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

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by zipazoid 

 

MSchott's point is still valid, turtleback. You did it with me & now you're doing it with him. You're attacking the poster rather than the post, by inferring those that don't think like you 'lack critical thinking  skills.'

 

I know you hate having 18>14 tossed out there...'It's more complicated than that!"

 

Only if you want it to be.

 

In other words, only if you believe the one with 14 is the best.

 

Those of use that believe the one with 18 is still the best aren't 'lacking' anything. We just disagree with you.

You confuse the notions of opinion and critical thinking.  Here is what critical thinking is:

Critical thinking has been described as “reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do.”[2] It has also been described as "thinking about thinking."[3] It has been described in more detail as "the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action".[4] More recently, critical thinking has been described as "the process of purposeful, self-regulatory judgment, which uses reasoned consideration to evidence, context, conceptualizations, methods, and criteria."[5]

Now how does your assertion that majors are all that count fit into that?  You do not claim that you thought Hagen was the GOAT before Jack.  You have not asserted that John Daly was a greater player than Tom Kite.  You have your criteria and yet it seems to apply selectively.

What I have done is shown by a lot of things, which you have dismissed as nuance, that Tiger has had the overall more impressive career.  And that is based on a lot of different metrics.  Winning percentage, scoring average advantage over contemporaries, Vardon trophies, Player of the Year awards, number of dominant seasons, degree of dominance in those seasons, consecutive winning streaks, consecutive major wins, just to name a few.  To which you come down to one metric, that never applied to anyone other than the guy you want to put in first place.  No one other than Jack Nicklaus has ever been considered the GOAT based on the number of major wins.  Not one single player.

You say that I reject 18>14 as the sole criteria because I want Tiger to be the best, but I think the evidence is overwhelming that it is exactly the opposite - you cling to 18>14 because that is the ONLY WAY you can claim that Jack is the best.  You make that argument the sine qua non of the greatness debate because you have no other argument to make.  You have decided Jack must be the GOAT and so you find and cling to the only thing you can.  Whereas I can cite factor after factor after factor in Tiger's favor - and they are things that traditionally were looked at as a measure of a players greatness.  Before Jack, Hogan rather than Hagen was more of a consensus GOAT.  And he was considered the GOAT for many of the same reasons that I cite in Tiger's support.

Now be honest, which of our processes and conclusions best fits the bolded portion of what critical thinking means?

PS:  and in neither case was I attacking the poster rather than the post.  I was attacking posts that drew conclusions that were not based on critical thinking, that made no arguments, just assertions.  As you continue to do.

[brocks]

You are right that majors are not the sole measure of a golfer but in the last 50 years it's THE measurement of the greatest players. If you question that you are just being stubborn. For example, Phil Mickleson is generally considered the second best golfer in his era.

Not a great example, because I think that many, many people thought Phil was the second best golfer in his era even before he won a major, i.e. before 2004. If you had asked me in the early 2000's, I probably would have said Vijay was the second best player of the Tiger era, but I would have put majorless Phil 3rd, above multiple major winners Els, Goosen, and Daly, to name a few. And I'd put Harrington (three majors) well below guys like Langer, Olazabal, Love III, and Duval on the all-time list, even though none of them have three majors. I really, really hope Tiger gets to 19, not because I think he has to do it to be considered the best, but just because it will be so much fun to watch all the "majors are everything" guys suddenly decide that you have to look at other factors.

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by brocks

Not a great example, because I think that many, many people thought Phil was the second best golfer in his era even before he won a major, i.e. before 2004. If you had asked me in the early 2000's, I probably would have said Vijay was the second best player of the Tiger era, but I would have put majorless Phil 3rd, above multiple major winners Els, Goosen, and Daly, to name a few. And I'd put Harrington (three majors) well below guys like Langer, Olazabal, Love III, and Duval on the all-time list, even though none of them have three majors.

I really, really hope Tiger gets to 19, not because I think he has to do it to be considered the best, but just because it will be so much fun to watch all the "majors are everything" guys suddenly decide that you have to look at other factors.

You make good points here but I would not put Duval above Harrington. His greatness didn't last long enough. I think we'd all think more highly of Harrington had he not lost his game so quickly after winning those majors.

