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

[iacas]

Originally Posted by geauxforbroke

Better than Roethlisberger, and certainly one of the top quarterbacks of the last 25 years. But where Favre ranks all-time has no bearing on my argument.

Ben's a better QB than you'd think (better than good, not great), and if he had more than 0.7 seconds to throw behind an offensive line that wasn't doing its best impression of a sieve, that would be made really clear. :)

Originally Posted by 9iron

To suggest that today's players are better than all of the Hall of Fame players that were mentioned in the post you responded doesn't ring true to me.

Okay. That's the great thing about opinions.

Originally Posted by 9iron

In my view, Arnold Palmer and his 7 majors are better than the 20th, 30th, 40th and 100th ranked players of today.

Is… Andrew McCutchen a better baseball player than Babe Ruth? Probably.

People get better. Which also means everyone's competition gets better.

Just look at the Olympics - guys who won gold medals 20 years ago wouldn't even qualify for the U.S. team this time around.

Originally Posted by jamo

I think it's unequivocal that the 100th-ranked player today is better than maybe even the 20th best player in 1970. Based on my arguments above, I also think Tiger's career is more impressive than Jack's was, and I think Tiger is the better player. That said, given the fact that 18>14 and Tiger himself has put so much emphasis on that number, I have trouble not putting Jack ahead on a GOAT list.

Yup.

[jamo]

Sorry i don't think its deeper. I think its tougher to win a major when you have 4-5 other guy winning multiple majors, than you do when your game is just off and no one else is around you. Who'd did Tiger have to face against Phil, well he won his first three from 2004 - 2006, years after Tiger's slam Harrington was winning them when Tiger took his dive off the face of the earth Look at Jack Arnold - 7 majors Gary Player - 9 majors Billy Casper - 3 majors Seve - 5 majors Tom Watson - 8 Majors There were just better golfers back then. Tiger was a new breed of golfer to. He came out and pummeled the tour, and they didn't know what hit them. Honestly i say Tiger had it easy winning the way he did.

The thing is, that's exactly what you would expect the landscape to look like in golf with less depth. There were one or two transcendent players, a few very good ones, and then tons and tons and tons who just had no chance. It's like men's tennis today. You basically know that one of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray is going to win every Grand Slam event. In fact, since the beginning of the 2005 season, only three Grand Slam events have been won by someone who's not one of those four players. Golf used to be similarly top-heavy. Then the field caught up, and instead of having one Jack Nicklaus and four Gary Players, we now have one Tiger Woods and 100 Lee Westwoods (or whomever) - guys who would have amassed a record similar to Player's or Casper's back in that day, but (just because there are only four majors a season), might only win one or none. All those Lee Westwoods have a chance in every major that Tiger doesn't win, but because there are so so so many Lee Westwoods, and still only four majors a season, they can't all accumulate the amount of wins that they would have 40 years ago.

[Mulligan Jeff]

As previously stated times change, many improvements in fitness training, nutrition, swing coach methods, high speed cameras on swing mechanics, golf equipment, golf ball, etc. Still say Tiger is better overall.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by geauxforbroke

Sure, they have stronger fields than current events, but what about in Jack's day?

You also seem to have not noticed that Jack won the Players 3 times to Tiger's 2, and that the Players didn't exist for the first half of Jack's career.

How come this argument never comes up when we consider how many fewer opportunities Hogan, Hagen, and Vardon had to win majors?

Originally Posted by 9iron

Amazing this thread has 179 pages.

Didn't Tiger define this debate when he himself made it about Jack's 18 majors?

And Tiger has been honest enough to stick to the standard he started with.  OTOH at various times in his career Jack claimed his goal was to win the Amateur Grand Slam, then when he turned pro it was to get the most PGA victories, then it was to win the professional grand slam in a calendar year.  When he didn't meet any of those goals he changed his tune and lobbied for the standard to be most majors.  So how come Jack gets to be GOAT even though he didn't meet his goals and made a new goal after he already achieved it, yet you debar Tiger because he has been utterly consistent from day one?

Originally Posted by phan52

Tiger is the one who set the bar at Major championships, so let's take a look.

Wins: Jack 18 Tiger 14

2nd: Jack 19 Tiger 6

3rd: Jack 9 Tiger 4

Top 5: Jack 56 Tiger 31

Top 10: Jack 73 Tiger 38

Tiger is closest in wins, but he hasn't won one since 2008. In the other categories of finishes, Tiger will never catch Jack.

Face it, it is not even close.

As soon as someone tries to argue that seconds matter, in the face of all of the other areas in which Tiger leads Jack (most money titles, most victories, most victories in a row several times over, most Vardon trophies, most player of the year awards,  largest winning margins, highest winning percentage, etc.) you know they realize that they have a losing hand.

Originally Posted by Jakester23

How deep do you think the fields were in jacks era compared to the last 15 years?

