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

[newtogolf]

… from 2008. C'mon man.

Let us know when he gets to 2013

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by desertpig

Awesome reply!

… from 2008. C'mon man.

The year doesn't matter - the point PEZ makes is that no matter how you try to compare statistics between the eras, it's nearly impossible to say with any certainty who is or was actually the best player because you can never match them head to head.  You can spout numbers and state opinions til the cows come home and that won't make that comparison any more valid.

[mvmac]

The year doesn't matter - the point PEZ makes is that no matter how you try to compare statistics between the eras, it's nearly impossible to say with any certainty who is or was actually the best player because you can never match them head to head.  You can spout numbers and state opinions til the cows come home and that won't make that comparison any more valid.

It's not about the point someone is making it's about keeping the conversation current.  DP is starting from the beginning of the thread and quoting from '06, '08.  I'm sure the same points have been regurgitated somewhere over the last 20 pages.  Quoting from that far back is confusing to other readers and doesn't make sense, we don't know the context of the post, if PEZ was responding to someone else, heck PEZ hasn't made a post since '10 so the person quoting him isn't really conversing with him.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

The year doesn't matter - the point PEZ makes is that no matter how you try to compare statistics between the eras, it's nearly impossible to say with any certainty who is or was actually the best player because you can never match them head to head.  You can spout numbers and state opinions til the cows come home and that won't make that comparison any more valid.

It's not about the point someone is making it's about keeping the conversation current.  DP is starting from the beginning of the thread and quoting from '06, '08.  I'm sure the same points have been regurgitated somewhere over the last 20 pages.  Quoting from that far back is confusing to other readers and doesn't make sense, we don't know the context of the post, if PEZ was responding to someone else, heck PEZ hasn't made a post since '10 so the person quoting him isn't really conversing with him.

If that's the case then wouldn't it make sense to chop off the earlier part of the discussion to keep anyone from making that mistake in the future.  If you aren't going to allow anyone to refer to an earlier post, then why waste anyone's time with the temptation to read them?

[BENtSwing]

Tiger

[iacas]

If that's the case then wouldn't it make sense to chop off the earlier part of the discussion to keep anyone from making that mistake in the future.  If you aren't going to allow anyone to refer to an earlier post, then why waste anyone's time with the temptation to read them?

No. People still made those posts, and you wouldn't want your old posts deleted. This isn't a big problem - people almost never quote seven-year-old posts. So the few times it happens a year, we say "read the more recent posts" and the person usually does. "Problem" solved.

[desertpig]

… from 2008. C'mon man.

I didn't realize I'm not allowed to comment on previous posts? I didn't see that in the rule book. Does it matter if the post is 6 years ago if I find the post intriguing enough to comment on?  Are opinions irrelevant just because they're older?

[bplewis24]

Are opinions irrelevant just because they're older?

Well, actually, they can be.  Sometimes information is presented to counter that opinion or a counter-argument is made which refutes it.  In other words, it can be outdated.

Especially on forums when arguments on certain topics become cyclical and eventually circular.  Maybe it's not against the rules, per se (although I've seen it be against the rules on some forums), but it is somewhat discourteous to the posters to not stay current with the topic when discussing it.

[Golfingdad]

Well, actually, they can be.  Sometimes information is presented to counter that opinion or a counter-argument is made which refutes it.  In other words, it can be outdated.   Especially on forums when arguments on certain topics become cyclical and eventually circular.  Maybe it's not against the rules, per se (although I've seen it be against the rules on some forums), but it is somewhat discourteous to the posters to not stay current with the topic when discussing it.

Also considering the topic of this thread, it seems particularly silly to rely on an opinion from '08. One of the two subjects has done a considerable amount of playing and winning (and losing) since then. It's already hard to compare the two when you consider that one of them isn't done, so why go back 5 years?

[desertpig]

Also considering the topic of this thread, it seems particularly silly to rely on an opinion from '08. One of the two subjects has done a considerable amount of playing and winning (and losing) since then. It's already hard to compare the two when you consider that one of them isn't done, so why go back 5 years?

Ok. Now that I'm up to date and "commenting" on posts as of 2014, my point of contention still is valid and current regardless of what date post I put a comment on. You cannot refute that my earlier assertion that Jack STILL has a total of 18 majors won ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Nicklaus ) and Tiger has won 14 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Woods ) so far. To contend that my comments are non sequitur I think is just splitting hairs, just because I used old statistics to back up a current claim. Tiger still has not won a major since 2008 (the last being the US Open). So even if I comment on statistics as late as 2008 - it is still relevant.

[Jakester23]

It's not relevant unless you think majors are the only way to pick the GOAT. Since 2008 Tiger has passed Jack in tour wins. Hes added a POY, another scoring title, a players championship, and a few more WGC titles.

[iacas]

It's not relevant unless you think majors are the only way to pick the GOAT.

I was going to say "QFT" but I don't entirely agree. # of majors is a factor for almost everyone - but for many, it's simply not the ONLY factor that weighs on their decision/opinion.

[Jakester23]

What does qft mean?

[David in FL]

What does qft mean?

Quoted for Truth.......  Means you completely agree with the post to which you're referring.

[Golfingdad]

Quoted for Truth.......  Means you completely agree with the post to which you're referring.

Lol, no way?!?! All this time I thought I had you guys figured out and I thought it meant "quite f***ing true!!!" Whoops. (Generally similar sentiment, however I unfairly attributed you guys with a bit of emphasis and vulgarity ;))

[Ernest Jones]

Lol, no way?!?! All this time I thought I had you guys figured out and I thought it meant "quite f***ing true!!!" Whoops. (Generally similar sentiment, however I unfairly attributed you guys with a bit of emphasis and vulgarity ;))

LOL

[iacas]

LOL

QFT*.

* Queerily Funny Trollop.

Anyway, back to the topic…

[flopster]

Lol, no way?!?! All this time I thought I had you guys figured out and I thought it meant "quite f***ing true!!!" Whoops. (Generally similar sentiment, however I unfairly attributed you guys with a bit of emphasis and vulgarity ;))

Quoted for thought