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

[jbishop15]

To be the "greatest" at anything takes more than talent..it takes character too. Character is not something Tiger ever had! His dad is rolling over in his grave in disgust!

Here we go again

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rspollak

To be the "greatest" at anything takes more than talent..it takes character too. Character is not something Tiger ever had! His dad is rolling over in his grave in disgust!

Here we go again

And with a first post none the less.  I wish we could go back in time and read all anti-Nicklaus articles that were written by Arnold Palmer fans back in the early '60s.  Arnie's fans hated Nicklaus with a passion. I'm sure they thought Nicklaus had no 'character'.

[tomvk77]

Look i think you can't really match up those 2. What Nicklaus did was simply amazing. And what tiger did as well. They performed in an other generation. I think there at the same level. Back in time when nicklaus was at his best, there where only a few who could match up to his level. In tiger's years there was a whole field of players. Tiger changed the sport to what it is now (a field full off fit players), something nicklaus didn't.

I don't think Tiger will get more majors than nicklaus, but does that make him a worse player? I don't think so.

[Fourputt]

If nothing changes significantly in Tiger's career record from here on, they will still be having this debate 100 years from now and the results will still be just as inconclusive.  The variables between the two eras will still be in place, and the uncertainties will still exist.

If Tiger should come back and win another major or two against the competition he now faces, then he might tip the scales far enough for him to be a clear winner even among most of his detractors.  He would certainly win my vote if he does, otherwise I'll always see it as a dead heat.

[JonMA1]

If nothing changes significantly in Tiger's career record from here on, they will still be having this debate 100 years from now and the results will still be just as inconclusive.  The variables between the two eras will still be in place, and the uncertainties will still exist.

30 years from now, there will be another player who will be as equally popular as Jack and Tiger. The facts, statistics and reasoning used now to support an opinion will be used in the next debate. In the end, it's opinion and little more. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[ghalfaire]

Erik, can you please build a time machine so we can put an end to this debate?  We'll organize a match between '75 Jack and '00 Tiger.

This might help, just something I scribbled down

I certainly haven't read all the posts but was just checking in to see how the debate was going.  You know they did this on a computer a few years ago with Rocky Marciano and Mohammad Ali (Cassius Clay) to see who was the greatest boxer of all time (GBOAT).  Of course the simulations didn't really settle the argument (Rocky won by the way) but it did add a dimension to the arguments.   It would be interesting if some enterprising fellow/gal would do a Jack, Tiger, Ben, and Bobby match up say at Augusta National.   Of course it would be difficult as the golf game has changed way more over the years than the boxing game did for Ali and Marciano over the interval between their careers.   In today's world we could even animate it and put it on the Golf channel with Brandle Chamblee as the play by play announcer.

[iacas]

30 years from now, there will be another player who will be as equally popular as Jack and Tiger. The facts, statistics and reasoning used now to support an opinion will be used in the next debate. In the end, it's opinion and little more. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Such a golfer would probably have to win 10-13 majors and do a lot of other good things (Vardon Trophies, PGA Tour event wins, WGCs, etc.) to have a chance IMO.

The strength of field has not and will not continue to rise linearly simply because field sizes are capped to about 150 players.

[Fourputt]

I certainly haven't read all the posts but was just checking in to see how the debate was going.  You know they did this on a computer a few years ago with Rocky Marciano and Mohammad Ali (Cassius Clay) to see who was the greatest boxer of all time (GBOAT).  Of course the simulations didn't really settle the argument (Rocky won by the way) but it did add a dimension to the arguments.   It would be interesting if some enterprising fellow/gal would do a Jack, Tiger, Ben, and Bobby match up say at Augusta National.   Of course it would be difficult as the golf game has changed way more over the years than the boxing game did for Ali and Marciano over the interval between their careers.   In today's world we could even animate it and put it on the Golf channel with Brandle Chamblee as the play by play announcer.

The trouble with a simulation is that there are too many variable factors in golf, too many changes that have taken place in courses and equipment over the years.  How would Jones or Hogan putt on greens running at 13+?  How would Jack or Tiger do playing hickory shafts, which required a different sort of swing?  So hard to simulate such intangibles.  Boxing didn't really change to any significant degree between Marciano and Ali.

