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

[metrybill]

Again, Jack has always been a gracious man. Tiger, not so much.

[metrybill]

IT'S THE SHORTEST OF LISTS, 2 MEN.  AGREED. Jack's career is done and Tiger's is not.  Tiger may be done and he may win 0 to 3 to 6 more.  Still, think about the Majors Winners that Jack competed against.

Billy Casper - 3

Gary Player - 9

Arnold Palmer - 7

Peter Thomson - 5

Hale Irwin - 3

Raymond Floyd - 4

Seve Ballesteros - 5

Hubert Green - 2

Larry Nelson - 3

Ben Crenshaw - 2

Johnny Miller - 2

Tom Watson - 8

Greg Norman - 2

Tony Jacklin - 1

Jose Olazabal - 2

Fred Couples - 1

Greg Norman - 2 (1986)

That is around 60 majors, and Jack still won 18 Majors, finished 2nd 19 times.

I still think Tiger will be the Sam Snead +++ of the modern era.  That is no small compliment btw. Tiger does have the chance to be the best ever, but not yet.

[Jakester23]

If you take the players that have majors in Tigers era you would have to put Watson Norman and Couples in there for him also.  Its not like Couples was around for really any of Jacks era. Couples was a rookie in 1980 and Jack only won 3 times from 1981-present. Norman turned pro in 1976 so you could kinda say the same for him.  His first win was in 84 last in 97 so he kinda missed both of their career's.  I think saying Jack played with more major champions is kind of a lame argument now considering we don't know how many majors or who will have a bunch when Tigers career is over. Who know Adam Scott could end up with 5 so could Rory. We don't know anything about the young guys career's yet.

[iacas]

IT'S THE SHORTEST OF LISTS, 2 MEN.  AGREED. Jack's career is done and Tiger's is not.  Tiger may be done and he may win 0 to 3 to 6 more.  Still, think about the Majors Winners that Jack competed against.

In other words you not only haven't read the earlier posts in this thread, you haven't read anything posted in this thread since you started posting in it. Like #4029. :-( Or others.

[MS256]

IT'S THE SHORTEST OF LISTS, 2 MEN.

But the thread that never dies. Around and around we go.

[mvmac]

Again, a hypothetical. Let's call Nicklaus an A player, and anyone a rung down a B player, and anyone a club pro type a C player. As compete often in majors, Bs can win them if they have a good week. Cs are never gonna win one.

In Jack's day there were, in any given year, 3-5 A players, 30 B players, and 120 C players.

In Tiger's day there are 5-20 A players, 150 B players, and no C players anywhere to be found. Not even on the Web.com Tour.

That's why majors get spread around these days.

Agree, good post.

Who know Adam Scott could end up with 5 so could Rory. We don't know anything about the young guys career's yet.

I said something very similar a few posts ago, Bill's got to read more posts on the thread

[turtleback]

Again, it's a short list of two. By Tiger's own admission, Jack's record was and remains the target for ALL of today's golfers, just as Bobby Jones and Hogan were Nicklaus' standards.

If you were to read back through this thread you would find out what caca this is.  You will find a sequential citing of statements of Jacks showing a shifting standard starting with Bobby Jones, when he was an amateur, to winning a single year Grand Slam, to beating our Snead, to getting most majors.

But best of all was his completely self-serving statement after he had the most majors that the FAIREST way to compare players of different era was # of majors, completely ignoring the fact that one of the biggest differences between players of different eras was the number of opportunities they had to even play in majors.  Fair?

Jack also had the great good fortune to have his career before the 24/7 obsession that the internet has created.  It is easy to say Jack was gracious when he was not being constantly hounded and the media model of the time was to hide the warts of the sports heroes (for example, Arnie was reputed to be the off the course Tiger of his day, but you never heard about that or read about that).  But he sure wasn't fair and gracious when he was making his argument for why he as the greatest, by essentially writing out of the conversation guy like Hogan, Snead, Nelson, etc..  At least Tiger has been honest about his goal in picking a goal and sticking with it all the way.

[k-troop]

If you were to read back through this thread you would find out what caca this is.  You will find a sequential citing of statements of Jacks showing a shifting standard starting with Bobby Jones, when he was an amateur, to winning a single year Grand Slam, to beating out Snead, to getting most majors.

