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

[phan52]

Originally Posted by iacas

He kind of did. Heck the Masters wasn't even really a major for the first two decades it existed. Players were retroactively credited with winning a "major" years later.

Vardon only really had the chance to play one "major" per year (except 1913) and virtually every year he played the field was absent of people from outside Britain.

Jack is the player who emphasized majors. Hogan wanted to win "The Open" and only visited Britain once (winning). And that was JUST before Jack. Arnie re-popularized the British Open. Jack emphasized them.

Vardon made a point to come across the pond to play (and win) the US Open in 1900. Why was that? And I am sure that he was very disappointed that he finished second in his only two other attempts.

The definition of "majors" has changed over the years. Why do Bobby Jones's Amateur titles count for his totals, but not Jack's and Tiger's?

The cost of travel and the commensurate, iffy compensation made traveling across the ocean back in the day a difficult decision. But Majors ALWAYS mattered.

[saevel25]

Originally Posted by phan52

Vardon made a point to come across the pond to play (and win) the US Open in 1900. Why was that? And I am sure that he was very disappointed that he finished second in his only two other attempts.

The definition of "majors" has changed over the years. Why do Bobby Jones's Amateur titles count for his totals, but not Jack's and Tiger's?

The cost of travel and the commensurate, iffy compensation made traveling across the ocean back in the day a difficult decision. But Majors ALWAYS mattered.

Cause the US Amateur was considered a major. Back then being a professional was actually a bad thing. They were a lot of back door deals, and shady practices going on. Jones didn't want that, he wanted to play golf at its purest form, being a amateur.

So i think the idea is, you can add majors you don't take them away. Meaning, even though we don't consider the US amateur a major anymore, its still held in high regards and it should count towards those who won it at the time it was a major.

Well back then it was also the whole US versus the British thing. I think the british golfers wanted to take the US open title. There was a lot of pressure back then. Like i said, being a professional was kinda shady back then. Vardon probably felt a lot of pressure because he probably got a lot of kick backs from the golf clubs in Britain. Kinda, we gave you this, now we want you to do this. Of course the expenses might have been partially paid for or what not.

Really i think one of the majors should go back to match play. I think it would be fun to bring back a style of golf that use to be played a lot.

[iacas]

Vardon made a point to come across the pond to play (and win) the US Open in 1900. Why was that? And I am sure that he was very disappointed that he finished second in his only two other attempts.

That's not really a response to what I said. I said he played in only one most years. That's true. He came across the pond because he had sponsors. The Greatest Game Ever Played does a fair job of describing why he came across on 1913 (end of a big promo tour). Low on the list was "because its a major." Heck, that term didn't even exist. [quote name="phan52" url="/t/2203/jack-or-tiger-whos-the-greatest/3330#post_884991"]But Majors ALWAYS mattered. [/quote] They did not always matter the way Jack made them matter. Contrary to what you said, Jack DID add the extra emphasis on majors as how you define GOAT. That's what I was responding to above. Tiger has him beat in nearly every other way.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by phan52

Vardon made a point to come across the pond to play (and win) the US Open in 1900. Why was that? And I am sure that he was very disappointed that he finished second in his only two other attempts.

The definition of "majors" has changed over the years. Why do Bobby Jones's Amateur titles count for his totals, but not Jack's and Tiger's?

The cost of travel and the commensurate, iffy compensation made traveling across the ocean back in the day a difficult decision. But Majors ALWAYS mattered.

Saying majors always counted, even though the term hadn't even been coined in that context, is one thing.  Saying they have always been the defining metric for GOAT is absurd.

Originally Posted by saevel25

Cause the US Amateur was considered a major. Back then being a professional was actually a bad thing. They were a lot of back door deals, and shady practices going on. Jones didn't want that, he wanted to play golf at its purest form, being a amateur.

Really i think one of the majors should go back to match play. I think it would be fun to bring back a style of golf that use to be played a lot.

The amateur vs. pro thing in Jones day was more of a class thing than anything else.  In Frost's book on the 1913 US Open Francis Ouimet's father asks him why the newspapers call most of the player by their last name but call him Mr. Ouimet.  Amateurs were considered gentlemen, while pros were hired hands.  But the record shows that with the one exception of Jones the pros were way better than the amateurs.  Meanwhile, under the rules that apply now Jones would have been stripped of his amateur status, because he was making money off of golf in writing while he was still playing amateur golf.  That was allowed then but is not allowed now.  And he made a boatload of money off of golf after he retired in those film short and his work for Spalding.  He probably made more money off of golf than any of the pros, more power to him.