[ghalfaire]

The trouble with a simulation is that there are too many variable factors in golf, too many changes that have taken place in courses and equipment over the years.  How would Jones or Hogan putt on greens running at 13+?  How would Jack or Tiger do playing hickory shafts, which required a different sort of swing?  So hard to simulate such intangibles.  Boxing didn't really change to any significant degree between Marciano and Ali.

You're correct of course Fourputt.  It was sort of a "tongue in cheek" post.  It was difficult to do with boxers and that is much simpler game than golf and certainly didn't settle the argument.  There likely will never be a way to settle the "who's the greatest" in any given sport.  Maybe someday we'll be able to just clone these guys using DNA and have them play, but I doubt I'll live to see it. Well unless they clone me so I can watch on whatever replaces TV.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

The trouble with a simulation is that there are too many variable factors in golf, too many changes that have taken place in courses and equipment over the years.  How would Jones or Hogan putt on greens running at 13+?  How would Jack or Tiger do playing hickory shafts, which required a different sort of swing?  So hard to simulate such intangibles.  Boxing didn't really change to any significant degree between Marciano and Ali.

You're correct of course Fourputt.  It was sort of a "tongue in cheek" post.  It was difficult to do with boxers and that is much simpler game than golf and certainly didn't settle the argument.  There likely will never be a way to settle the "who's the greatest" in any given sport.  Maybe someday we'll be able to just clone these guys using DNA and have them play, but I doubt I'll live to see it. Well unless they clone me so I can watch on whatever replaces TV.

Not only clone you, but then be able to download all of your significant memories and life experiences, so that you are still "you".

[turtleback]

If nothing changes significantly in Tiger's career record from here on, they will still be having this debate 100 years from now and the results will still be just as inconclusive.  The variables between the two eras will still be in place, and the uncertainties will still exist.

If Tiger should come back and win another major or two against the competition he now faces, then he might tip the scales far enough for him to be a clear winner even among most of his detractors.  He would certainly win my vote if he does, otherwise I'll always see it as a dead heat.

Wait.  I thought you have steadfastly maintained the claim that because the condition are so different there really is no way of selecting a GOAT. (A theory that I never heard a single person express when Jack as being crowned the GOAT by anyone - not a knock on you personally, obviously, since I didn't know you back then.)

But now there are circumstances (winning a couple more majors) that would cause you to vote for him.  How can you vote for something that you have steadfastly maintained either doesn't exist or cannot be determined?

And with the conditions and opportunities to play majors that BOTH Jack and Tiger enjoyed over the players that went before Jack, how can you even say they now (or ever) would be tied for GOAT?  You will not make a decision between Tiger and Jack because of the changing conditions but then you make a decision between Tiger&Jack; (tied in your current message) and all of the players who came before, where the differences were far far greater, who did not have the kinds and number of opportunities to play majors as they did.  Other than things that are routinely discounted when they are applied to Jack, there are 3-6* guys with colorable claims to be GOAT who Jack (and you) have written out of the discussion.  So if we take your position to heart that you cannot determine a single GOAT then it should not automatically be a tie between Jack and Tiger.  These guys have to be accounted for under YOUR OWN criteria.  The top 3 are my top 3 choices, but I think the other 3 have cases to be made.

Jack

Tiger

Hogan

Snead

Hagen

Vardon

Every one of them was widely regarded as the best player for a decent number of years and has both regular tournament successes and major successes.  The only 2 that are directly comparable are Hogan and Snead - and the debate at the time raged as to which was the greatest.  The only other possible contemporaries would have been if I put Jones in, as he and Hagen had a lot of overlap in their careers.  However, there we have the difficulty that Jones played very few non-majors relative to the other players, and his major total is padded by events in which almost none of the best players could play, i.e., the Amateurs.

The very fact that Jack's wanderings for a GOAT criteria he could satisfy led him to point, at various times, to the accomplishments of Jones, Hogan and Snead as targets to meet to get the GOAT title, clearly demonstrates, IMO, that these guys (except for Jones, but Jack was young and still had a romanticized view of Jones' playing career) should be in any discussion of GOAT.  And under your original "can't compare players of different eras" criteria they are in the discussion.  So I do not understand how Jack and Tiger are now tied and Tiger will eke out a lead with 1 or 2 more majors.  The 2 opinions you have expressed seem to be inconsistent.

[Golfingdad]

The 2 opinions you have expressed seem to be inconsistent.

