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

[k-troop]

Wow, and yet Erik keeps telling me that people do not decide based on number of majors. And I thought players of different eras cannot be compared?

Seriously quit saying "I thought players of different eras can't be compared?" No one who has made a reasoned point in this thread has stated that categorically, yet you troll it up every time someone says that Jack was the unequivocal GOAT at the end of his career. Guess what? Jack was the undisputed GOAT at the end of his career. Not just based on majors, but the whole package. Hogan was probably the next best, but Jack blew Hogan's win totals away in every category, and didn't rack up any wins against war-ravaged fields. (And don't go dredging up Snead again. Majors matter. They're not the whole equation, but they matter a lot. And grand slams matter a lot.) So there was no one to compare Jack to in 1980. Not because it wasn't possible to compare across eras, but because there were no viable contenders. So please try to focus on the real argument, which is why Tiger is now the GOAT because he has surpassed Jack.

[Fourputt]

So there was no one to compare Jack to in 1980. Not because it wasn't possible to compare across eras, but because there were no viable contenders. So please try to focus on the real argument, which is why Tiger is now the GOAT because he has surpassed Jack.

And that is still only a matter of opinion because there will never be consensus on how to factor in the variables between the eras unless Tiger reaches Jack's major total.

[k-troop]

And that is still only a matter of opinion because there will never be consensus on how to factor in the variables between the eras unless Tiger reaches Jack's major total.

Well that's Turtle's opinion, and my message was directed at him. If Tiger was the consensus GOAT, this thread wouldn't have six thousand posts.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

And that is still only a matter of opinion because there will never be consensus on how to factor in the variables between the eras unless Tiger reaches Jack's major total.

Well that's Turtle's opinion, and my message was directed at him. If Tiger was the consensus GOAT, this thread wouldn't have six thousand posts.

It appeared from the quoted post that you supported his hypothesis.  That is why I replied as I did.

[k-troop]

It appeared from the quoted post that you supported his hypothesis.  That is why I replied as I did.

Well, I do happen to agree that Tiger is the GOAT. By a narrow margin, but yes.

[turtleback]

Seriously quit saying "I thought players of different eras can't be compared?" No one who has made a reasoned point in this thread has stated that categorically, yet you troll it up every time someone says that Jack was the unequivocal GOAT at the end of his career.

Guess what? Jack was the undisputed GOAT at the end of his career. Not just based on majors, but the whole package. Hogan was probably the next best, but Jack blew Hogan's win totals away in every category, and didn't rack up any wins against war-ravaged fields. (And don't go dredging up Snead again. Majors matter. They're not the whole equation, but they matter a lot. And grand slams matter a lot.)

So there was no one to compare Jack to in 1980. Not because it wasn't possible to compare across eras, but because there were no viable contenders. So please try to focus on the real argument, which is why Tiger is now the GOAT because he has surpassed Jack.

Look at the post right after yours.  Fourputt, among others has said exactly that.

It IS hard for me to keep the arguments straight because the arguments for Jack from different people,, or even from people who have come around to Tiger,  are frequently mutually contradictory.  You say that at the end of his career Jack was the undisputed GOAT, yet someone else just said that Jack wasn't the undisputed GOAT, that people were arguing for Hogan and.or Jones.

I'll be honest, I have a real hard time seeing any case for Jack, at this point OTHER THAN 18>14.  Other than (silly, IMO) ancillary things like second place finishes or what a good family man and classy guy Jack was, I haven't heard a single substantive argument for Jack other than total number of majors.  So obviously the focus of MY argument is going to be that number of majors is not the best (or even a good) criterion for GOAT, and that before Jack it was NEVER used as the criterion for GOAT.

And sometimes, as in this message, I start out addressing the person I quote. but then expand to other points.  Like, for example, my last response to Erik where my first sentence was addressed to the the 18/14 issue but then I went in another direction.  So most of this post is not addressed specifically to you, but the board in general.

[k-troop]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

And that is still only a matter of opinion because there will never be consensus on how to factor in the variables between the eras unless Tiger reaches Jack's major total.

I agree:  people won't agree overwhelmingly about how to weigh the various differences between Tiger and Jack.  That is not the same thing as saying "it's impossible to compare players from different eras."

MVMAC said "I'm sure that people would have argued for Hogan or Jones before Tiger came along."  I'm sure some people did...but I challenge you to find ANYONE with an informed opinion who thought anyone other than Jack was the GOAT in 1986.  I'm sure there were a few wingers who still felt Jones's calendar year slam was all that ever mattered.  Those people shouldn't be taken seriously, nor should anyone who cherry-picks a single stat out of a world of achievement and says that's all that matters.  (BTW you also made a long case for Hogan, just for argument's sake.  But you still believed Jack was the GOAT in 1986.)

