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

[Jakester23]

Comparing Larry to MJ is like comparing Tiger to phil. Yeah they play the same sport but that's about it.

[jamo]

Although I disagree with most of what phan says, you have to be fair here, Jordan was born in Brooklyn but his family moved to Wilmington, NC when he was 2 or 3 so hard to fully credit Brooklyn with grooming him to be the best basketball player that ever lived.

Of course. My point was more that I saw the phrase "honed his skills" and knew that phan knew he wasn't born in North Carolina, rather Brooklyn which has produced an insanely high percentage of NBA players. Whatever, it was a silly point. If you're going to make an anecdotal argument in an arena that is best served by statistics, at least pick a more iron-clad anecdote. ;-)

[phan52]

Comparing Larry to MJ is like comparing Tiger to phil. Yeah they play the same sport but that's about it.

MJ is the greatest, right? It doesn't mean that Larry is not in the pantheon.

Now what do you say to the LeBron people? It is an argument along the same lines as this debate. Very subjective, but MJ has the six rings compared to LeBron's two. That is the criteria of the argument in the MJ camp, yet it is undeniable that LeBron is physically a better basketball player. You can't fight 6' 8", 260 right? Bigger, faster, can defend any position on the court, right?

But I'm in the MJ camp because of the rings,  just like I am in the Jack camp because of the Majors.

[phan52]

Of course. My point was more that I saw the phrase "honed his skills" and knew that phan knew he wasn't born in North Carolina, rather Brooklyn which has produced an insanely high percentage of NBA players.

Whatever, it was a silly point. If you're going to make an anecdotal argument in an arena that is best served by statistics, at least pick a more iron-clad anecdote.

It is not silly and it is not anecdotal. Brooklyn had nothing to do with the development of MJ as a basketball player.

[jamo]

It is not silly and it is not anecdotal. Brooklyn had nothing to do with the development of MJ as a basketball player.

(A) I meant I was making a silly point. (B) it is anecdotal in the way that one data point does not make for a sound argument.

[iacas]

This thread is about many things, but who is the greatest basketball player is not one of them. A basketball team from a town of 10 is highly likely to get thumped by a basketball team from a town of 10 million. That speaks to the increased strength of field of modern PGA Tour golf.

[phan52]

This thread is about many things, but who is the greatest basketball player is not one of them.

A basketball team from a town of 10 is highly likely to get thumped by a basketball team from a town of 10 million. That speaks to the increased strength of field of modern PGA Tour golf.

Hoosiers!!!

[bplewis24]

Is that your opinion or is that a fact?. Because I have been cautioned here about stating opinion as fact.

Frankly, you are missing the point. Arguably one of the best basketball players in history came from French Lick, Indiana. Statistics are a tool, not factual. You admit yourself that the best overall player may come from the small town. Ben Hogan and Byron Nelson came from the same damn caddie yard in Texas!  What are the statistical chances of that?

The key word in the argument is "likely".  The key concept in the discussion is about likelihood.  The reason it matters is because, as has been mentioned before, when you draw from a larger pool of people, you are likely to find more talent, and likely to have stronger competition.  That is an argument from a flow of logic, but, no, it is not a "fact."  No facts were asserted.  This is all theoretical discussion at this point.

Besides, I am still of the opinion that there are scores of players today in the top 100 who are fairly comfortable with their lot in life, making hundreds of thousands of dollars, being treated like kings. and riding the gravy train. It is human nature. Your "statistics" don't change that.

Your opinion is completely unfounded and has no empirical data to support it.  This is, frankly, a disingenuous argument to make.

[mmoan2]

Tiger Woods            Jack Nicklaus

Tournaments won (through 300 starts)                77                                 54

Tournament winning % (300 starts)                   26.0                              18.0

Majors won (first 63 starts)                                 14                                 14

Major winning %                                                      22.2                              22.2

Major top 5s                                                               31                                 41

Major top 10s                                                             37                                 48

Longest streak of top-5 in majors                        6                                   7

Longest streak of top-10 in majors                      8                                  13

Lowest scoring avg.                                          8 times                         8 times

Money leader                                                    9 times                         8 times

We cant measure speculation and projections. We can measure actual numbers from actual tournaments played.

Lets not hold it against Nicklaus that he played majors well past his prime, and lets not assume that Woods will do the same or that Woods will win Multiple Majors over the next 20 plus years.

I noticed that the stats I was using were a bit dated, so the "Major winning %" was skewed toward Tiger for my analysis. Thank you for correcting me. However, that above chart is a very cherry-picked selection of statistics that is missing a few that I would deem more important to answering this question. Cuts missed would replace major top 5s. Actually, I would eliminate all "number of victories" to "precentage of" stats because we're comparing a 37 year-old to someone who was competitive well into his late 40s. I'm curious to revisit this topic in 5 years. My guess is that Tiger will make it clear in his favor by then, but you never know. In 2009, I thought he'd have 18 majors by now.