To be fair, I bet there are a lot of posts on here by a lot of people (speaking mostly of myself) that possibly contradict one another.

I don't care that much about who is the greatest, and I change my mind about things as I hear more information, so it's entirely possible that at one point I've leaned in Jacks direction and at another I've leaned in Tigers ... and neither of those would be wrong.

[Fourputt]

The very fact that Jack's wanderings for a GOAT criteria he could satisfy led him to point, at various times, to the accomplishments of Jones, Hogan and Snead as targets to meet to get the GOAT title, clearly demonstrates, IMO, that these guys (except for Jones, but Jack was young and still had a romanticized view of Jones' playing career) should be in any discussion of GOAT.  And under your original "can't compare players of different eras" criteria they are in the discussion.  So I do not understand how Jack and Tiger are now tied and Tiger will eke out a lead with 1 or 2 more majors.  The 2 opinions you have expressed seem to be inconsistent.

What Jack said or didn't say has never influenced my thinking.  It's irrelevant when we are talking about their playing performance.  I also put a much lower rating on regular tour wins, or Snead would also be in this discussion.  The heaviest weight is still in major tournament performance, with some consideration for regular tour wins and perceived field strength.  If Tiger wins a couple more majors, then that plus his slight lead in those lesser (in my opinion) factors might just give him an edge.  As far as I'm concerned, they're tied (or at least too close to pick a undisputed winner), and have been for some time.

I know you don't agree, and that's fine.  You have a different opinion, but that's all it is - a difference of opinion.  There is no empirical data that can state that one or the other is an unequivocal leader in the race.

[turtleback]

To be fair, I bet there are a lot of posts on here by a lot of people (speaking mostly of myself) that possibly contradict one another.

I don't care that much about who is the greatest, and I change my mind about things as I hear more information, so it's entirely possible that at one point I've leaned in Jacks direction and at another I've leaned in Tigers ... and neither of those would be wrong.

And I didn't say they were.  I don't even know the point in time when Tiger passed Jack in my own estimation. THAT is not the kind of contradiction I am talking about.

My problem is with the notion that

a) one cannot really judge between Tiger and Jack because the conditions and circumstances were so different, yet,

b) saying Tiger and Jack are tied (certainly a valid, although wrong, IMO, opinion) automatically eliminates players where the difference in conditions and circumstances are so much bigger than between Tiger and Jack.  IOW, if you cannot compare Tiger and Jack, how can you compare Jack and, say, Hogan - elevating Jack into "top 2 tied for #1 with Tiger", means you had to compare him to Hogan with Jack coming out on top.  Yet that is EXACTLY the comparison, players of different eras with different conditions and circumstances.

You (general you, not specifically you) cannot decide between 2 players whose careers are 25 years apart but you can judge between them and other players whose careers were 25+ years earlier?

A) I have no problem with anyone saying Tiger is the best (obviously , since that is my position)

B) I have no problems with someone saying Jack is best (I respect that opinion although they are wrong and I will try to change their opinion)

C) I have no problem with someone saying that you simply cannot compare players of different eras. (and they may have a point - but the point would be far more convincing in the crrent discussion if we could find much (any?) evidence of this opinion dating from the 1975-1995 era.

D) I have no problem with someone saying Jack and Tiger are tied (although I disagree).

What I have is a problem with someone claiming to hold 2 of these positions at the same time.

[Golfingdad]

And I didn't say they were.  I don't even know the point in time when Tiger passed Jack in my own estimation. THAT is not the kind of contradiction I am talking about.

My problem is with the notion that

a) one cannot really judge between Tiger and Jack because the conditions and circumstances were so different, yet,

b) saying Tiger and Jack are tied (certainly a valid, although wrong, IMO, opinion) automatically eliminates players where the difference in conditions and circumstances are so much bigger than between Tiger and Jack.  IOW, if you cannot compare Tiger and Jack, how can you compare Jack and, say, Hogan - elevating Jack into "top 2 tied for #1 with Tiger", means you had to compare him to Hogan with Jack coming out on top.  Yet that is EXACTLY the comparison, players of different eras with different conditions and circumstances.

You (general you, not specifically you) cannot decide between 2 players whose careers are 25 years apart but you can judge between them and other players whose careers were 25+ years earlier?