[newtogolf]

I think some of you are clinging to the importance of Majors a little too tightly.  Based on your posts, we could order all golfers by Majors wins and we'd get our ranking order of best golfer to worst.  This is what some of you are saying, but not sure if it's what you mean.  If that is your intent it's way off, it means a guy like Luke Donald doesn't even make the list but Keegan Bradley does.

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I think some of you are clinging to the importance of Majors a little too tightly.  Based on your posts, we could order all golfers by Majors wins and we'd get our ranking order of best golfer to worst.  This is what some of you are saying, but not sure if it's what you mean.  If that is your intent it's way off, it means a guy like Luke Donald doesn't even make the list but Keegan Bradley does.

It's a matter of degree and remember the basic premise of this thread is Tiger vs Jack so we are talking the very highest level of the game. There are many players with 1-2 majors who should not have their entire careers judged by only their major wins but those with 6+ are considered among the all time great because they belong to an elite club. Keegan Bradley is in the same class as Shaun Micheel, Rich Beem, David Toms and others but he does have a major which so far cannot be said of Luke Donald. I'm not criticizing Donald but unless he wins multiple majors, he won't go down in history as anything other than another very good player.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by brocks

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSchott

You are right that majors are not the sole measure of a golfer but in the last 50 years it's THE measurement of the greatest players. If you question that you are just being stubborn. For example, Phil Mickleson is generally considered the second best golfer in his era.

Not a great example, because I think that many, many people thought Phil was the second best golfer in his era even before he won a major, i.e. before 2004. If you had asked me in the early 2000's, I probably would have said Vijay was the second best player of the Tiger era, but I would have put majorless Phil 3rd, above multiple major winners Els, Goosen, and Daly, to name a few. And I'd put Harrington (three majors) well below guys like Langer, Olazabal, Love III, and Duval on the all-time list, even though none of them have three majors.

I really, really hope Tiger gets to 19, not because I think he has to do it to be considered the best, but just because it will be so much fun to watch all the "majors are everything" guys suddenly decide that you have to look at other factors.

I would not put Padraig Harrington below Langer, Duval or DLIII, but I'm sure there may be stats which prove otherwise.

[Mr3Wiggle]

Question on this.  US Ams count as majors too?  Right?  They did for Bobby Jones.  So Jack really has 20 major titles.

[jamo]

Question on this.  US Ams count as majors too?  Right?  They did for Bobby Jones.  So Jack really has 20 major titles.

So then Tiger has 17...

[Mr3Wiggle]

Originally Posted by jamo

So then Tiger has 17...

If we are counting US Ams he does.  Only needs 3 more to tie.  IMO the US Am is one of the hardest tournaments in the world to win.  It should count.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I think some of you are clinging to the importance of Majors a little too tightly.  Based on your posts, we could order all golfers by Majors wins and we'd get our ranking order of best golfer to worst.  This is what some of you are saying, but not sure if it's what you mean.  If that is your intent it's way off, it means a guy like Luke Donald doesn't even make the list but Keegan Bradley does.

I'm using it only in the Tiger v Jack context, not for ranking of 'all' players.

Re US Ams, I read a great point on whether they should count - only if a US Am winner goes on to win a professional Major. So in the case of, say, Mark O'Meara, the US Am should count since he backed it up with a Masters & British Open win. In the case of, say, Nathaniel Crosby, no.

So, imo, the actual count is Jack 20, Tiger 17.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Mr3Wiggle

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamo

So then Tiger has 17...

If we are counting US Ams he does.  Only needs 3 more to tie.  IMO the US Am is one of the hardest tournaments in the world to win.  It should count.

LOL - nice try.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

LOL - nice try.

Jack thought they should count.

[The Recreational Golfer]

If major championships are the standard, here's the record.

Woods has played in 63 majors:

1 -14

2 -  6

3 -  3

t10 other -  12

In Nicklaus's first 63 majors:

1 - 13

2 - 10

3 -  7

t10 other - 11

Edge is to Nicklaus so far. Next week's U.S. Open will be Woods's 64th major. Nicklaus won his 64th.

[brocks]

It's a matter of degree and remember the basic premise of this thread is Tiger vs Jack so we are talking the very highest level of the game. There are many players with 1-2 majors who should not have their entire careers judged by only their major wins but those with 6+ are considered among the all time great because they belong to an elite club.