[turtleback]

This thread is about many things, but who is the greatest basketball player is not one of them.

A basketball team from a town of 10 is highly likely to get thumped by a basketball team from a town of 10 million. That speaks to the increased strength of field of modern PGA Tour golf.

And the proof of this is that when the extremely unlikely event occurs and the team from the small town beats the big city team it becomes a legend and they make a movie about it starring Gene Hackman.  (Ack, I see phan already used this example - or should I say misused it, since it is exactly the unlikelihood of this happening that made it worthy of being a movie).

But phan's argument is even more insidious.  Because what he is really arguing is not just that Jack is better than Tiger but, if the argument is that Jack's competition was tougher then the other multiple major winners of Jack's era, who purportedly made that competition tougher, those other guys are better than the players in Tiger's era.  So it is not the one, exceptional, player that is coming from the small town, it is a dozen exceptional players that ALL come from the small town.  A premise that strains the probabilities far past the breaking point.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

Besides, I am still of the opinion that there are scores of players today in the top 100 who are fairly comfortable with their lot in life, making hundreds of thousands of dollars, being treated like kings. and riding the gravy train. It is human nature. Your "statistics" don't change that.

Your opinion is completely unfounded and has no empirical data to support it.  This is, frankly, a disingenuous argument to make.

Not so disingenuous.  Look at one name I mentioned above, Greg Chalmers.  Turned pro in 1995.  Has never won on tour, only 2 seconds, yet has $8.4 million in career earnings.  He has a whopping 21 career top tens in 335 events played.  I realize that one example isn't definitive, but you can find the money list just chock full of players like him.  He may think that he has the drive to win, but I'm not seeing it in anything he's done.  He's a 40 year old journeyman pro, still making a good living off the Tour (over $630,000 in 2013), but with virtually no chance of ever raising his status.

[Jakester23]

Not so disingenuous.  Look at one name I mentioned above, Greg Chalmers.  Turned pro in 1995.  Has never won on tour, only 2 seconds, yet has $8.4 million in career earnings.  He has a whopping 21 career top tens in 335 events played.  I realize that one example isn't definitive, but you can find the money list just chock full of players like him.  He may think that he has the drive to win, but I'm not seeing it in anything he's done.  He's a 40 year old journeyman pro, still making a good living off the Tour (over $630,000 in 2013), but with virtually no chance of ever raising his status.

So you think Greg doesn't work hard and has drive to improve? You honestly think if you are on the tour and start getting complacent that you can just keep making money and making cuts? You don't think that there is 100,000 more guys begging to have his career but just aren't good enough to qualify let alone have 21 top tens?

[Golfingdad]

Not so disingenuous.  Look at one name I mentioned above, Greg Chalmers.  Turned pro in 1995.  Has never won on tour, only 2 seconds, yet has $8.4 million in career earnings.  He has a whopping 21 career top tens in 335 events played.  I realize that one example isn't definitive, but you can find the money list just chock full of players like him.  He may think that he has the drive to win, but I'm not seeing it in anything he's done.  He's a 40 year old journeyman pro, still making a good living off the Tour (over $630,000 in 2013), but with virtually no chance of ever raising his status.

Still ... what does this mean in the context of this thread?  Yes, Greg Chalmers has made a good amount of money.  Yes, he has never won.  What does this have to do with anything regarding Jack and Tiger?

So you think Greg doesn't work hard and has drive to improve? You honestly think if you are on the tour and start getting complacent that you can just keep making money and making cuts? You don't think that there is 100,000 more guys begging to have his career but just aren't good enough to qualify let alone have 21 top tens?

Exactly.  A lack of success doesn't prove a lack of drive.  And, further, a lack of drive for one person today (even if you could prove it) doesn't say anything about players from the 60's and 70's.

[bplewis24]

So you think Greg doesn't work hard and has drive to improve? You honestly think if you are on the tour and start getting complacent that you can just keep making money and making cuts? You don't think that there is 100,000 more guys begging to have his career but just aren't good enough to qualify let alone have 21 top tens?

Additionally, what proof do we have that Chalmers has the ability to be much better than he currently is?  How do we know he lacks drive as opposed to simply not having the ability to be better?

IMO, the only way a person's lack of drive (or being content to ride the middle-of-the-top-100-in-the-world gravy train) would manifest itself is by not practicing as hard as the other players in his field, or exhibiting a drop-off in practice time compared to earlier in their careers.  My uneducated guess is that as soon as some touring pro stops working on his game much, he'll fall so fast in the rankings that he will eventually lose his tour card.