How deep do YOU think they were.  Do you have any idea how few Americans played the British Open in the years Jack was winning it?  For example Billy Casper was a world class player, better than Jack in the 1968-1970 period.  He played for a long time - had 50 PGA victories.  In his WHOLE CAREER he played the British Open 5 times.  Even after Palmer revived the British Open, through the 60s and 70s it was common for less than 25 Americans to play it - at a time when Americans dominated golf.

How about the PGA?  99 of the top 100 were in last weeks.  But in Jack's time there were far more club pros in the field and it was much harder for international players to get into the field.

And then there is Jack's own statement that in the mid 90s when he wrote his autobiography there were 3 times the number of players with the ability to win majors than in his time.  And since then with the rise of the international players and the increase in money that factor has just gone up.

Originally Posted by saevel25

Sorry i don't think its deeper. I think its tougher to win a major when you have 4-5 other guy winning multiple majors, than you do when your game is just off and no one else is around you.

Who'd did Tiger have to face against

Phil, well he won his first three from 2004 - 2006, years after Tiger's slam

Harrington was winning them when Tiger took his dive off the face of the earth

Look at Jack

Arnold - 7 majors

Gary Player - 9 majors

Billy Casper - 3 majors

Seve - 5 majors

Tom Watson - 8 Majors

There were just better golfers back then. Tiger was a new breed of golfer to. He came out and pummeled the tour, and they didn't know what hit them. Honestly i say Tiger had it easy winning the way he did.

Well you are arguing against Jack when you say that.  here is what Jack had to say about the relative merits of the superstars of his era and the players in the mid 90s.

"“Whether for the above reasons or any others, the fact is that, to be able to hold onto their cards, and earn a decent living, the golfers in the middle of the pack today have had to become as good as the players at the top were when I started out thirty and more years ago, while those in the top have become the equals of superstars of my generation.”

So either Jack didn't know what he was talking about, or your argument is all wet.

[Jakester23]

Turtle beach I was asking that to 9iron. I think the fields back then we much weaker than now. If you look back at what I wrote you can see I think the argument could be made that Tigers WGC wins should be counted in a different category than normal pga events. I think Tigers quality of wins and strength of fields is much more impressive than 4 more majors.  I do think Jack was great and Im not trying to down play the 18 majors I just wish everyone would look at the career as a whole not just based on one # 18.

[9iron]

Who is to say that if Babe Ruth lived today, he still wouldn't be the best baseball player? Or if Pete Rose was just coming up now, he still wouldn't be the most consistent hitter? Or that if Walter Johnson, Bob Feller, Christy Mathewson, or Cy Young were pitching now, they still wouldn't dominate hitters?

Isn't it just as valid a statement to assert that a guy who had what it took to become the best in one era, might also have what it takes to be the best in another? That seems just as valid an argument as any that would claim it couldn't be so. Andrew McCutchen isn't the best baseball player today, and no way he's better than Babe Ruth was. Ruth re wrote the record book, and McCutchen will never do anything like that.

I write this knowing that a guy running a 10.1 100 meters is running faster than Jesse Owens ran, and a guy running a 3:55 mile is running faster than Roger Bannister. But those guys - Jesse Owens and Roger Bannister - were better relative to their peer group than the guys running 10.1 and 3:55 are to today's athletes. That is why they were household names when I was growing up, and also why a 10.1 or 3:55 guy today is not. So what accomplishment is better? Jesse Owens and his gold medals won in the Berlin Olympics, or being a middle of the pack runner today? In my view, it is what Owens did.

I know guys can hit it farther today, but that is mostly about technology. Scores are lower too, but again, I think that is mostly about technology. The turf technology alone, let alone club technology and ball technology, have lowered scores greatly. If it is about winning majors, then Jack still won the most and Bobby Jones still won the highest percentage of events he entered.

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by iacas

Is… Andrew McCutchen a better baseball player than Babe Ruth? Probably.

People get better. Which also means everyone's competition gets better.

Just look at the Olympics - guys who won gold medals 20 years ago wouldn't even qualify for the U.S. team this time around.

This is where I disagree.

If Babe Ruth were born 30 years ago, his skills as a ball player with all the training, health, and equipment advantageous of today would be greatly improved. The fact that they're the best at their time, means that their potential is/was above anyone elses based on the current technology and advancements.

Much like a 100 m sprinter from the 60s, would be faster today than they were in the 60s with the same genetics,

[Jakester23]

Babe Ruth probably wasn't the best player of his era same thing for Bobby Jones. Its much easier to be the best when only white people can compete. How do you know there wasn't a Latin or African American who was better than Bobby Jones but couldn't even enter the tournament. Same good s for Babe Ruth.

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by Jakester23

Babe Ruth probably wasn't the best player of his era same thing for Bobby Jones. Its much easier to be the best when only white people can compete. How do you know there wasn't a Latin or African American who was better than Bobby Jones but couldn't even enter the tournament. Same good s for Babe Ruth.

That's true, I mean with all the Latin and African-Americans lighting up the PGA right now. I mean, here's your major winners this year: Adam Scott, Justin Rose, Phil Mickelson, and Jason Dufner.

A who's who of diversity right there.

