  Jason Dufner would beat out Tiger Woods if that was the case...

I think he's saying that it's reasonable for someone to require that their GOAT be a gentleman. That's not the same thing as saying that the nicest guy is the GOAT.

[Slice of Life]

I think he's saying that it's reasonable for someone to require that their GOAT be a gentleman. That's not the same thing as saying that the nicest guy is the GOAT.

Again, when you're saying "their" GOAT, then you're talking about something different. They're not actually talking about who the better golfer was.

[boogielicious]

Seven years, four months, six days.  This thread has had a longer career than the average PGA pro.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

When you're talking about the greatest golfer of all time, personality should not be a factor. Opinion or not. In a "who do you like better?" argument, sure. But their personalities have nothing to do with this conversation...an opinion CAN be wrong in that sense.

Jason Dufner would beat out Tiger Woods if that was the case...

I think he's saying that it's reasonable for someone to require that their GOAT be a gentleman. That's not the same thing as saying that the nicest guy is the GOAT.

Bingo!!  Why can't that be one criterium?  Just because Turtle and Slice don't see it that way doesn't mean that others can't use it in the equation.  Greatness is not necessarily just a measure of playing skill.  How a player comports himself on and off the course is part of the package.

[Ernest Jones]

Bingo!!  Why can't that be one criterium?  Just because Turtle and Slice don't see it that way doesn't mean that others can't use it in the equation.  Greatness is not necessarily just a measure of playing skill.  How a player comports himself on and off the course is part of the package.

Totally disagree. That's all subjective and has nothing to do with performance. Being a nice guy means nothing in a GOAT conversation if you're getting your ass handed to you on the course. If that carried any weight then Tom Watson was a far superior golfer than Tiger.

I think he's saying that it's reasonable for someone to require that their GOAT be a gentleman. That's not the same thing as saying that the nicest guy is the GOAT.

I think this is where the debate tends to breakdown, is it possible that " their GOAT" and " the GOAT" are two different things with slightly different criteria?

[Slice of Life]

Bingo!!  Why can't that be one criterium?  Just because Turtle and Slice don't see it that way doesn't mean that others can't use it in the equation.  Greatness is not necessarily just a measure of playing skill.  How a player comports himself on and off the course is part of the package.

Yeah, but we're talking about the greatest golfer of all time. Not the best showman, or most likable. The only factors should be their golfing performance. Yelling ^&% after a bad shot or even throwing a club doesn't make you a worse golfer...it just makes you an a-hole.

[Golfingdad]

Totally disagree. That's all subjective and has nothing to do with performance. Being a nice guy means nothing in a GOAT conversation if you're getting your ass handed to you on the course. If that carried any weight then Tom Watson was a far superior golfer than Tiger.

I think this is where the debate tends to breakdown, is it possible that "their GOAT" and "the GOAT" are two different things with slightly different criteria?

The point is that there is no such thing as "THE goat".  There is only their goat, your goat, turtles goat, my goat, etc, etc.  There is no set criteria, there are no rules.  The fact that people have been wasting their time trying to argue this for 7 years proves that.  If you think that personality doesn't matter, then you're right.  If phan or fourputt says it does, then they're right also.

Turtle, your Ty Cobb comparison isn't fair because that is simply a fact.  He had the highest career batting average, period.  End of story.  Nobody ever could or ever would dispute that fact.  But GOAT is not a numbers game, it's an opinion game.

[k-troop]

Totally disagree. That's all subjective and has nothing to do with performance. Being a nice guy means nothing in a GOAT conversation if you're getting your ass handed to you on the course. If that carried any weight then Tom Watson was a far superior golfer than Tiger. I think this is where the debate tends to breakdown, is it possible that " their GOAT" and " the GOAT" are two different things with slightly different criteria?

Just saying I agree with GD that there can be no "the GOAT." It's inherently subjective. Although There may be some criteria that are important to some that are inherently stupid. ("How do you measure yourself against other golfers?" "By height.") If Fourputt thinks that you're disqualified from being GOAT for gross breaches of standards of gentlemanly conduct (which I agree Tiger is guilty of), I think that's fair.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Bingo!!  Why can't that be one criterium?  Just because Turtle and Slice don't see it that way doesn't mean that others can't use it in the equation.  Greatness is not necessarily just a measure of playing skill.  How a player comports himself on and off the course is part of the package.