But best of all was his completely self-serving statement after he had the most majors that the FAIREST way to compare players of different era was # of majors, completely ignoring the fact that one of the biggest differences between players of different eras was the number of opportunities they had to even play in majors.  Fair?

Jack also had the great good fortune to have his career before the 24/7 obsession that the internet has created.  It is easy to say Jack was gracious when he was not being constantly hounded and the media model of the time was to hide the warts of the sports heroes (for example, Arnie was reputed to be the off the course Tiger of his day, but you never heard about that or read about that).  But he sure wasn't fair and gracious when he was making his argument for why he as the greatest, by essentially writing out of the conversation guy like Hogan, Snead, Nelson, etc..  At least Tiger has been honest about his goal in picking a goal and sticking with it all the way.

To be fair, Jack's majors record was most amazing in hindsight.  Looking back on his career, and at the grueling test majors became after the Arnie explosion, 18 seems like an impossible feat.

You could say the same for Tiger's cut streak.  He never set 142-straight cuts as a mark, but now that it has happened it looks pretty amazing (especially compared to Jack's 2nd-best 102).  Likewise look at the number of consecutive years Tiger won 5 or more events, or the number of years he's won 6, 7, 8 or more.  Or the number of times he's won 3 or more consecutive events.

None of these were "goals" when the Tiger set out, but all are pretty amazing looking back on them.  All are valid points when arguing that Tiger is the GOAT.

And I think number of major wins is a fair way to compare Jack and Tiger.  Jack had every opportunity to play 4 majors per year.  It's a valid argument to say you can't compare Tiger to Hogan based on total major victories, but in the Tiger vs. Jack discussion it is completely fair.

[Jakester23]

Well said troop. I don't know why most people feel like Snead's 82 wins isn't a bigger accomplishment? Tiger and Jack are the only two who are in the 70's. There's two 60's, two 50's, and only three players in the 40's. Its not like guys are piling up wins except Tiger.

[k-troop]

Well said troop. I don't know why most people feel like Snead's 82 wins isn't a bigger accomplishment? Tiger and Jack are the only two who are in the 70's. There's two 60's, two 50's, and only three players in the 40's. Its not like guys are piling up wins except Tiger.

Snead's 82 wins are a huge accomplishment.  As are Tiger's 79 and Jack's 73.  If I'm rank ordering those players based on total number of wins though, Tiger is on top.  Tiger played far more quality fields than Snead did.  Some of Snead's wins are in what are essentially exhibition matches (granted Tiger's World Challenge wins are comparable).

I've said before, but since we since this thread is on an endless 20-page loop I'll say it again.  My criteria for evaluating GOAT is 3-part:

1. Total wins.

2. Performance in majors (including wins and runner-up finishes).

3. Other factors:  #1 ranking, dominance relative to contemporary competition, POY, Vardons, streaks, majors won on a broken leg and other OMG feats, etc.

Tiger has a narrow lead in category #1.  Jack has a commanding lead in category #2.  Tiger has a lot to talk about in category #3, and leads Jack in just about all of the "other" measures of greatness on the golf course.

[Ernest Jones]

To be fair, Jack's majors record was most amazing in hindsight.  Looking back on his career, and at the grueling test majors became after the Arnie explosion, 18 seems like an impossible feat.

You could say the same for Tiger's cut streak.  He never set 142-straight cuts as a mark, but now that it has happened it looks pretty amazing (especially compared to Jack's 2nd-best 102).  Likewise look at the number of consecutive years Tiger won 5 or more events, or the number of years he's won 6, 7, 8 or more.  Or the number of times he's won 3 or more consecutive events.

None of these were "goals" when the Tiger set out, but all are pretty amazing looking back on them.  All are valid points when arguing that Tiger is the GOAT.

And I think number of major wins is a fair way to compare Jack and Tiger.  Jack had every opportunity to play 4 majors per year.  It's a valid argument to say you can't compare Tiger to Hogan based on total major victories, but in the Tiger vs. Jack discussion it is completely fair.

I could be wrong but I didn't read @turtleback 's post as saying that majors weren't a fair metric to compare Tiger and Jack but that is was not a fair metric for dismissing Hogan and others who had limited opportunity to play in majors.

[Jakester23]

I might be wrong troop but I don't think the world challenge wins count. I'm pretty sure that's not a sanctioned event.