[Jakester23]

The Latins more so for mlb. Tiger and VJ wouldn't have been able to play. How many career wins do they have combined?

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by Jakester23

The Latins more so for mlb. Tiger and VJ wouldn't have been able to play. How many career wins do they have combined?

I said if he was playing right now. How many majors have they won combined in the past 5 years? I think it's something around 0.

And Babe Ruth's homerun ability today would be monstrous. Especially because he's probably be on PEDs like everyone else...

[9iron]

Originally Posted by Jakester23

Babe Ruth probably wasn't the best player of his era same thing for Bobby Jones. Its much easier to be the best when only white people can compete. How do you know there wasn't a Latin or African American who was better than Bobby Jones but couldn't even enter the tournament. Same good s for Babe Ruth.

Please tell us who the person was. Give us a name. You can't blame Babe Ruth for the fact I don't know of some potentially better home run hitter toiling in obscurity in some far away league. Anything is possible, but if you can't show who the person is and make a case for him, then it is just a theoretical exercise.

[Jakester23]

I can't say who cause I wasn't born in 1908. So by your logic Jackie Robinson was the 1st African American player good enough to play in the mlb? And what Latinos just learned how to play in the last 15 years? Come on I don't like insulting strangers but you sound like a idiot.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by 9iron

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jakester23

Babe Ruth probably wasn't the best player of his era same thing for Bobby Jones. Its much easier to be the best when only white people can compete. How do you know there wasn't a Latin or African American who was better than Bobby Jones but couldn't even enter the tournament. Same good s for Babe Ruth.

Please tell us who the person was. Give us a name. You can't blame Babe Ruth for the fact I don't know of some potentially better home run hitter toiling in obscurity in some far away league. Anything is possible, but if you can't show who the person is and make a case for him, then it is just a theoretical exercise.

Originally Posted by Jakester23

I can't say who cause I wasn't born in 1908. So by your logic Jackie Robinson was the 1st African American player good enough to play in the mlb? And what Latinos just learned how to play in the last 15 years? Come on I don't like insulting strangers but you sound like a idiot.

This is a stupid tangent to the topic at hand.   Denial of the opportunity to play a professional sport is an insignificant manifestation of the deplorable conditions endured by nearly all non-whites (and even some whites -  discrimination against American Irish and Jews was rampant too).  We have made good progress, but we are still a long way from having left that era to history.  There are still too many opportunities which are most readily available to WASPs.

By the way, Satchel Paige was one of the best pitchers ever to play the game, but nobody will ever be able to rank him with certainty since he was never allowed to compete at the top of the game until he was 42 years old - the oldest rookie ever in MLB.

[9iron]

Originally Posted by Jakester23

I can't say who cause I wasn't born in 1908. So by your logic Jackie Robinson was the 1st African American player good enough to play in the mlb? And what Latinos just learned how to play in the last 15 years? Come on I don't like insulting strangers but you sound like a idiot.

Let me address your points one by one.

1. I wasn't born in 1908 either, but I know who the better mlb baseball players were in 1908 because I can read about them in history books. I never saw Home Run Baker or Cy Young play, but I know who they were much as I know who Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were. So again, if there was a better baseball player than Babe Ruth back in 1927, who was this person? I'm not saying it is impossible that there could have been such a player, but I am saying it is a pointless theoretical argument unless and until you actually provide a name and throw it into the debate.

2. I never said Jackie Robinson was the first African American good enough to play mlb. He wasn't. Guys like Josh Gibson, Rube Foster, Oscar Charlestom, John Henry Lloyd, and Turkey Stearnes all predate Robinson and were all talented enough to play mlb, but you did not mention any of them. Was Josh Gibson a better home run hitter than Babe Ruth? Impossible to know given they played against different players in different ballparks.

3. I never said Latinos just learned how to play baseball. I asked you to name one that was better than Babe Ruth. Big difference. Like with the African American players, you could not name any of them. You came up with a lame response about not being born in 1908 as your reason.

[Jakester23]

Lets just say I'm guessing you don't like Tiger which is fine so your going to always find a way to down grade his accomplishments. I have no problem with that as long as you can just own up to it. Heres my last off topic comment on what you wrote.athletes get better generation after generation. I can't say for sure if Babe Ruth would be great now but my bet is no. By your logic the 72 dolphins could win in today's NFL. That's a complete joke IMO I don't think they could compete in the SEC. Its hard older people to see there heros be passed up by the new greats. I'm having trouble with LeBron.

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by Jakester23

Lets just say I'm guessing you don't like Tiger which is fine so your going to always find a way to down grade his accomplishments. I have no problem with that as long as you can just own up to it. Heres my last off topic comment on what you wrote.athletes get better generation after generation. I can't say for sure if Babe Ruth would be great now but my bet is no. By your logic the 72 dolphins could win in today's NFL. That's a complete joke IMO I don't think they could compete in the SEC. Its hard older people to see there heros be passed up by the new greats. I'm having trouble with LeBron.

I hope you're not talking to me. Because I'm an admitted Tiger fanboi. lol

[Jakester23]

No sir