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

[iacas]

p.s. Tiger playing against Barnrarat is not the same as Jackk having to face Palmer.

You do realize that 1/3 to 1/2 of the field in Jack's day was comprised of club pros, right?

Tiger faces far stiffer competition than Jack. Virtually a fact. If you wish to discuss only that aspect, there's this thread: .

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweeper1

p.s. Tiger playing against Barnrarat is not the same as Jackk having to face Palmer.

You do realize that 1/3 to 1/2 of the field in Jack's day was comprised of club pros, right?

Tiger faces far stiffer competition than Jack. Virtually a fact. If you wish to discuss only that aspect, there's this thread: ​ .

As opposed to the 1/3 of the field today that should still be club pros, and would be if the money on tour wasn't such an easy target.

[jbishop15]

As opposed to the 1/3 of the field today that should still be club pros, and would be if the money on tour wasn't such an easy target.

All of the PGA Tour plays to a +3 to +7 handicap, basically. That is very much above club pro level. Everyone who makes it on Tour deserves to be there. I mean, christ, just look at the number of guys on the mini-tours; there are hundreds, maybe thousands of golfers who are trying to make it on the Tour and come up just short.

[iacas]

As opposed to the 1/3 of the field today that should still be club pros, and would be if the money on tour wasn't such an easy target.

What does that even mean?

The prize money went up, so the sport became more competitive, and the field strength increased dramatically.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

As opposed to the 1/3 of the field today that should still be club pros, and would be if the money on tour wasn't such an easy target.

All of the PGA Tour plays to a +3 to +7 handicap, basically. That is very much above club pro level. Everyone who makes it on Tour deserves to be there. I mean, christ, just look at the number of guys on the mini-tours; there are hundreds, maybe thousands of golfers who are trying to make it on the Tour and come up just short.

And the only reason that there are more today than in Jack's day is again because of the money.  It's all about the dollar signs.  The bottom half of the Tour in Jack's day couldn't afford to buy lunch, much less stay on Tour.  The 200th guy has made over $80,000 this year with about half a year to go.  In Jack's heyday, that guy might have played a couple of tournaments close to home, hoping against the odds to find a pot of gold, and otherwise spent his life teaching doctors and lawyers well enough that they could break 100.  He simply had no incentive to even try to play on Tour.   He may have had the talent, but didn't really have a chance to do anything but go broke playing for 50th on the list.  The talent pool has probably always been there, but the incentive to bring it out was lacking.

This is one of the many reasons why it's so hard to compare the careers of Jack and Tiger - the whole demographic is so different.  You may be able to say that Tiger has played better fields, but you can't say that Jack wouldn't have been equally successful even if his fields had been deeper.  You can infer it, but no one will ever actually know.

[Patch]

I have been fortunate to see them both play in their prime. As to who is the best, it is almost impossible to tell, simply because they never played against each other while in their prime.  Obviously Nicklaus was the best in his era of golf, and Woods has been the best in his era of golf. What might have been the outcome in Majors if Woods had to face Nicklaus for the past 10 years? We'll never know. What if Tony Lema, and Payne Stewart had not been lost to golf so early?  Yes, Lima would have been a little late for Nicklaus. Overall I think Nicklaus faced tougher competition during his prime than Woods has. He played against the likes of Player  (9), Watson (8), and few years against that dry cleaning guy Palmer (7). Can't forget Trevino either with (6) majors won. Woods due to his game slipping a little, and his competition getting stronger is seeing what Nicklaus had to play against most of his career. Old vs new course conditions, and equipment is not a factor as those are just tools used by their owners. We talk about how strong Wood's mental game was.  What if he and Hogan had to butt their own mental games against each other.

No, for the sake of accuracy we can only pick the best of the best in their own eras. I often wonder what  it would be like to have all the past greats play against each other while in their prime, with all other things equal. Pretty sure Trevino would have put a few more rubber snakes in his bag.