As to match play, I agree.  It was a shame when the PGA moved from match play to stroke play, IMO.  Having ONE major in the original form of golf would be a good thing, IMO, and entirely in keeping with the idea of golf being a sport that cherishes its traditions.

[9iron]

Originally Posted by turtleback

As to match play, I agree.  It was a shame when the PGA moved from match play to stroke play, IMO.  Having ONE major in the original form of golf would be a good thing, IMO, and entirely in keeping with the idea of golf being a sport that cherishes its traditions.

Glad we agree here. Match play is what goes on at most any golf course every weekend golf is played. I have regular groups where we play match play. Our Golf Association sponsors match play between clubs every year, and every club gets to play three other clubs. I have had more fun playing match play golf than medal play.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by phan52

Vardon made a point to come across the pond to play (and win) the US Open in 1900. Why was that? And I am sure that he was very disappointed that he finished second in his only two other attempts.

Originally Posted by iacas

That's not really a response to what I said. I said he played in only one most years. That's true. He came across the pond because he had sponsors. The Greatest Game Ever Played does a fair job of describing why he came across on 1913 (end of a big promo tour). Low on the list was "because its a major." Heck, that term didn't even exist.

They did not always matter the way Jack made them matter. Contrary to what you said, Jack DID add the extra emphasis on majors as how you define GOAT.

I am well aware of the promo tour that Vardon made in 1913. In fact, the first match he played after he got off the boat in NY was the next morning at my club in Philadelphia. But you know as well as I that the main reason he came over was to play in the US Open, whether they called it a Major or not. He knew that winning that would burnish his reputation as the GOAT.

[iacas]

I am well aware of the promo tour that Vardon made in 1913. In fact, the first match he played after he got off the boat in NY was the next morning at my club in Philadelphia. But you know as well as I that the main reason he came over was to play in the US Open, whether they called it a Major or not. He knew that winning that would burnish his reputation as the GOAT.

No, the main reason he came over to play the U.S. Open was because someone else footed the bill and promised him a fair amount of cash for the exhibition tour. Winning a U.S. Open - which wasn't even a "major" at the time - would have been icing on the cake. And Jack redefined "most majors won" as the criteria, contrary to what you said earlier. That you're trying to now talk about Vardon won't change that.

[phan52]

No, the main reason he came over to play the U.S. Open was because someone else footed the bill and promised him a fair amount of cash for the exhibition tour. Winning a U.S. Open - which wasn't even a "major" at the time - would have been icing on the cake. And Jack redefined "most majors won" as the criteria, contrary to what you said earlier. That you're trying to now talk about Vardon won't change that.

Dude, I read the book as well. Yeah, others footed the bill and he was in to make a substantial amount if money. But the main purpose was for him to come over here to play in, and try to win another US Open. And yeah, it was a Major and it was very important to him and Britain because an American (McDermott) had won the last two and that was unacceptable. Why? Because it was a major championship!! By whatever name you want to use. And since Jack invented the metric I am now confused as to why Majors were so important before 1961.

[saevel25]

Jack didn't really invent the metric, people invented it because Jack destroyed the old record held by Hagan. When someone who was very popular does something great, it becomes something more. So when he won all those majors, he made it relevant, even if he didn't mean to do it.

[Kelzzy]

I chose Tiger in the voting because I feel as if what he put up with over the years (Getting through Standford with the racist, dealing with racist, and a much more vast of competetion) that he accomplished something Jack never needed too. However, I wish there was a "Neither - Both are great for their era" selection.

[Kelzzy]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Yeah.. I did a double take on that too.  Interesting observation.

Hahaha, me too. I meant to longer as in yards, and shorter as in width. :)

[iacas]

Originally Posted by phan52

And yeah, it was a Major

It was not a major as the term had not yet been invented, and again, you're speculating without any proof at all that Vardon cared about winning the U.S. Open primarily because "it was a really important event" (since the word "major" didn't exist yet to refer to the four particular events we now call Major Championships).

Anyway, that's enough of Harry Vardon. It's an odd straw man to throw out there, as this thread is about Jack and Tiger. And on that topic, Jack did change the metric by which GOAT was judged. He did so largely by himself, several times. You said he didn't, others (including myself) have pointed out that he did, and how. It all goes back to this:

Originally Posted by phan52

You are insinuating that Jack himself came up with the Major metric to aggrandize himself. That is nonsense.

