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

[mvmac]

Jack dominated some of the greats, and when he lost, he was second or third. Loved watching him in the 70's & 80's. Miss his character. Today I compare Michelson to Palmer, and Tiger to Jack, but Jack is the better golfer.

Seems like a lot of guys that think Jack is GOAT get very nostalgic when they think of the Jack era.  When all is said and done, Tiger will have beaten "some of the greats" as well.  It's also harder to be great when Tiger wins a lot of the tournaments

[boogielicious]

This is a pointless debate.  We all know that Mark Steffenhagen was the GOAT.  He had his clubs delivered by FedEx.

[bplewis24]

Seems like a lot of guys that think Jack is GOAT get very nostalgic when they think of the Jack era.  When all is said and done, Tiger will have beaten "some of the greats" as well.  It's also harder to be great when Tiger wins a lot of the tournaments

In boxing forums we used to call this old-timer bias or golden era bias.

This thread takes on many of the same characteristics of what is often discussed on boxing forums: mythical matchups.  They always boil down to comparing differing eras of competition.  Invariably there is always an era that is viewed at the "golden age" where nothing but hall of fame [insert athletes of a particular sport] competed against one another every week.  The guys with the old-timer bias refuse to let go of the nostalgic view that all competitions were better in those days and guys had more heart, character, ethics, whatever.

Anyway, as it relates to this topic, what generally happens is guys wax nostalgic about how much greater all of the competitors were who the top dog competed against.  But when held up to actual scrutiny, sometimes it doesn't hold up.  For example, folks will talk about how the 2nd best fighter of that era would dominate any other era because he beat these 3-5 guys (who are all great), but will fail to mention the unranked bum he lost to a few times throughout his peak.  Similarly, folks might dismiss the fact that Jack missed more cuts even though the field in the middle and bottom ranks wasn't nearly as deep, etc.

[boogielicious]

In boxing forums we used to call this old-timer bias or golden era bias.

This thread takes on many of the same characteristics of what is often discussed on boxing forums: mythical matchups.  They always boil down to comparing differing eras of competition.  Invariably there is always an era that is viewed at the "golden age" where nothing but hall of fame [insert athletes of a particular sport] competed against one another every week.  The guys with the old-timer bias refuse to let go of the nostalgic view that all competitions were better in those days and guys had more heart, character, ethics, whatever.

Anyway, as it relates to this topic, what generally happens is guys wax nostalgic about how much greater all of the competitors were who the top dog competed against.  But when held up to actual scrutiny, sometimes it doesn't hold up.  For example, folks will talk about how the 2nd best fighter of that era would dominate any other era because he beat these 3-5 guys (who are all great), but will fail to mention the unranked bum he lost to a few times throughout his peak.  Similarly, folks might dismiss the fact that Jack missed more cuts even though the field in the middle and bottom ranks wasn't nearly as deep, etc.

Agree.  The same happens in NFL football.  What if the 1985 Superbowl Champ Bears played the 2012 Superbowl Champ Ravens?  Players are just bigger, faster and stronger now in football.  Same with golf.  More players of high quality that are better trained.

[Golfingdad]

Agree.  The same happens in NFL football.  What if the 1985 Superbowl Champ Bears played the 2012 Superbowl Champ Ravens?  Players are just bigger, faster and stronger now in football.  Same with golf.  More players of high quality that are better trained.

Oh, that's an easy one ... they would both get their butts kicked by the 1983 Super Champion Raiders with Marcus Allen and Jim Plunkett!! ;)

[CobraSvt]

Or get blown out, I love Watching Tiger, but look at the amount Jack was top 3 in the big events, he was always in it, Tigers wins or is out of it. Jack was more methodical, he took risk when required and tried to be in position at the back nine in the final round.

[Jakester23]

Or get blown out, I love Watching Tiger, but look at the amount Jack was top 3 in the big events, he was always in it, Tigers wins or is out of it. Jack was more methodical, he took risk when required and tried to be in position at the back nine in the final round.