[isukgolf]

I have been fortunate to see them both play in their prime. As to who is the best, it is almost impossible to tell, simply because they never played against each other while in their prime.  Obviously Nicklaus was the best in his era of golf, and Woods has been the best in his era of golf. What might have been the outcome in Majors if Woods had to face Nicklaus for the past 10 years? We'll never know. What if Tony Lema, and Payne Stewart had not been lost to golf so early?  Yes, Lima would have been a little late for Nicklaus. Overall I think Nicklaus faced tougher competition during his prime than Woods has. He played against the likes of Player  (9), Watson (8), and few years against that dry cleaning guy Palmer (7). Can't forget Trevino either with (6) majors won. Woods due to his game slipping a little, and his competition getting stronger is seeing what Nicklaus had to play against most of his career. Old vs new course conditions, and equipment is not a factor as those are just tools used by their owners. We talk about how strong Wood's mental game was.  What if he and Hogan had to butt their own mental games against each other.

No, for the sake of accuracy we can only pick the best of the best in their own eras. I often wonder what  it would be like to have all the past greats play against each other while in their prime, with all other things equal. Pretty sure Trevino would have put a few more rubber snakes in his bag.

Patch how lucky you are to have seen both play ... I always say it really does not matter who was "best," as we are lucky that these gentleman came a long ... like so many others ... and showed us the game of golf at a high level of play.

I also tell people ... I may be old, but I saw all the cool bands ...

[14ledo81]

I have been fortunate to see them both play in their prime. As to who is the best, it is almost impossible to tell, simply because they never played against each other while in their prime.  Obviously Nicklaus was the best in his era of golf, and Woods has been the best in his era of golf. What might have been the outcome in Majors if Woods had to face Nicklaus for the past 10 years? We'll never know. What if Tony Lema, and Payne Stewart had not been lost to golf so early?  Yes, Lima would have been a little late for Nicklaus. Overall I think Nicklaus faced tougher competition during his prime than Woods has. He played against the likes of Player  (9), Watson (8), and few years against that dry cleaning guy Palmer (7). Can't forget Trevino either with (6) majors won. Woods due to his game slipping a little, and his competition getting stronger is seeing what Nicklaus had to play against most of his career. Old vs new course conditions, and equipment is not a factor as those are just tools used by their owners. We talk about how strong Wood's mental game was.  What if he and Hogan had to butt their own mental games against each other.

No, for the sake of accuracy we can only pick the best of the best in their own eras. I often wonder what  it would be like to have all the past greats play against each other while in their prime, with all other things equal. Pretty sure Trevino would have put a few more rubber snakes in his bag.

This actually points to the fields being weaker.  Only a few players were good enough to win.  The fields are so deep now, anybody can win.

[jbishop15]

And the only reason that there are more today than in Jack's day is again because of the money.  It's all about the dollar signs.  The bottom half of the Tour in Jack's day couldn't afford to buy lunch, much less stay on Tour.  The 200th guy has made over $80,000 this year with about half a year to go.  In Jack's heyday, that guy might have played a couple of tournaments close to home, hoping against the odds to find a pot of gold, and otherwise spent his life teaching doctors and lawyers well enough that they could break 100.  He simply had no incentive to even try to play on Tour.   He may have had the talent, but didn't really have a chance to do anything but go broke playing for 50th on the list.  The talent pool has probably always been there, but the incentive to bring it out was lacking.

This is one of the many reasons why it's so hard to compare the careers of Jack and Tiger - the whole demographic is so different.  You may be able to say that Tiger has played better fields, but you can't say that Jack wouldn't have been equally successful even if his fields had been deeper.  You can infer it, but no one will ever actually know.

Actually, I can. It's like playing a video game: of course you're going to dominate if you have it on rookie mode. But if you bump it up to All-Star difficulty, it's not unreasonable to assume that the stats amassed in the lower difficulty setting would be cut by some amount.