[iacas]

Snead's 82 wins are a huge accomplishment.  As are Tiger's 79 and Jack's 73.  If I'm rank ordering those players based on total number of wins though, Tiger is on top.  Tiger played far more quality fields than Snead did.  Some of Snead's wins are in what are essentially exhibition matches (granted Tiger's World Challenge wins are comparable).

Tiger's above 79 wins if you count the ones his own PGA Tour sanctioned (but unofficial) events: http://www.pgatour.com/tiger-woods-victory-room.html. They're not counted in his 79 total.

[k-troop]

I could be wrong but I didn't read @turtleback's post as saying that majors weren't a fair metric to compare Tiger and Jack but that is was not a fair metric for dismissing Hogan and others who had limited opportunity to play in majors.

TB called this statement "caca":

Again, it's a short list of two. By Tiger's own admission, Jack's record was and remains the target for ALL of today's golfers, just as Bobby Jones and Hogan were Nicklaus' standards.

I don't think it's caca, and I don't think it's unfair that Jack changed his criteria after his career.  In 1960 it wouldn't really have been on the radar to think about 18 majors, under the conditions that the majors became after Arnie's career, as the ultimate record in all of golf.  Majors are the ultimate measure of TODAY'S golfers.  As I said a few posts above there are other factors that go into measuring a career, but majors are still the biggest one.

Tiger's above 79 wins if you count the ones his own PGA Tour sanctioned (but unofficial) events: http://www.pgatour.com/tiger-woods-victory-room.html. They're not counted in his 79 total.

Even better--he's still on top.

[turtleback]

TB called this statement "caca":

I don't think it's caca, and I don't think it's unfair that Jack changed his criteria after his career.  In 1960 it wouldn't really have been on the radar to think about 18 majors, under the conditions that the majors became after Arnie's career, as the ultimate record in all of golf.  Majors are the ultimate measure of TODAY'S golfers.  As I said a few posts above there are other factors that go into measuring a career, but majors are still the biggest one.

Even better--he's still on top.

He said that Tiger's goal has been majors (true) just as (here comes the caca) Jack's was beating the records of Hogan and Jones.  What is caca is he was comparing a standard that has been absolutely unwavering since Tiger was a little kid, with something that has blown in the wind as Jack's fortunes and situation has ebbed and flowed.  And if you go back through the thread to some of the direct quotes of Jack you will see that he changed his standard several times, and each time it was to his own favor.

Also, when Jack said that the only fair way to compare players of different eras he wasn't talking about himself and Tiger, he was talking about himself and the guys in the eras before him, i.e., the guys who did NOT have the same opportunity to play majors that he had.  He said it in 1973, He didn't change his criteria after his career, he changed it DURING his career.  Several times.

First it was to stay a amateur and beat Jones' career.

Then when he turned pro and could no longer best Jones' career it was to best Snead's 82 because that is what it would take, he said, to be considered the greatest.

Then when it became apparent that Snead's mark was likely out of reach (1965) he decided Hogan was really the greatest (huh? he couldn't beat Snead's record so not only his goal but his assessment of who was the greatest change?) and he wasn't sure how he could beat him out - maybe the single year Grad Slam.

Then in 1970 he is informed that he is only 4 short of Jones' record in majors (different majors, but who is looking at details) and all of a sudden that become his goal and standard.  And then he makes it the only "fair" way to compare golfers in different eras (1973), essentially writing out of the conversation Hogan, Snead, et al.

This stuff has all been documented in this thread and it is absolute caca to try to equate Jack's shifting (self-serving, IMO) standards with Tiger's single unwavering standard.  It is not caca to have the opinion that Jack is the greatest over Tiger.  But it IS caca to re-write history to make bogus points, which is what @ metrybill was doing, either out of ignorance or advocacy.

[k-troop]

He said that Tiger's goal has been majors (true) just as (here comes the caca) Jack's was beating the records of Hogan and Jones.  What is caca is he was comparing a standard that has been absolutely unwavering since Tiger was a little kid, with something that has blown in the wind as Jack's fortunes and situation has ebbed and flowed.  And if you go back through the thread to some of the direct quotes of Jack you will see that he changed his standard several times, and each time it was to his own favor.

Also, when Jack said that the only fair way to compare players of different eras he wasn't talking about himself and Tiger, he was talking about himself and the guys in the eras before him, i.e., the guys who did NOT have the same opportunity to play majors that he had.  He said it in 1973, He didn't change his criteria after his career, he changed it DURING his career.  Several times.