So if he was always in it why did he only have 73 wins and 286 top tens in 594 starts. When Tiger has 79 wins and 185 top tens in 309.  So thats 100 less top tens in 285 less starts. Huh

[turtleback]

Or get blown out, I love Watching Tiger, but look at the amount Jack was top 3 in the big events, he was always in it, Tigers wins or is out of it. Jack was more methodical, he took risk when required and tried to be in position at the back nine in the final round.

So shall I assume you are not going to tell us who those players were that Jack dominated nor are you going to give us a list of seasons during which Jack was dominant?

It is easy to make sweeping statements, but the devil is in the details.  The reality is that while Jack was always one of the top 3-5 guys every season there are really only a handful of seasons where he was clearly dominant.

[Wally Fairway]

So shall I assume you are not going to tell us who those players were that Jack dominated nor are you going to give us a list of seasons during which Jack was dominant?

It is easy to make sweeping statements, but the devil is in the details.  The reality is that while Jack was always one of the top 3-5 guys every season there are really only a handful of seasons where he was clearly dominant.

How about the run of majors in 1970's, when he played in every major (40), missed 1 cut, finished out of the top ten 4 times, 26 top 5 finishes, and 8 majors (if you want it a little narrower - '71-'73 (12) 4 wins & finished out of the top 10 once....but that is just my list.

I'm not saying who is best - IMO, Tiger has much to much golf left in him at his age to make a final analysis

[turtleback]

How about the run of majors in 1970's, when he played in every major (40), missed 1 cut, finished out of the top ten 4 times, 26 top 5 finishes, and 8 majors (if you want it a little narrower - '71-'73 (12) 4 wins & finished out of the top 10 once....but that is just my list.

I'm not saying who is best - IMO, Tiger has much to much golf left in him at his age to make a final analysis

Don't give me ranges, give me specific years in which you think Jack was clearly the most dominant golfer.  I don't think you want to base Jack's dominance on just 1971, 1972, and 1973,  Because as good as those years were for Jack they do not hold a candle to Tiger's 2000-2002 period.

Jack:  18 wins, 4 majors, 3 money titles, 2 POY, 0 Vardons

Tiger:  19 wins, 6 majors, 3 money titles, 3 POY, 3 Vardons.

and then there is Tiger's 2005-2007

21 wins, 5 majors, 3 money titles, 3 POY, 2 Vardons

Jack's next best discrete 3 year period (64-66 or 65-67, depending if you go for more wins or more majors) aren't even close to being in the same ballpark.

Or how about this.  In Jack's best 10 year period, 1964-1973 he had 44 wins including 9 majors in 211 events including 40 majors.  That is a winning percentage of 20.9% overall and 22.5% in majors

In Tigers best 10 year period, 1999-2008 he had 58 wins, including 13 majors.  And Tiger did it in only 173 events including only 38 majors.  That is a winning percentage of 33.5% overall and 34.2% in majors.

Look at those winning percentages.  There were both of their prime years.  And it is no contest.  Tiger's winning percentage is 50% higher than Jack's.

So Jack supporters, in this debate, can make a lot of different arguments, but dominance is not one of them.

[bplewis24]

How about the run of majors in 1970's, when he played in every major (40), missed 1 cut, finished out of the top ten 4 times, 26 top 5 finishes, and 8 majors (if you want it a little narrower - '71-'73 (12) 4 wins & finished out of the top 10 once....but that is just my list.

I'm not saying who is best - IMO, Tiger has much to much golf left in him at his age to make a final analysis

Not that I don't think that's impressive, nor am I trying to counter the points you made...

But it seemed to me that the question wasn't limited to dominance in majors only, whereas the data you provided was exclusive to majors.  I don't know that something like this has come close to happening, but if a golfer were to have an average season on aggregate, but win two majors, one probably wouldn't consider that a "dominant" season, would they?  If he had no other wins besides majors?