Jack's numbers were played in an era where the fields weren't nearly as deep. Going off that, putting him in the fields of today, it's logical to think that his numbers would be worse.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

And the only reason that there are more today than in Jack's day is again because of the money.  It's all about the dollar signs.  The bottom half of the Tour in Jack's day couldn't afford to buy lunch, much less stay on Tour.  The 200th guy has made over $80,000 this year with about half a year to go.  In Jack's heyday, that guy might have played a couple of tournaments close to home, hoping against the odds to find a pot of gold, and otherwise spent his life teaching doctors and lawyers well enough that they could break 100.  He simply had no incentive to even try to play on Tour.   He may have had the talent, but didn't really have a chance to do anything but go broke playing for 50th on the list.  The talent pool has probably always been there, but the incentive to bring it out was lacking.

This is one of the many reasons why it's so hard to compare the careers of Jack and Tiger - the whole demographic is so different.  You may be able to say that Tiger has played better fields, but you can't say that Jack wouldn't have been equally successful even if his fields had been deeper.  You can infer it, but no one will ever actually know.

Actually, I can. It's like playing a video game: of course you're going to dominate if you have it on rookie mode. But if you bump it up to All-Star difficulty, it's not unreasonable to assume that the stats amassed in the lower difficulty setting would be cut by some amount.

Jack's numbers were played in an era where the fields weren't nearly as deep. Going off that, putting him in the fields of today, it's logical to think that his numbers would be worse.

No you can't.  You think you can, but you're just guessing.  You can't possibly know something may or may not be when it never happened and never can happen.  You are making an inference just as I am, based on data that you choose to believe, data which is inherently suspect because it's based on accomplishments which cannot be measured directly against each other.  This debate will likely still be going full strength after all of us are long gone, and unless Tiger gets himself together and does some real winning in the next 4 or 5 years, nobody will ever have an answer that can't be argued against.

Tiger might (that isn't even a given) have been a better player in his prime, but Jack was a tougher competitor.  Jack knew how to win when he was not leading going into Sunday, and Tiger's ability to do that is suspect.  He hasn't shown the mental strength to shove his competition aside on Sunday unless he went in with a lead.  His short game seems to be eroding, and that too is a sign that his mental game isn't as strong as people once thought it was.

Maybe he had so much talent that he didn't need to have that sort of strength.  Maybe his competition during his prime isn't what you all think it was.  I don't know, but he still has to show me that he's strong enough to come back now while he is still in what should be some of his best years on Tour.  If he doesn't there will always be a question mark in this debate.  Neither Jack nor Tiger will ever be undeniably the best of all time.  There will always be unanswered and unanswerable questions

[bplewis24]

Am so glad you asked. If you read my post carefully you will find that spots are opening all over the world (hell no, even if I was 30 again with a 3 handicap I would not travel to Tibet, just to qualify for anything)  where people of color (which is fine if they stood a chance) are taking spots from more qualified Americans. Case in point this week at the Greenbrier out of a field of approx. 154 there are 41 non-americans.  Jack beat the best as the U.S.A. is the stiffest competition there is. Henceforth this is where the $ are.

p.s. Tiger playing against Barnrarat is not the same as Jackk having to face Palmer.

Where do you hail from?

[sweeper1]

Residences in Tn. & N.C.

[sweeper1]

I have been fortunate to see them both play in their prime. As to who is the best, it is almost impossible to tell, simply because they never played against each other while in their prime.  Obviously Nicklaus was the best in his era of golf, and Woods has been the best in his era of golf. What might have been the outcome in Majors if Woods had to face Nicklaus for the past 10 years? We'll never know. What if Tony Lema, and Payne Stewart had not been lost to golf so early?  Yes, Lima would have been a little late for Nicklaus. Overall I think Nicklaus faced tougher competition during his prime than Woods has. He played against the likes of Player  (9), Watson (8), and few years against that dry cleaning guy Palmer (7). Can't forget Trevino either with (6) majors won. Woods due to his game slipping a little, and his competition getting stronger is seeing what Nicklaus had to play against most of his career. Old vs new course conditions, and equipment is not a factor as those are just tools used by their owners. We talk about how strong Wood's mental game was.  What if he and Hogan had to butt their own mental games against each other.

