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

[k-troop]

Except that there are a few here who insist that there is an answer and that their answer is the only right one.  I simply dispute both of those claims.

Rubbish. No one would make such claims.

[boogielicious]

This is exactly what several of us have been saying, but a few, like Turtle, just can't let it go and simply appreciate each for his contribution to the game during the period when he played.  There is no magical mathematical formula that's going to resolve the dilemma.  No matter how you twist and turn the numbers, the gulf between the eras is too wide to bridge convincingly.

Why does there have to be a greatest anyway?  There are a dozen or more golfing greats who we look up to, even revere, for what they have given to the game of golf, and it does a disservice to them to say that their contribution and career is less significant than another's just because the opportunities were different during the era when they played.  Give each his due, and don't worry about who stands an inch higher on the podium than the next one.

Exactly!  Of course, if we all felt this way, that would be the end of Sport Talk Radio.

[turtleback]

I stayed out of this for a long time now, but I'm just going to say that I don't think it's possible or fair to say anyone is "the greatest of all time" only that they are/were the greatest in their era/time. Too many variables have changed from course layout to technology and there is no way to really quantify they level of competition each faces.

If you really believed that in 1986, then I am fine with that and I can respect your position.  But if, like the vast majority of people who followed golf you had no trouble saying that Jack was the GOAT in 1986 then that position becomes empty.

Except that there are a few here who insist that there is an answer and that their answer is the only right one.  I simply dispute both of those claims.

LOL  You are insisting there is no answer and you are insisting that your answer, that there is no answer, is right  I am not insisting that my answer is right, I am just insisting that YOUR answer is wrong.  And if at any point in your life you considered Jack the GOAT then res ipsa loquitur.

You should go scold the guys making up top ten lists in another thread, because that intrinsically involves comparing players of different eras.

[Jeremie Boop]

If you really believed that in 1986, then I am fine with that and I can respect your position.  But if, like the vast majority of people who followed golf you had no trouble saying that Jack was the GOAT in 1986 then that position becomes empty.

In 1986 I was 8 and had no interest in golf at all.

[9iron]

LOL  You are insisting there is no answer and you are insisting that your answer, that there is no answer, is right  I am not insisting that my answer is right, I am just insisting that YOUR answer is wrong.  And if at any point in your life you considered Jack the GOAT then res ipsa loquitur.

My take on what you have been doing of late is this: since you can't "win" the debate and get everyone to acknowledge your guy, Tiger, as the GOAT, you are basically arguing against the metrics they use to choose Jack. I think you believe that if you destroy the metric, you can destroy the argument for Jack, and that by default Tiger will then have to be the GOAT.

Your problem is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It matters not "how" someone chooses who they feel is the 'greatest" simply because the entire debate is, by its very definition, subjective. It is like asking who the hottest actress is. One guy says Megan Fox, the next says Kiera Knightly and so on and so forth. I think its Brittany Binger, but you probably have never even heard of her. Is the guy who screams Megan Fox going to convince me that my choice is wrong because he doesn't like the metric I used? It won't work because, like I said above, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[Jakester23]

I looked up Brittany Binger. Wow

[9iron]

I looked up Brittany Binger. Wow

Yeah, she's sizzling hot. How many guys are now doing a Google Image search on Brittany? Probably as many as use this forum. LOL.

[Stretch]

Guilty as charged.

[Jakester23]

I can't wait to think about her when my wife and I are. Never mind

[Ernest Jones]

Guilty as charged.

Same here, and thank you 9iron.

[turtleback]

My take on what you have been doing of late is this: since you can't "win" the debate and get everyone to acknowledge your guy, Tiger, as the GOAT, you are basically arguing against the metrics they use to choose Jack. I think you believe that if you destroy the metric, you can destroy the argument for Jack, and that by default Tiger will then have to be the GOAT.

So, since I can;t "win" the debate I shouldn't argue my case?  But you are right, since the only metric that really favors Jack, and the one that is, despite protests to the contrary, at the heart of almost every argument in favor of Jack is 18>14, I AM trying to destroy that metric.  Not to favor Tiger, but because it is a ridiculous unfair metric.  It is unfair to earlier players (who some say you can;t compare anyway).  And because it never applied before Jack.  If we have routinely considered the player with the most majors the GOAT I would have o problem with it, although I would still disagree.  But the fact that no player in the history of golf was the acclaimed GOAT on the basis of having the most majors it is a bogus metric, IMO.  And frankly if/when Tiger passes him it will never be the basis for GOAT ever again, as the next guy is going to have to do a lot more than win the most majors, in the face of the rest of Tiger's record.  He will need to win the most WGCs he will have to be at lest comparable in things like POY awards, Vardon, in a word, year to year DOMINANCE over a long period of time.  Something that, despite his amazing career and record in the majors, Jack did not have.  He had dominant years but there weren't that many of them.

From MY perspective I see a lot of arguments that are now raised that never were before, until Jack got challenged, and I challenge and counter them.  Most majors = GOAT is just one of them.  Another is the argument that you cannot compare players of different eras.  If that were really so no one could ever come up with a top ten greatest players list, as is being done in another thread because any such list OBVIOUSLY involves comparing players of different eras.  If that were really so then Jack could never have been considered GOAT in the first place, as naming a GOAT OBVIOUSLY involves comparing players of different eras.  To spin back a common charge against the Tiger supporters, golf did not begin in 1962.

