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

[iacas]

And yet many people still place quarterbacks with far inferior career numbers ahead of Marino, simply because he never won a superbowl. I agree that it's absurd; that's my point. Set aside the fact that golf is an individual sport and football is a team sport (I realize the difference and understand that you can't compare the two), the basic fact still remains that you can't judge a career solely on one metric as @desertpig seems intent to do.

I agree with others (and disagree with you): it's apples and oranges. Super Bowl victories is not an individual statistic/metric.

[geauxforbroke]

Quote:

Originally Posted by geauxforbroke

And yet many people still place quarterbacks with far inferior career numbers ahead of Marino, simply because he never won a superbowl. I agree that it's absurd; that's my point. Set aside the fact that golf is an individual sport and football is a team sport (I realize the difference and understand that you can't compare the two), the basic fact still remains that you can't judge a career solely on one metric as @desertpig seems intent to do.

I agree with others (and disagree with you): it's apples and oranges. Super Bowl victories is not an individual statistic/metric.

I agree that Super Bowl victories is not an individual statistic/metric. That doesn't change the fact that a lot of people still use it to measure the greatness of players, whether you, I, or anyone else thinks it should be used.

We agree on the basic principle that Tiger and Jack cannot be compared only on majors . It is only one metric that we can use, and shouldn't be the only one.

[Golfingdad]

We agree on the basic principle that Tiger and Jack cannot be compared only on majors. It is only one metric that we can use, and shouldn't be the only one.

I also think that even though a lot of people seem to say or think they are arguing for the majors being the only metric ... what I believe (a lot of them) are really saying is that the other accomplishments are close enough in relation to their importance to majors, that the majors is the deciding factor.  I don't really believe that they think it's the ONLY factor.

If some person showed up (lets say Jordan Spieth for the heck of it) and won 14 more tournaments over the course of his entire career, and ALL 14 of those were majors, I don't think there are many people who would actually make the argument that Jordan Spieth had a career equal to Tigers.

[iacas]

I agree that Super Bowl victories is not an individual statistic/metric. That doesn't change the fact that a lot of people still use it to measure the greatness of players, whether you, I, or anyone else thinks it should be used.

I've never seen anyone argue that Trent Dilfer is a better QB than Dan Marino.

I think you're drastically over-stating how many people "still use it to measure the greatness of players."

And finally (to all), this is a golf forum and this is a thread about golfers, so let's stick to that rather than mentioning other sports (particularly team sports).

[geauxforbroke]

I also think that even though a lot of people seem to say or think they are arguing for the majors being the only metric ... what I believe (a lot of them) are really saying is that the other accomplishments are close enough in relation to their importance to majors, that the majors is the deciding factor.  I don't really believe that they think it's the ONLY factor.

If some person showed up (lets say Jordan Spieth for the heck of it) and won 14 more tournaments over the course of his entire career, and ALL 14 of those were majors, I don't think there are many people who would actually make the argument that Jordan Spieth had a career equal to Tigers.

You're right. Many people probably either think that other accomplishments are equal, or haven't done the research to find out who really holds the edge in other categories. However, when people come here and say "Jack has 18 and Tiger doesn't. End of argument", I guess we have to assume that's the only metric they are considering.

[turtleback]

From here I rest my case. I'm sure I'm going to be vilified and insulted some more by more esteemed and better golfers whose opinions matter more than mine but I will hold these as my opinion and mine alone. I believe I am still entitled to it.

You aren't being criticized because of your opinions.  You are being criticized because you claimed your opinion was based on certain facts and those facts have turned out to be incorrect.  And so you changed the basis for your opinion to something else, which is fine.  If you had simply come out and said that your opinion was that it was Jack because he had the most majors, then I wouldn't even have engaged you.  It was your original post with the claim of dominance for Jack that got you in hot water, and you followed it up, when challenged, by bogus facts about why and when he was dominant.

I can respect someone (and vehemently disagree with them) who says that Jack is best because of most majors.  I cannot respect someone who puts up bogus arguments.  Particularly on page 231 of a thread in which all of the actual facts have been elucidated and discussed to death already.

[Ernest Jones]

Wow, is this thread still going? So what's the final verdict? :-P

[iacas]

Wow, is this thread still going? So what's the final verdict? :-P

Look at the votes. :-)

[Ernest Jones]

Look at the votes. :-)

Is that the new metric? :-P The guys arguing for the "majors metric" are gonna be pissed. :D

[boogielicious]

Wow, is this thread still going? So what's the final verdict?

It takes three licks to get the to chewy center of a Tootsie Pop.

This thread should continue until Tiger's career is actually over and the real comparison can being.  So we have another 12 years maybe?

[metrybill]

Tiger

Jack.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by BENtSwing32

Tiger

Quote:

Originally Posted by metrybill

Jack.

Ben.

[Jakester23]

Jack is the closest 2nd best ever ever. Does that make sense? I think as far as sports go this debate is literally a coin flip. The closest between first and second of all sports. That being said Tiger is still playing. I feel if Tiger retired today it would be a close debate. The way I see it Tiger will accomplish more how much more we have to wait and see. But more is inevitable and for me that's enough to tip the scales in his direction.

[metrybill]

Ben.

Bobbyand Byron.

[BugDude]

I think Jack.  But anyone who grew up watching Jack play in his prime and then was watching the back 9 at the 1986 Masters as it unfolded live would understand why.

[Jakester23]

My dad's is a golf fan and disagrees with you. We have talked about this a lot and he feels like its Tiger and it's not really even close.

[BugDude]

Obviously 70% of the people taking this survey disagree with me, but it's opinion.  Neither right or wrong.

For me there are several factors:

1)  Competitive accomplishments, which are at this point still remarkable.  Beyond just the total number of major victories at 18:

18 Major victories (current record)

19 Major 2nd place finishes (current record)

56 Major Top 5 finishes (current record)

73 Major Top 10 finishes (current record)

1st Major victory at age 22 and last at age 46, a span of 25 years showing longevity of Major relevance

Masters:

6 Victories (current record)

4 2nd place (current record)

15 top 5 finishes (current record)

22 top 10 finishes (current record)

Youngest 2 time champion (current record)

Youngest 3 time champion (current record)

Oldest Champion (current record)

Most cuts made 37 (current record)

Most birdies 504 (current record)

Most eagles 24 (current record)

US Open:

4 Victories (current record)

Only player to win the title in 3 different decades

The Open:

3 wins

7 second place (current record)

16 top 5 finishes (current record) 11 of those in a row from 1970 - 1980

33 rounds in the 60s (current record)

NEVER finished worse than 6th place from 1966 - 1980

PGA Championship:

5 first place (current record)

4 second place

12 top 3 finishes (current record)

41 rounds in the 60s (current record)

I also look at his commitment to the game and what he has given back to the game.  After his competitive golf career he has built a golf empire in golf course design and architecture.  His prominence in the number of golf courses he has personally been involved in designing and building throughout the world in phenomenal.  His total golf career and impact on he game spanning a 50+ year period and the records he still holds after that much time speaks volumes to me.  So no, I'm not just looking at "18 Majors", I'm looking at 50+ years of accomplishments.

Others opinions will obviously vary.

[Pendragon]

I agree with you. My money's on Jack. Of course, Tiger still has another 8 to 10 years to prove otherwise, but I don't see him reaching Jack's major win total. Having gone over 5 years now without a major win, Tiger definitely has a monkey on his back.