And of course those who still believe Jack is GOAT use 18>14 to tip the scales.  Those people probably see two golfers whose careers were very similar.  Consecutive US Ams, wins in first year as a pro, 70something PGA victories, etc., etc.  At the end of the day those folks are going to say that Jack's majors tip the scale.

(BTW back to Fourputt's point:  I still don't think that the issue of "who had better competition" is totally settled.  I know what all the arguments are, I know what Jack said.  However, I just don't know whether I agree--at least as far as it mattered on Sunday at a major.)

[9iron]

IMO, Jack is still the GOAT.

[Fourputt]

Until Tiger came along, Jack was it.  I don't care what arguments you try to make for Jones or Hogan or Snead, they just don't hold water.  Up until 5 years ago, Tiger was on a clear pace to put himself on top of Jack and the rest.  Now, I'm less certain of his standing.  Again, I point to the variables in their careers, which are always going to leave a significant doubt unless Tiger manages to win a few more majors, no matter which way you tend to lean.  I'm a Jack leaner, but I can see the argument for Tiger.   I just have trouble going that way until he shows me that he can overcome his demons.  I simply don't think that he has the mental strength that Jack had, and I consider that to be a factor in the equation.

[turtleback]

(BTW back to Fourputt's point:  I still don't think that the issue of "who had better competition" is totally settled.  I know what all the arguments are, I know what Jack said.  However, I just don't know whether I agree--at least as far as it mattered on Sunday at a major.)

When someone is shooting 66 against you on Sunday at a major, does it really matter if it is Tom Watson, Lee Trevino, or Bob May?  You have to beat the score.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Until Tiger came along, Jack was it.  I don't care what arguments you try to make for Jones or Hogan or Snead, they just don't hold water.  Up until 5 years ago, Tiger was on a clear pace to put himself on top of Jack and the rest.  Now, I'm less certain of his standing.  Again, I point to the variables in their careers, which are always going to leave a significant doubt unless Tiger manages to win a few more majors, no matter which way you tend to lean.  I'm a Jack leaner, but I can see the argument for Tiger.   I just have trouble going that way until he shows me that he can overcome his demons.  I simply don't think that he has the mental strength that Jack had, and I consider that to be a factor in the equation.

So, since there WERE other great players in other eras, and you still came to the conclusion that Jack was the GOAT you really did NOT believe that you cannot compare players of different eras.  Until Tiger came along.  Which has been one of my points all along.  The can't compare argument did not exist until Tiger.  Just as the most majors = GOAT argument did not exist until Jack.

Other than number of majors, in what other significant performance measure way does Jack's career even measure up to Tigers?

[k-troop]

Until Tiger came along, Jack was it.  I don't care what arguments you try to make for Jones or Hogan or Snead, they just don't hold water.  Up until 5 years ago, Tiger was on a clear pace to put himself on top of Jack and the rest.  Now, I'm less certain of his standing.  Again, I point to the variables in their careers, which are always going to leave a significant doubt unless Tiger manages to win a few more majors, no matter which way you tend to lean.  I'm a Jack leaner, but I can see the argument for Tiger.   I just have trouble going that way until he shows me that he can overcome his demons.  I simply don't think that he has the mental strength that Jack had, and I consider that to be a factor in the equation.

I completely agree with your reasoning, but come to the opposite conclusion.

Tiger's and Jack's careers are so similar that there is no clear winner.  The two most important factors for me are win total and majors.  Jack was numerically ahead in both categories last year, so Jack was the man.  When Tiger passed Jack in win total, I had to re-think it.  Now they're split on the two most important measures (IMO).  So I have to go to the smaller, less tangible measures.

Multi-win seasons and streaks:  Tiger.

Overall majors performance:  Jack by a mile (and that's giving Tiger extra credit for seemingly impossible margins of victory).

Cut streak:  Tiger's cut streak is so impressive, it has to factor in.

How the fv<# did he do that?  Tiger has tons of these, from seemingly impossible shots in clutch situations to the 91-hole Open victory on a broken leg.

Then there's another factor that I give a ton of credit to Tiger for:  comebacks.  Tiger has been seemingly out--washed up--twice in his career. In 2004 because of the swing change, and then from 2010-2011 because of injuries and scandal.  But then Tiger rebuilt his swing--again--and dominated.  He hasn't won a major yet, but he did win nine times in about 18-19 months.  It's huge for a golfer to do that once in a career.  Tiger did it twice (and counting).

So, all in, Tiger passed Jack this year IMO.  I think he came back from his "demons."  You don't, because he hasn't won a major yet, which is a fair opinion--I just don't fully share it.

[k-troop]

Other than number of majors, in what other significant performance measure way does Jack's career even measure up to Tigers?

You have to at least see that the margin of comparison is razor thin, right?  I mean you're acting as if it's not even close.

