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

[daly_vision]

Unfortunately I never got to see Jack play.... but Tiger a few years ago was definitely dominant.

[birdiedream]

I think math is probably not your strength or you have ever heard or understand the concept of the bell curve. And statistics work best when the sample size is millions.

I will simplify it for you. Assuming this. For every 1 million golfers there is 1 great pga tour player, 2 average pga tour players, 2 marginal pga tour players, and 500,000 15 handicappers. Yes, the 500,000 15 hadicappers won't affect the PGA tour, but there are five pga tour players out of this 1 million. # of golfers-------# of great pga players------------#of average pga players-------------#of marginal pga players----------15 handicappers 15 mil---------------------15-----------------------------30------------------------------------30-------------------------7.5 mil------ 50 mil---------------------50-----------------------------100-----------------------------------100-----------------------25 mil------- Note that with this standard, during Jack's time, there isn't enough golfers even with marginal pga standard so there is another 75 players below marginal pga standard in the tour. Nowaday, the 100 marginal pga tour players are not even in the top 150. Yes, there is way more hackers now, but there is also way more great pga players. It is more easy to dominate a field of 45 (great and average pga players) than a field of 150. If you still don't get this then I give up. And you failed to give me one decent explaination of why Jack is better Tiger.

We went over this before. Tiger doesn't have to be better than 50M golfers. How does having maybe 20M more 15-handicappers in the world make it more difficult for Tiger to win than for Jack? Tiger only has to be better than the golfers who are capable of beating him, which number around 60-100, the same size as Jack's competition. There are reasons why Tiger might be better than Jack, but this isn't one of them.

[max power]

I think math is probably not your strength or you have ever heard or understand the concept of the bell curve. And statistics work best when the sample size is millions.

That's how it works. Thanks for bringing the math.

[davic09]

I don't know, theres a big difference in golf from then or now. Clubs are different, balls are different, theres way more training equipment etc. I don't know if you can really judge. I am too young to have been around during Jack's time but I definately enjoy my Golden Bear clubs!!

[The Recreational Golfer]

I think math is probably not your strength or you have ever heard or understand the concept of the bell curve. And statistics work best when the sample size is millions.

Last point first: I never took the position that Jack was better than Tiger. All I said was that this line of reasoning doesn't help us understand who is better.

Now as for the math. We could talk about the curve of normal distribution, or the bell curve as you call it, defining whether it would be a distribution of all golfers, which would make the extreme left-hand tail be someone who picked up a club this morning for the first time and swung it like trying to kill a snake, or of all people, which would make the left-hand outlier be a six-month-old child, who, when handed a 6-iron, tried to eat it. We know that Tiger and his cronies are way over there on the right. We could discuss whether the curve is skewed to the right or to the left, or whether it is multi-modal. We could discuss the magnitude of the standard deviation. And so on, and it would all be utterly irrelevant, because golfing skill at the elite level is not normally distributed. The only thing that matters is the number of golfers out there on that right-hand tail who can beat Tiger, and likewise for jack, and that is a matter of fact, not a matter of mathematical consequence. We could find out which are the worrisome players by comparing the record of Tiger with the record of each one of his contemporaries, one at a time, and contruct a confidence interval to test the null hypothesis - that these two records represent golfers of equal skill. Just taking a cursory look at Jack’s record in his first fourteen years on the Tour, and Tiger’s, one could make the case that it is easier for Tiger to win because he does it so much more often! Again, I’m not saying Jack is better or that Tiger is better. I’m saying that a conclusion cannot be drawn based on the difference between the total number of golfers in the world in one era compared to the next. It doesn’t matter how many more or less 15-handicappers there are. It matters how many golfers then and now were able to beat the golfer in question, and that individual ability is not influenced by the total number of golfers lined behind them.

[birdiedream]

Ok, according to your logic, a nation with 11 soccer players could beat a nation with 11 million soccer players.

individual ability is not influenced by the total number of golfers lined behind them.

[The Recreational Golfer]

If the 11 were world class players and none of the 11 million were that good, yes. It's all based on how good the players are that you put on the field, and their talent/ability is not influenced more or less by the numbers of players who are not as good but included in their defined population.

Michael Jordan was not better than Elgin Baylor because more people played basketball during Jordan's era. He was better because he was better .

[bwdial]

Spain has a little over 700,000 people playing soccer. The United States has roughly 18,000,000. I guess that's why we won the World... oh... wait a minute.