My opinion is just the opposite. When you're talking about all-time greats, you want a guy with no holes in his resume. IMO once a player has more than 6 majors, you know all you need to know about his ability to win big events, so additional majors become less important after that. They're still a big deal, but you start looking for other stats to compare. For example, if A has nine majors and B has 8, but B has a career grand slam and A never won the US Open, then if they're evenly matched in other important stats, I give the edge to B. Majors seem more important to me when you're comparing players with less than 6. For example, I'd put Phil above Vijay on the all time list, largely because he has four majors to three, and half a dozen more PGA wins. But if Phil had 9 majors and Vijay had 8, and everything else was the same, I'd put Vijay ahead of Phil, because he's been world #1, and has money titles, a Vardon, a POY, and a FedEx Cup, while Phil hasn't done any of that.

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by brocks

My opinion is just the opposite. When you're talking about all-time greats, you want a guy with no holes in his resume. IMO once a player has more than 6 majors, you know all you need to know about his ability to win big events, so additional majors become less important after that. They're still a big deal, but you start looking for other stats to compare.

For example, if A has nine majors and B has 8, but B has a career grand slam and A never won the US Open, then if they're evenly matched in other important stats, I give the edge to B.

Majors seem more important to me when you're comparing players with less than 6. For example, I'd put Phil above Vijay on the all time list, largely because he has four majors to three, and half a dozen more PGA wins. But if Phil had 9 majors and Vijay had 8, and everything else was the same, I'd put Vijay ahead of Phil, because he's been world #1, and has money titles, a Vardon, a POY, and a FedEx Cup, while Phil hasn't done any of that.

You make some good points. It's not black and white for sure. If you go back far enough you can say Bobby Jones "only" won 7 majors but his amateur titles were very prestigious at the time. And Jack has said you should include US Amateur titles as majors. Then there are questions as to which major is more valuable. Lets say a player won 3 PGA Championships and another 3 US Open Championships. All else being equal, I think many would think the US Open victories would hold more weight.

It's an interesting discussion topic but then again I've been told I lack critical thinking skills.

[x129]

Isn't 14>13?

I am curious does any one factor in nonPGA/major wins into the discussion? Do Tiger and Seve get any credit for the Euro wins? Does Tiger get any WGC? What about Jack for the WSOG or any senior events? I wonder where a guy like Rory would be ranked if he had like 18 majors (so we don't have to talk about that), 50 PGA wins and 50 Euro wins?  Is that better or worse than having 73 PGA wins?

Originally Posted by The Recreational Golfer

If major championships are the standard, here's the record.

Woods has played in 63 majors:

1 -14

2 -  6

3 -  3

t10 other -  12

In Nicklaus's first 63 majors:

1 - 13

2 - 10

3 -  7

t10 other - 11

Edge is to Nicklaus so far. Next week's U.S. Open will be Woods's 64th major. Nicklaus won his 64th.

[brocks]

Isn't 14>13?  I wonder where a guy like Rory would be ranked if he had like 18 majors (so we don't have to talk about that), 50 PGA wins and 50 Euro wins?  Is that better or worse than having 73 PGA wins?

Actually Rory will have his hands full just catching Tiger for Euro wins, since Tiger is third all-time with 38, and only needs four more to tie Langer for second. Seve is first with 50, and I wouldn't bet against Tiger breaking that record, too. But the point turtleback is trying to make is that you can't just look at the numbers; you have to go deeper. The answer to your question about Euro wins is, "It depends." A Euro event today can match or even exceed the field strength of a PGA event played the same week. That was rarely, if ever, the case in Seve's day. The British Open today may be the toughest event of the year, when you combine factors like field strength, weather conditions, and media pressure. In Jack's day, it probably had a weaker field than half of the regular PGA events, and just after WW II, when Hogan and Snead won their Opens, it was extremely weak. You could make a case for each of Hagen's British Open titles being worth two of Jack's, and three of Snead's. Or, you could make a case for each of his Western Open titles being a major. It will be nice if Tiger gets to 18 majors, because then we can judge all future players against him, and we'll have an objective measure of field strength (the OWGR) to do it with. It would take a lot of work to figure out the field strength for most of Jack's events.

[k-troop]

If Tiger does get to 50 Euro Tour wins, that might be the single greatest achievement in the history of golf, or any sport:  all time leader in victories on both tours.  He used to absolutely dominate the Middle East swing; if he could do that again, then it's very doable.