First it was to stay a amateur and beat Jones' career.

Then when he turned pro and could no longer best Jones' career it was to best Snead's 82 because that is what it would take, he said, to be considered the greatest.

Then when it became apparent that Snead's mark was likely out of reach (1965) he decided Hogan was really the greatest (huh? he couldn't beat Snead's record so not only his goal but his assessment of who was the greatest change?) and he wasn't sure how he could beat him out - maybe the single year Grad Slam.

Then in 1970 he is informed that he is only 4 short of Jones' record in majors (different majors, but who is looking at details) and all of a sudden that become his goal and standard.  And then he makes it the only "fair" way to compare golfers in different eras (1973), essentially writing out of the conversation Hogan, Snead, et al.

This stuff has all been documented in this thread and it is absolute caca to try to equate Jack's shifting (self-serving, IMO) standards with Tiger's single unwavering standard.  It is not caca to have the opinion that Jack is the greatest over Tiger.  But it IS caca to re-write history to make bogus points, which is what @metrybill was doing, either out of ignorance or advocacy.

Okay I get all that--I've been in this thread for more than a day.  But this is a thread about Jack vs. Tiger.  97% of the world (completely made up yet entirely accurate statistic ) agrees that the GOAT is one of those two people.  In the context of THIS THREAD, the majors measure is entirely appropriate--regardless of whether Jack started his career focused on Jones or Snead.  That's what I was getting at.

Even if metry's supporting rationale (i.e. Jack said so) is flawed, the point that majors is the current single greatest measure is still valid.

[Ernest Jones]

He said that Tiger's goal has been majors (true) just as (here comes the caca) Jack's was beating the records of Hogan and Jones.  What is caca is he was comparing a standard that has been absolutely unwavering since Tiger was a little kid, with something that has blown in the wind as Jack's fortunes and situation has ebbed and flowed.  And if you go back through the thread to some of the direct quotes of Jack you will see that he changed his standard several times, and each time it was to his own favor. Also, when Jack said that the only fair way to compare players of different eras he wasn't talking about himself and Tiger, he was talking about himself and the guys in the eras before him, i.e., the guys who did NOT have the same opportunity to play majors that he had.  He said it in 1973, He didn't change his criteria after his career, he changed it DURING his career.  Several times. First it was to stay a amateur and beat Jones' career.   Then when he turned pro and could no longer best Jones' career it was to best Snead's 82 because that is what it would take, he said, to be considered the greatest.   Then when it became apparent that Snead's mark was likely out of reach (1965) he decided Hogan was really the greatest (huh? he couldn't beat Snead's record so not only his goal but his assessment of who was the greatest change?) and he wasn't sure how he could beat him out - maybe the single year Grad Slam.   Then in 1970 he is informed that he is only 4 short of Jones' record in majors (different majors, but who is looking at details) and all of a sudden that become his goal and standard.  And then he makes it the only "fair" way to compare golfers in different eras (1973), essentially writing out of the conversation Hogan, Snead, et al.   This stuff has all been documented in this thread and it is absolute caca to try to equate Jack's shifting (self-serving, IMO) standards with Tiger's single unwavering standard.  It is not caca to have the opinion that Jack is the greatest over Tiger.  But it IS caca to re-write history to make bogus points, which is what @metrybill was doing, either out of ignorance or advocacy.

That's what I though you said. [quote name="Ernest Jones" url="/t/2203/jack-or-tiger-whos-the-greatest/4000_100#post_925797"]I could be wrong but I didn't read @turtleback 's post as saying that majors weren't a fair metric to compare Tiger and Jack but that is was not a fair metric for dismissing Hogan and others who had limited opportunity to play in majors. [/quote] Now that "caca" has become a part of this thread's lexicon I think it may have run it's course. Maybe Iacas can set it up so the minute someone clicks in the text box they get transported bank to the start of the thread.

[k-troop]

Now that "caca" has become a part of this thread's lexicon I think it may have run it's course. Maybe Iacas can set it up so the minute someone clicks in the text box they get transported bank to the start of the thread.

Or we could just drive this thing so far off topic that he has no choice but to lock it.

If you don't think Tiger is the GOAT then you're a racist.

Jack was the most honorable man to carry a golf club since Bill Clinton.

It is a FACT that I am much, much smarter than any of you.

Nanny nanny boo boo, stick your head in doo doo.