[birdiedream]

Oh, this nation with only 11 people playing soccer and all of them became world class players. These 11 players defeated the top 11 out of a 11,000,000 pool of players.

If the 11 were world class players and none of the 11 million were that good, yes. It's all based on how good the players are that you put on the field, and their talent/ability is not influenced more or less by the numbers of players who are not as good but included in their defined population.

[birdiedream]

I don't believe your numbers. Are you saying 1.5% of Spaniards play soccer and 6% of Americans play soccer? Another issue, how many American kids past the age of 14 stick with soccer and not jumping into more glamorous sports like football, basketball, baseball?

Spain has a little over 700,000 people playing soccer. The United States has roughly 18,000,000. I guess that's why we won the World... oh... wait a minute.

[max power]

If the 11 were world class players and none of the 11 million were that good, yes. It's all based on how good the players are that you put on the field, and their talent/ability is not influenced more or less by the numbers of players who are not as good but included in their defined population.

Yep-MJ was better no matter how you look at it. And his competition was better, much better. Because of the growth of basketball throughout the decades, and the vastly increased number of kids (just in America) playing basketball in an effort to reach the college and professional ranks. Add in players from around the world and you have a much tougher field. So even if MJ was just Baylor Part II, he'd probably be a better player because of the level of his competition. While I feel that Tiger has clearly had stiffer competition than Jack, I'll let that argument go, because we can't formulate some sort of metric to see who was actually a tougher player to complete with physically and mentally-on Thursday or on Sunday, between Trevino and Vijay, Watson and Phil, and whoever else we want to match up. Some say fewer players with more majors in 60's and 70's=better top players, others argue fewer players with more majors in 60's and 70's=only a few top players in that era.

Suffice it to say, the argument that Jack faced better competition really has no merit. Argument that he faced equivalent competition? I'll allow it. So we don't know the endgame yet. Through the age of 35 Tiger was far more dominant. But Jack won another 4 majors after that, so we can't make a final determination yet.

[Acropo]

Ok, according to your logic, a nation with 11 soccer players could beat a nation with 11 million soccer players.

Kinda like Denmark beating Germany to the 1992 European Championship, d'ya mean?

[RDM#]

I never got to see Jack in is hay day, but I know he was a great player, will Tiger be better, time will tell. It would be interesting to bring back Jack, Arnie, Gary, and the old gang in their prime to play today with the technology we have, I wonder how much better they would play.

[bwdial]

I don't believe your numbers. Are you saying 1.5% of Spaniards play soccer and 6% of Americans play soccer? Another issue, how many American kids past the age of 14 stick with soccer and not jumping into more glamorous sports like football, basketball, baseball?

Spain has around 700,000 registered soccer players. The United States has somewhere close to 18,000,000. That's probably from the pros, all the way down through the youth level, but if we're dragging all levels of golfers into the argument, we'll drag all of the soccer players in as well.

The "fact" that the Tour is "deeper" now, has more to do with the money involved and the all exempt 125 than it does with skill. Tour pros today don't have to give lessons to survive. You have to go all the way down to the mini-tours to find similarities to what Tour pros faced back then from a financial standpoint. This "complacency" among his competition is why I tend to think that Tiger's accomplishments have been over blown. I liken him to Rocky Marciano, who had a fabulous record of 49-0, but his signature wins were over a blown up light heavy (Charles) and two over the hill heavies (Walcott and Louis). Most of Marciano's wins were against tomato cans. On the other hand, Ali fought some of the best of the best in their prime. Liston twice. Frazier three times. Foreman, when most of the world thought he was an indestructable machine after he destroyed Frazier.

[The Recreational Golfer]

Oh, this nation with only 11 people playing soccer and all of them became world class players. These 11 players defeated the top 11 out of a 11,000,000 pool of players.

Yep. If they're better, no matter how unlikely, they would win. Now if all 11M from country B took the field at the same time, I'm sure they would beat the 11 from country A.

[bigfish6312]

Tiger can not amount up to Jack now

[h4ck]

Tiger if he manages to notch a few more big wins. Not that I know, but I feel like Jack did not have to face as many good golfers from all over the world.

[Brendon]

Jack - Legend / Hall of Famer
Tiger - A Good Golfer

I agree with h4ck; if Tiger manages to pull off a few big wins, perhaps the British Open or The Masters; then he will definitely be able to amount to the skill that Jack has/had. Also, I believe that some personal things that happened with Tiger (we all know) also could harm peoples perceptions on him.