As to your beauty is in the eye of the beholder argument, a better analogy is if someone argued that XXX is most beautiful because she is the tallest.  And I am arguing that no, others are just as beautiful based on the totality of their appearance.

[9iron]

So, since I can;t "win" the debate I shouldn't argue my case?  But you are right, since the only metric that really favors Jack, and the one that is, despite protests to the contrary, at the heart of almost every argument in favor of Jack is 18>14, I AM trying to destroy that metric.  Not to favor Tiger, but because it is a ridiculous unfair metric.  It is unfair to earlier players (who some say you can;t compare anyway).  And because it never applied before Jack.  If we have routinely considered the player with the most majors the GOAT I would have o problem with it, although I would still disagree.  But the fact that no player in the history of golf was the acclaimed GOAT on the basis of having the most majors it is a bogus metric, IMO.  And frankly if/when Tiger passes him it will never be the basis for GOAT ever again, as the next guy is going to have to do a lot more than win the most majors, in the face of the rest of Tiger's record.  He will need to win the most WGCs he will have to be at lest comparable in things like POY awards, Vardon, in a word, year to year DOMINANCE over a long period of time.  Something that, despite his amazing career and record in the majors, Jack did not have.  He had dominant years but there weren't that many of them.

From MY perspective I see a lot of arguments that are now raised that never were before, until Jack got challenged, and I challenge and counter them.  Most majors = GOAT is just one of them.  Another is the argument that you cannot compare players of different eras.  If that were really so no one could ever come up with a top ten greatest players list, as is being done in another thread because any such list OBVIOUSLY involves comparing players of different eras.  If that were really so then Jack could never have been considered GOAT in the first place, as naming a GOAT OBVIOUSLY involves comparing players of different eras.  To spin back a common charge against the Tiger supporters, golf did not begin in 1962.

As to your beauty is in the eye of the beholder argument, a better analogy is if someone argued that XXX is most beautiful because she is the tallest.  And I am arguing that no, others are just as beautiful based on the totality of their appearance.

Did Jack ever cheat? Like, say, maybe he moves a stick and his ball changes position, but he doesn't take the 2 stroke penalty? Then when caught claim he thought it had oscillated? You know, had Jack ever done something like this then I might re consider my present thinking on this subject.

But I can't find any evidence that Jack ever tried anything like this. Just sayin'. It is all part of the metric.

[turtleback]

Did Jack ever cheat? Like, say, maybe he moves a stick and his ball changes position, but he doesn't take the 2 stroke penalty? Then when caught claim he thought it had oscillated? You know, had Jack ever done something like this then I might re consider my present thinking on this subject.

But I can't find any evidence that Jack ever tried anything like this. Just sayin'. It is all part of the metric.

I have no clue what this has to do with anything.

[Golfingdad]

I have no clue what this has to do with anything.

He's implying that tiger tried to intentionally cheat today on his first hole. He has superpowers, apparently, and somehow knows that tiger knew he committed an infraction but didn't call it on himself. And based on that "rock solid" info, he's saying tiger can't be goat.

[turtleback]

He's implying that tiger tried to intentionally cheat today on his first hole. He has superpowers, apparently, and somehow knows that tiger knew he committed an infraction but didn't call it on himself. And based on that "rock solid" info, he's saying tiger can't be goat.

Not bad.  It is above his usual level of reasoning.

Of course he doesn't realize that while we have probably seen over 90% of the shots Tiger has played in his professional golf career we saw, optimistically speaking, less than 10% of Jack's shots. Us old guys remember when all we got to see was the last 4 holes of a tournament for a couple of hours only on Saturday and Sunday.  So we got to see Jack play a maximum of 8 holes in a 72 hole event.  IF he was on contention which, on a weekly basis, was not as often as Tiger is.  And, back then they didn't show him just because he is who he is, as in the case of Tiger.  And there was no HD back then, nor independent videographers, nor broadcasting techniques in which anything much beyond the actual shot was shown.  It is hard to believe that these situations never occurred when those means of observing them did not exist (just because 19th century physicians could not detect clogged arteries doesn't mean that arteries didn't get clogged).  So, in all likelihood the same kinds of things happened with Jack and every other pro golfer back in the day.  But it was never observed, micro-analyzed, and brought to light.

So of course in Nineiron's opinion this is enough to condemn Tiger and put Jack on the infallibility pedestal.

What it really does is show us exactly where he is coming from.

[fonebone]

don't remember Jack getting three penalties assessed by the the tour ever. you can't look at players mindset but I can see a tendency developing.

[jamo]

don't remember Jack getting three penalties assessed by the the tour ever. you can't look at players mindset but I can see a tendency developing.

20 seconds of Googling turned up a link to a slow penalty from 1962: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2199&dat;=19620922&id;=Nz4yAAAAIBAJ&sjid;=W-UFAAAAIBAJ&pg;=6362,6479249 Facts, people. Not 40-year-old speculation.

[MSchott]

20 seconds of Googling turned up a link to a slow penalty from 1962: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2199&dat;=19620922&id;=Nz4yAAAAIBAJ&sjid;=W-UFAAAAIBAJ&pg;=6362,6479249

Facts, people. Not 40-year-old speculation.

Not 100%  relevant but Nicklaus was one of the slowest putters ever once he got over the ball. He would take forever.