No, for the sake of accuracy we can only pick the best of the best in their own eras. I often wonder what  it would be like to have all the past greats play against each other while in their prime, with all other things equal. Pretty sure Trevino would have put a few more rubber snakes in his bag.

bingo

[sweeper1]

What would have been even better if they played under the same set of rules. Just think of all the tournaments Tiger would have loss for profanity (esp. taking the Lords name in vain: yes, at one time the PGA had the moral scrupulous to assess penalty shots for such "conduct unbecoming of a professional.")

[Jakester23]

What would have been even better if they played under the same set of rules. Just think of all the tournaments Tiger would have lts for profanity (esp. taking the Lords name in vain: yes, at one time the PGA had the moral scrupulous to assess penalty shots for such "conduct unbecoming of a professional.")

Now your just sounding like an a$$. That's like me saying think how many penalties Jack would have had if hdtv showed all the times he moved something close to his ball and his ball moved. Or when he took an improper drop and no one noticed because there wasn't a camera on his every move.

[iacas]

No you can't.  You think you can, but you're just guessing.  You can't possibly know something may or may not be when it never happened and never can happen.  You are making an inference just as I am, based on data that you choose to believe, data which is inherently suspect because it's based on accomplishments which cannot be measured directly against each other.

Though I agree that you can't "know" per se, you can arrive at an awfully smart conclusion…

Tiger might (that isn't even a given) have been a better player in his prime, but Jack was a tougher competitor.

It's amusing that you can lecture someone about what they can or can't know, then say something like "Jack was a tougher competitor."

Bullshit. You can't know that.

Jack knew how to win when he was not leading going into Sunday, and Tiger's ability to do that is suspect.

Jack also knew how to lose when he had the lead going into the final round. And miss a bunch more cuts than Tiger Woods who, in coming back from injury/surgery, just got to double digits in cuts missed.

Seriously, how many times has Tiger Woods lost when he had the lead after 54 holes in a major? Oh, once? And Jack?

You're basically punishing a guy for being so far ahead and then closing out 14/15 54-hole leads.

He hasn't shown the mental strength to shove his competition aside on Sunday unless he went in with a lead.

Which many will tell you is tougher to do mentally. Furthermore, Tiger's come-from-behind wins. The one that immediately springs to mind is at the AT&T; over Gogel. I believe he's come from behind to win 20 times or so of his 75+ PGA Tour victories.

His short game seems to be eroding, and that too is a sign that his mental game isn't as strong as people once thought it was.

A rusty short game is a sign that his mental game isn't as strong?

And what's that have to do with Tiger versus Jack?

Maybe his competition during his prime isn't what you all think it was.

It was several notches higher than Jack's competition. Nobody's demonstrated anything in the other thread which says otherwise. And it fails the sniff test.

Neither Jack nor Tiger will ever be undeniably the best of all time.  There will always be unanswered and unanswerable questions.

To you. I think others have made up their minds already. And some who pick Jack now could flip to Tiger if he gets to 85/15 or something.

[jamo]

It's amusing that you can lecture someone about what they can or can't know, then say something like "Jack was a tougher competitor." Bullshit. You can't know that.

Amazing that people use both that argument - that Jack knew how to win, was such a tough competitor, blah blah blah - and use all of his second-place finishes to make the same case. Those two are completely antithetical, and yet they're both argued in favor of Jack. If he had some amazing ability to win under all circumstances, he wouldn't have juuuuuuust lost so many times.

[iacas]

Amazing that people use both that argument - that Jack knew how to win, was such a tough competitor, blah blah blah - and use all of his second-place finishes to make the same case.

Those two are completely antithetical, and yet they're both argued in favor of Jack.

If he had some amazing ability to win under all circumstances, he wouldn't have juuuuuuust lost so many times.

Right.

Who is the better golfer?

Golfer A, with 100 wins, but 0 other top-ten finishes.

Golfer B, with 70 wins, but 50 top-ten finishes.

I don't know. It's an opinion. Same with this one:

Golfer A, who wins 50 times but never comes from behind, and includes 10 record-setting margins of victory.

Golfer B, who wins 50 times, and comes from behind to win half of them.

I don't know either.

I'm inclined to choose A in both, but… people argue for B all the time. Who cares what position you're in after 54 holes if you win at the end of the day?