Majors are important, no doubt. They are one of the biggest components of this discussion if not the biggest, but if we're talking dominance, I think the picture is much bigger than just majors.

[geauxforbroke]

I don't know that something like this has come close to happening, but if a golfer were to have an average season on aggregate, but win two majors, one probably wouldn't consider that a "dominant" season, would they?  If he had no other wins besides majors?

Paddy Harrington did something close in 2008. He won The Open and the PGA championship, but won no other events. He finished 8th on the money list and was awarded POY. Was it a great season for him? Yes. Was it a dominant season? No. Hell, Kenny Perry and Vijay Singh won more events than Paddy that year.

In the same year, Tiger won 4 events, including one major (US Open) and finished second on the money list.

[turtleback]

Paddy Harrington did something close in 2008. He won The Open and the PGA championship, but won no other events. He finished 8th on the money list and was awarded POY. Was it a great season for him? Yes. Was it a dominant season? No. Hell, Kenny Perry and Vijay Singh won more events than Paddy that year.

In the same year, Tiger won 4 events, including one major (US Open) and finished second on the money list.

And he did it playing only 6 events altogether (4 wins, a 2nd and a 5th).

Paddy deserved POY because anyone who wins 2 majors in a year deserves to be POY, IMO (as did O'Meara in 1998).  And there is no precedent for a player winning 2 majors and NOT winning POY.  That being said, winning 2 majors does not make a season dominant.  Most POYs are not the result of dominant seasons  Being the best is not dominant, IMO. Being the best by a large margin is dominance.

None of the Jack supporters want to list his dominant years season by season because they know I can then match each of them up with dominant season of Tiger's and each of Tiger's matching seasons  will be better and they will run out of dominant years long before I will.  I've challenged every one of these late additions to the thread as I did to the earlier contributors on the Jack side of the issue and gotten no response  Which is why I still maintain that when it comes right down to it, the only basis they really have for picking Jack is 18>14.  Certainly not dominance.

[Snowfly]

Tiger got time, but do his knees?

Right now I give Jack the top spot.

[Snowfly]

I do agree though that my opinion was a 18>14, and not a season by season comparison.  I also believe its hard to compare the eras for many reasons, course changes, equipment improvements etc. etc.

Also I it seems, and I may be wrong about this, but the Tour players today seem to have more coaches than players in the 60's 70's: swing coach, wedge coach, mental coach etc.

[CobraSvt]

Have you ever played The knives they played, or hit the ball they used. I grew up and learned how to play on Wilson Dynapowers, hitting balls that quickly went oval on you. For anyone to compare any modern player with a guy that came out of that era, they need to tell me how many strokes their new super ultra game improving equipment saves them. Jack is now and always will be better, until someone else can keep the 6" between their ears together long enough to win 19 majors. As for competition, Palmer, Trevino, Miller, Watson, Casper, Floyd, Weiskopf, Player, Littler, Crenshaw, Kite, Norman. I am missing a number of guy's, but the point is, the field was never weak, only one can win, and he put himself in contention more than everyone else.

[Jakester23]

Come up with something new please.

[CobraSvt]

We will never know who would have triumphed head to head in their prime, but some things to considered when comparing careers. 1) The times Jack did not win the big tournaments but was still top 3 is 19, Tiger 6 2) Tiger did not spend the first 5 years of his career with spectators yelling at him in his backswing; he loses his mind when someone whispers 3) The equipment, training, and support was a joke compared to Tiger's 4) Today's tour player is catered to, they want for little, they have people that do everything for them, in Jack's day they carpooled in caravans, they didn't get mattresses flown in because they slept funny. 5) Eighteen minus fourteen is FOUR as in the four that gets him to par with Jack; as a golfer that is, he'll never be the man that Jack is. As a final thought for all of those that think being one dimensional makes a person great, they should meet their idol, that can change your mind as to who you think is great.