Incidentally, that reminds me of a former favorite of mine, Anthony Kim.  He has a reputation as a partier and a guy who doesn't work very hard at his game.  After a couple injuries, he's fallen off the face of the planet.  And before the injury this past year, he wasn't contending at all and already on his way to losing his card.

[Jakester23]

Additionally, what proof do we have that Chalmers has the ability to be much better than he currently is?  How do we know he lacks drive as opposed to simply not having the ability to be better?

IMO, the only way a person's lack of drive (or being content to ride the middle-of-the-top-100-in-the-world gravy train) would manifest itself is by not practicing as hard as the other players in his field, or exhibiting a drop-off in practice time compared to earlier in their careers.  My uneducated guess is that as soon as some touring pro stops working on his game much, he'll fall so fast in the rankings that he will eventually lose his tour card.

Incidentally, that reminds me of a former favorite of mine, Anthony Kim.  He has a reputation as a partier and a guy who doesn't work very hard at his game.  After a couple injuries, he's fallen off the face of the planet.  And before the injury this past year, he wasn't contending at all and already on his way to losing his card.

That was my point read above. I feel the same way as you. There is no way any player on tour could stay on tour if they stopped working.  There are too many great players that cant make it because of guys like Chalmers.

[MichaelC]

Although everyone tries to compare, there is no comparison.  Jack's equipment was far inferior.  What he did was nothing short of miraculous.  Tiger is the best in Tigers time.  Give Tiger, Jack's equipment and move the tees back up and Tiger would be different.  He might or might not beat Jack.  Doesn't matter about the muscles or not.,  That would account for 20 yards, maybe only 10 with the old equipment...  Why do we compare the two?  Also, if Tiger doesn't ever catch Jack, does that mean Jack is better?  I don't think so.  Roger Maris hit 61 home runs in one season.  Have things changed?  Yes.  Have there been better hitters?  No.  Is there anyway to compare?  No.  Everything has changed.  Nothing is the same.  The only way to compare two of anything is if they play each other.

[bplewis24]

That was my point read above. I feel the same way as you. There is no way any player on tour could stay on tour if they stopped working.  There are too many great players that cant make it because of guys like Chalmers.

Don't misunderstand, I was agreeing with your post.  That's why I started off my post with "additionally," as if to add on to your points.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Not so disingenuous.  Look at one name I mentioned above, Greg Chalmers.  Turned pro in 1995.  Has never won on tour, only 2 seconds, yet has $8.4 million in career earnings.  He has a whopping 21 career top tens in 335 events played.  I realize that one example isn't definitive, but you can find the money list just chock full of players like him.  He may think that he has the drive to win, but I'm not seeing it in anything he's done.  He's a 40 year old journeyman pro, still making a good living off the Tour (over $630,000 in 2013), but with virtually no chance of ever raising his status.

Still ... what does this mean in the context of this thread?  Yes, Greg Chalmers has made a good amount of money.  Yes, he has never won.  What does this have to do with anything regarding Jack and Tiger?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jakester23

So you think Greg doesn't work hard and has drive to improve? You honestly think if you are on the tour and start getting complacent that you can just keep making money and making cuts? You don't think that there is 100,000 more guys begging to have his career but just aren't good enough to qualify let alone have 21 top tens?

Exactly.  A lack of success doesn't prove a lack of drive.  And, further, a lack of drive for one person today (even if you could prove it) doesn't say anything about players from the 60's and 70's.

It goes to somewhat dispute the "depth of competition" Tiger has faced in his career, one of the key items you guys keep throwing in our faces.  Chalmers wouldn't even have kept his card in Jack's era.  He'd be nothing more than a footnote on the tour records and a club pro somewhere back in Australia.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Not so disingenuous.  Look at one name I mentioned above, Greg Chalmers.  Turned pro in 1995.  Has never won on tour, only 2 seconds, yet has $8.4 million in career earnings.  He has a whopping 21 career top tens in 335 events played.  I realize that one example isn't definitive, but you can find the money list just chock full of players like him.  He may think that he has the drive to win, but I'm not seeing it in anything he's done.  He's a 40 year old journeyman pro, still making a good living off the Tour (over $630,000 in 2013), but with virtually no chance of ever raising his status.

So you think Greg doesn't work hard and has drive to improve? You honestly think if you are on the tour and start getting complacent that you can just keep making money and making cuts? You don't think that there is 100,000 more guys begging to have his career but just aren't good enough to qualify let alone have 21 top tens?

Show me where I questioned anyone's work ethic.  All I said is that he has been on Tour for 18 years with a lot of money earned, but no real success outside of the money.  He may be working his ass off for all I know, but that doesn't mean that he is isn't quite satisfied with where he is at at this point in his life.  It doesn't mean that he hasn't subconsciously thrown in the towel and is now just coasting to the Champions Tour.  He wouldn't be the first to do that after hitting age 40.