Now, whether you abide by "majors = GOAT" is another thing entirely.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by iacas

It was not a major as the term had not yet been invented, and again, you're speculating without any proof at all that Vardon cared about winning the U.S. Open primarily because "it was a really important event" (since the word "major" didn't exist yet to refer to the four particular events we now call Major Championships).

Anyway, that's enough of Harry Vardon. It's an odd straw man to throw out there, as this thread is about Jack and Tiger. And on that topic, Jack did change the metric by which GOAT was judged. He did so largely by himself, several times. You said he didn't, others (including myself) have pointed out that he did, and how. It all goes back to this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

You are insinuating that Jack himself came up with the Major metric to aggrandize himself. That is nonsense.

Now, whether you abide by "majors = GOAT" is another thing entirely.

Majors were Majors before 1961, and players focused on them, for whatever reason. Like I said, Jack did not invent the metric. The entire golf world placed an emphasis on majors , going back to before they were called "Majors". Which tournaments were a "Major" has changed over the years until they settled on the current four (The Western Open, for example), but that is besides the point.

Sam Snead won more than Jack. Greg Norman has won more worldwide than anybody by a significant margin. Neither one of them were ever considered the GOAT. In fact, Snead's big failing was the US Open. If he won even one he would have been in the conversation, but he was never going to surpass his contemporary, Ben Hogan, because of Majors.

Jack is the best because he was in the mix for the most important tournaments far more than anybody else, including Tiger. Tiger, for example, has never come from behind to win a Major on Sunday. What's up with that?

JMO. Won't change.

[9iron]

When was the phrase "Grand Slam" applied to what Bobby Jones accomplished?

EDIT: I found the answer. It was Jones' friend O.B. Keeler who coined the phrase shortly after Jones won at Merion in 1930. I believe Jones received a ticker tape parade for his accomplishment, so winning the four major tournaments, regardless of whether THAT term existed at the time, was still huge.

And it appears that it was Arnie, not Jack, that re emphasized this in 1960. Read on.

.

 It has been 75 years since Jones accomplished one of the most storied
feats in the history of sports -- a feat that became the stuff of
legend when it was quickly realized it never would happen again. Jones
won the U.S. and British Open and Amateur championships in 1930, but
amateur golf was in decline, and it was clear that Open championships
soon would be won only by professionals.

The very term Grand Slam, which had been coined that summer by Jones'
friend and biographer, the Atlanta sportswriter O.B. Keeler, fell into
disuse until, in 1960, Arnold Palmer revived it overnight. Why not
create a "new'' Grand Slam, Palmer suggested after he had won the
Masters and U.S. Open that year? It would begin with the Masters --
the tournament Jones helped create on a course he helped build --
continue with the U.S. and British Opens and end with the PGA
Championship.

http://rapoports.net/ron/cst.html

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by phan52

Sam Snead won more than Jack. Greg Norman has won more worldwide than anybody by a significant margin. Neither one of them were ever considered the GOAT. In fact, Snead's big failing was the US Open. If he won even one he would have been in the conversation, but he was never going to surpass his contemporary, Ben Hogan, because of Majors.

If you do not count minor tours about 40 guys will say that is nonsense.  If you DO count minor tours then both Gary Player and Roberto DiVicenzo would say that is nonsense.  Either way, your Greg Norman claims are nonsense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9iron

When was the phrase "Grand Slam" applied to what Bobby Jones accomplished?

EDIT: I found the answer. It was Jones' friend O.B. Keeler who coined the phrase shortly after Jones won at Merion in 1930. I believe Jones received a ticker tape parade for his accomplishment, so winning the four major tournaments, regardless of whether THAT term existed at the time, was still huge.

And it appears that it was Arnie, not Jack, that re emphasized this in 1960. Read on.

.

It has been 75 years since Jones accomplished one of the most storied

feats in the history of sports -- a feat that became the stuff of

legend when it was quickly realized it never would happen again. Jones

won the U.S. and British Open and Amateur championships in 1930, but

amateur golf was in decline, and it was clear that Open championships

soon would be won only by professionals.

The very term Grand Slam, which had been coined that summer by Jones'

friend and biographer, the Atlanta sportswriter O.B. Keeler, fell into

disuse until, in 1960, Arnold Palmer revived it overnight. Why not

create a "new'' Grand Slam, Palmer suggested after he had won the

Masters and U.S. Open that year? It would begin with the Masters --

the tournament Jones helped create on a course he helped build --

continue with the U.S. and British Opens and end with the PGA

Championship.

http://rapoports.net/ron/cst.html

There is a big difference between the revival of the term Grand Slam, and the creation of the metric of most majors being the single determining factor for the GOAT.  And just as in Jack's participation in the creation of the most majors metric for GOAT, Palmer's revival of the Grand Slam was entirely wrapped up in his own self-interest, having gotten halfway there before speaking up about it..  Something Tiger has never done, even though using WGC events as a strong component of GOAT is at least as justifiable as Jack's most majors metric.