Yeah, but we're talking about the greatest golfer of all time. Not the best showman, or most likable. The only factors should be their golfing performance. Yelling ^&% after a bad shot or even throwing a club doesn't make you a worse golfer...it just makes you an a-hole.

Tell me this then.  If both Tiger and Jack had identical records in competition, who would get your nod if it was absolutely required to pick one?  You can't honestly tell me that you wouldn't even consider Tiger's past bad acts off and on course as a factor in making such a decision.  Etiquette - on course demeanor - is part of the game of golf.  It isn't just about playing performance, and never has been.  It's a game among gentlemen, and maintaining ones composure when things go against you is part of the game.  Tiger loses that match up big time.

[Ernest Jones]

The point is that there is no such thing as "THE goat".  There is only their goat, your goat, turtles goat, my goat, etc, etc.  There is no set criteria, there are no rules.  The fact that people have been wasting their time trying to argue this for 7 years proves that.  If you think that personality doesn't matter, then you're right.  If phan or fourputt says it does, then they're right also.

Turtle, your Ty Cobb comparison isn't fair because that is simply a fact.  He had the highest career batting average, period.  End of story.  Nobody ever could or ever would dispute that fact.  But GOAT is not a numbers game, it's an opinion game.

Just saying I agree with GD that there can be no "the GOAT." It's inherently subjective. Although There may be some criteria that are important to some that are inherently stupid. ("How do you measure yourself against other golfers?" "By height.")

If Fourputt thinks that you're disqualified from being GOAT for gross breaches of standards of gentlemanly conduct (which I agree Tiger is guilty of), I think that's fair.

That's my point.

[Slice of Life]

Tell me this then.  If both Tiger and Jack had identical records in competition, who would get your nod if it was absolutely required to pick one?  You can't honestly tell me that you wouldn't even consider Tiger's past bad acts off and on course as a factor in making such a decision.  Etiquette - on course demeanor - is part of the game of golf.  It isn't just about playing performance, and never has been.  It's a game among gentlemen, and maintaining ones composure when things go against you is part of the game.  Tiger loses that match up big time.

Records aren't everything. You factor in clutch performances, strength of fields...etc.,

The odds of two people having the same exact career with no distinguishable differences outside of their personal lives is smaller than all of us collectively winning the lottery.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Tell me this then.  If both Tiger and Jack had identical records in competition, who would get your nod if it was absolutely required to pick one?  You can't honestly tell me that you wouldn't even consider Tiger's past bad acts off and on course as a factor in making such a decision.  Etiquette - on course demeanor - is part of the game of golf.  It isn't just about playing performance, and never has been.  It's a game among gentlemen, and maintaining ones composure when things go against you is part of the game.  Tiger loses that match up big time.

Records aren't everything. You factor in clutch performances, strength of fields...etc.,

The odds of two people having the same exact career with no distinguishable differences outside of their personal lives is smaller than all of us collectively winning the lottery.

So you just refuse to answer the question.  Okay.  Everything you said was irrelevant to my query.

[Slice of Life]

So you just refuse to answer the question.  Okay.  Everything you said was irrelevant to my query.

"If both Tiger and Jack had identical records in competition, who would get your nod if it was absolutely required to pick one?"

I answered it...there are factors other than records in competition that are relevant to their performance on the course. How is that not an answer? I would base it on the other GOLF related factors.

If you're asking if I'm gonna refuse to answer the question blindly based on no other factors, then that's c orrect. I refuse to answer a question that is irrelevant and represents a statistical impossibility.

[boogielicious]

Tell me this then.  If both Tiger and Jack had identical records in competition, who would get your nod if it was absolutely required to pick one?  You can't honestly tell me that you wouldn't even consider Tiger's past bad acts off and on course as a factor in making such a decision.  Etiquette - on course demeanor - is part of the game of golf.  It isn't just about playing performance, and never has been.  It's a game among gentlemen, and maintaining ones composure when things go against you is part of the game.  Tiger loses that match up big time.

Would a gentleman makes racist comments about black athletes not being able to play golf because of their physiques?  I don't recall Woods ever saying anything about whites.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1994-08-21/sports/9408200266_1_nicklaus-blacks-comments

If we are to remove all philanders, swearers and players who get angry at themselves from consideration, then the potential candidates would reduce significantly.