A) I have no problem with anyone saying Tiger is the best (obviously , since that is my position)

B) I have no problems with someone saying Jack is best (I respect that opinion although they are wrong and I will try to change their opinion)

C) I have no problem with someone saying that you simply cannot compare players of different eras. (and they may have a point - but the point would be far more convincing in the crrent discussion if we could find much (any?) evidence of this opinion dating from the 1975-1995 era.

D) I have no problem with someone saying Jack and Tiger are tied (although I disagree).

What I have is a problem with someone claiming to hold 2 of these positions at the same time.

I think it's because there is a general acceptance of Jack having been the virtual undisputed greatest prior to Tiger.

Similar to how people can make cases for Russell or Chamberlain or Magic or Bird as the greatest basketball player of all time, but not really because everybody now "knows" that its Jordan.  If you want to compare Kobe or LeBron, you're comparing them to Jordan.

And a big part of that might just be recency bias.  I don't know.

[Fourputt]

You (general you, not specifically you) cannot decide between 2 players whose careers are 25 years apart but you can judge between them and other players whose careers were 25+ years earlier?

A) I have no problem with anyone saying Tiger is the best (obviously , since that is my position)

B) I have no problems with someone saying Jack is best (I respect that opinion although they are wrong and I will try to change their opinion)

C) I have no problem with someone saying that you simply cannot compare players of different eras. (and they may have a point - but the point would be far more convincing in the crrent discussion if we could find much (any?) evidence of this opinion dating from the 1975-1995 era.

D) I have no problem with someone saying Jack and Tiger are tied (although I disagree).

What I have is a problem with someone claiming to hold 2 of these positions at the same time.

I'm not sure why you feel that they are incompatible.  I will change my wording from saying that they are tied to state that in my opinion they are so close that a leader can't be proven (saying the same thing in a different manner).  Part of the reason is the difficulty of empirically comparing two players who never had the opportunity compete against each other.  Both statements are consistent and actually support each other.

You can try to match and compare the variables until you die of old age and they will still not fit into any equation.  It will always come down to opinion.  You have to pick and assign values to similarities.  How those values are assigned is necessarily arbitrary.  I put most weight on the majors.  I put a lesser value on the difference in regular Tour wins and the perceived difference in strength of field.

In my opinion, Jack gets a big head start with his major performance, and unlike you I look at his 19 seconds too.  That's 37 top 2's, a phenomenal record by anyone's reckoning.  Tiger has a way to go to catch that, in anyone's opinion (and no chance, in my opinion).  Tiger has a clear lead in tour wins and has had better competition from the top 25 pursuers during his career, so that helps to catch him back up in the overall standings.

As I see it, that makes them too even to call a winner.  If it was put to a jury, there would be reasonable doubt either way.

[JonMA1]

Such a golfer would probably have to win 10-13 majors and do a lot of other good things (Vardon Trophies, PGA Tour event wins, WGCs, etc.) to have a chance IMO.

Agreed. One would have to possess the type of talent that only comes around once every 20 or 30 years.

The strength of field has not and will not continue to rise linearly simply because field sizes are capped to about 150 players.

My apologies, but I don't understand this.

My thoughts are that in any sport, the level of play improves from one generation to another due to a better understanding of what works and what doesn't - often based on success of previous athletes. This is enhanced as better information is gathered through improved science and technology.

If the quality of play outside the 150 tour players is higher, wouldn't that make the pros better as a group?

Also, if golf takes hold in countries that didn't previously promote the sport, it seems as though that could increase the possibility of a freak-of-nature type player being developed at a young age.

[mmoan2]

Agreed. One would have to possess the type of talent that only comes around once every 20 or 30 years.

My apologies, but I don't understand this.

My thoughts are that in any sport, the level of play improves from one generation to another due to a better understanding of what works and what doesn't - often based on success of previous athletes. This is enhanced as better information is gathered through improved science and technology.

If the quality of play outside the 150 tour players is higher, wouldn't that make the pros better as a group?

Also, if golf takes hold in countries that didn't previously promote the sport, it seems as though that could increase the possibility of a freak-of-nature type player being developed at a young age.

I think @iacas is correc t that the field strength will not necessarily improve in a linear fashion. Many variable exist - which you have pointed out - that will improve the fields, but they may not continue to improve that much in another generation or so. I think the improvement of golf was probably even more exponential than linear at one point, as it was in all other sports - call it a "Golden Years" effect where such a wealth of breakthrough and interest made the improvement that much more drastic than at other periods in time.