And BTW I am still waiting for you to explain how Vijay would have been welcomed on the Caucasian only PGA tour.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

Sam Snead won more than Jack. Greg Norman has won more worldwide than anybody by a significant margin. Neither one of them were ever considered the GOAT. In fact, Snead's big failing was the US Open. If he won even one he would have been in the conversation, but he was never going to surpass his contemporary, Ben Hogan, because of Majors.

If you do not count minor tours about 40 guys will say that is nonsense.  If you DO count minor tours then both Gary Player and Roberto DiVicenzo would say that is nonsense.  Either way, your Greg Norman claims are nonsense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9iron

When was the phrase "Grand Slam" applied to what Bobby Jones accomplished?

EDIT: I found the answer. It was Jones' friend O.B. Keeler who coined the phrase shortly after Jones won at Merion in 1930. I believe Jones received a ticker tape parade for his accomplishment, so winning the four major tournaments, regardless of whether THAT term existed at the time, was still huge.

And it appears that it was Arnie, not Jack, that re emphasized this in 1960. Read on.

.

It has been 75 years since Jones accomplished one of the most storied

feats in the history of sports -- a feat that became the stuff of

legend when it was quickly realized it never would happen again. Jones

won the U.S. and British Open and Amateur championships in 1930, but

amateur golf was in decline, and it was clear that Open championships

soon would be won only by professionals.

The very term Grand Slam, which had been coined that summer by Jones'

friend and biographer, the Atlanta sportswriter O.B. Keeler, fell into

disuse until, in 1960, Arnold Palmer revived it overnight. Why not

create a "new'' Grand Slam, Palmer suggested after he had won the

Masters and U.S. Open that year? It would begin with the Masters --

the tournament Jones helped create on a course he helped build --

continue with the U.S. and British Opens and end with the PGA

Championship.

http://rapoports.net/ron/cst.html

There is a big difference between the revival of the term Grand Slam, and the creation of the metric of most majors being the single determining factor for the GOAT.  And just as in Jack's participation in the creation of the most majors metric for GOAT, Palmer's revival of the Grand Slam was entirely wrapped up in his own self-interest, having gotten halfway there before speaking up about it..  Something Tiger has never done, even though using WGC events as a strong component of GOAT is at least as justifiable as Jack's most majors metric.

You realize that no matter how passionate and tenacious you are, you will never win this debate because you will never get agreement on the metrics you use.  Why not just let it go.  Just because you get in the last word, it doesn't mean that you win, just means you are too stubborn to admit that there is no winner.

Tiger and Jack (and the media, no matter who started it) both use one metric, Major tournament success.  Jack leads, both in wins and in overall excellence in that category.  Therefore Jack should be the obvious leader to date.  But that doesn't work for you so you start trying to calculate the relative field strengths, and that is about as sensible as trying to eat a spoonful of fog.  You just can't ever get a real grip on it.  Just because you sit in a fog bank and raise a spoon to your mouth, that doesn't mean that there is actually anything in it.  Same with trying to measure players who played in different eras and never competed head to head, never played against the same fields, didn't play the same courses, never used the same equipment.

It's apples to oranges all over again, and no matter how much you try to twist it, the only comparison you can come up with is that they are both fruits.

[phan52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

Sam Snead won more than Jack. Greg Norman has won more worldwide than anybody by a significant margin. Neither one of them were ever considered the GOAT. In fact, Snead's big failing was the US Open. If he won even one he would have been in the conversation, but he was never going to surpass his contemporary, Ben Hogan, because of Majors.

Originally Posted by turtleback

If you do not count minor tours about 40 guys will say that is nonsense. If you DO count minor tours then both Gary Player and Roberto DiVicenzo would say that is nonsense. Either way, your Greg Norman claims are nonsense.

You seriously need to chill. What claim did I make that is nonsense?

Norman won more worldwide than anybody in the three major combined tours (PGA, Euro, Australasian). DiVicenzo is the one who was winning the Lesser Antilles Open and such, not Norman. DiVicenzo probably counts his club championship.

I am certainly am not claiming that it puts him in any higher echelon. It just happens to be a fact.

[Mulligan Jeff]

This is good entertainment keep it up guys lol