A. 2 vs 3 US Am titles.

B. 18 vs 14 majors, including 19 vs 6 runner-up finishes (which factor in to Jack's overall superior record in majors).

C. 73 vs 79 tour wins.

IMO these three are the most important measures:  win total, and how you've played in the most important championships of your era.  These numbers favor Tiger in 2/3 categories, but Jack has a massive lead in majors.

I don't think it's a settled question whether the competition was categorically weaker in Jack's era.  I still think that there is room for an argument that, at the top-25 level, Jack was always competing against good players.  And regardless, whomever is in contention to win on Sunday afternoon is a professional golfer playing well--so they're going to be tough to beat.  I 100% agree that the top-125 today will blow away the top-125 in 1970.  HOWEVER, when it comes down to it, you're not plaiying 125 people on Sunday afternoon--you're playing 4 or 5 guys who are all on their game that week.

Tiger is ahead in basically ever other category.  But none of those "other" measures (streaks, multi-win seasons, Vardons, POYs, etc) are the meat of the argument.  They're the marginal issues that come into play because the meat (A, B, and C above) don't decisively answer the question.

But (just for an example) 73 vs 79 tour wins "measures up" in that Tiger's advantage is not so overwhelming in that category that it makes the others irrelevant.

[Slice of Life]

You have to at least see that the margin of comparison is razor thin, right?  I mean you're acting as if it's not even close.

A. 2 vs 3 US Am titles.

B. 18 vs 14 majors, including 19 vs 6 runner-up finishes (which factor in to Jack's overall superior record in majors).

C. 73 vs 79 tour wins.

IMO these three are the most important measures:  win total, and how you've played in the most important championships of your era.  These numbers favor Tiger in 2/3 categories, but Jack has a massive lead in majors.

I don't think it's a settled question whether the competition was categorically weaker in Jack's era.  I still think that there is room for an argument that, at the top-25 level, Jack was always competing against good players.  And regardless, whomever is in contention to win on Sunday afternoon is a professional golfer playing well--so they're going to be tough to beat.  I 100% agree that the top-125 today will blow away the top-125 in 1970.  HOWEVER, when it comes down to it, you're not plaiying 125 people on Sunday afternoon--you're playing 4 or 5 guys who are all on their game that week.

Tiger is ahead in basically ever other category.  But none of those "other" measures (streaks, multi-win seasons, Vardons, POYs, etc) are the meat of the argument.  They're the marginal issues that come into play because the meat (A, B, and C above) don't decisively answer the question.

But (just for an example) 73 vs 79 tour wins "measures up" in that Tiger's advantage is not so overwhelming in that category that it makes the others irrelevant.

How is 4 a massive lead for majors, but 6 in tour wins isn't? I mean, if you're going percentage wise I get it, but then Tiger has a massive lead in US Am titles too then, as it would breakdown like this:

Tiger has 50% more US Am titles

Jack has 29% more Majors

Tiger has 8% more Tour wins

Just playing the Devil's advocate....yet again...:D

[k-troop]

How is 4 a massive lead for majors, but 6 in tour wins isn't? I mean, if you're going percentage wise I get it, but then Tiger has a massive lead in US Am titles too then, as it would breakdown like this:

Tiger has 50% more US Am titles

Jack has 29% more Majors

Tiger has 8% more Tour wins

Just playing the Devil's advocate....yet again...:D

4 major victories puts you in the top-20 all time for major victories, and I put a thumb on the scale in Jack's favor for 19 runner-up finishes.  Runner-up finishes aren't really that important (like making a cut) until you amass so many of them that it can't be overlooked.

And US Ams are important, but the sample size is too small to really be significant.  I.e. saying that 2 vs 3 is a 50% lead is somewhat statistically misleading.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Until Tiger came along, Jack was it.  I don't care what arguments you try to make for Jones or Hogan or Snead, they just don't hold water.  Up until 5 years ago, Tiger was on a clear pace to put himself on top of Jack and the rest.  Now, I'm less certain of his standing.  Again, I point to the variables in their careers, which are always going to leave a significant doubt unless Tiger manages to win a few more majors, no matter which way you tend to lean.  I'm a Jack leaner, but I can see the argument for Tiger.   I just have trouble going that way until he shows me that he can overcome his demons.  I simply don't think that he has the mental strength that Jack had, and I consider that to be a factor in the equation.

I completely agree with your reasoning, but come to the opposite conclusion.

Tiger's and Jack's careers are so similar that there is no clear winner.  The two most important factors for me are win total and majors.  Jack was numerically ahead in both categories last year, so Jack was the man.  When Tiger passed Jack in win total, I had to re-think it.  Now they're split on the two most important measures (IMO).  So I have to go to the smaller, less tangible measures.

Multi-win seasons and streaks:  Tiger.

Overall majors performance:  Jack by a mile (and that's giving Tiger extra credit for seemingly impossible margins of victory).

Cut streak:  Tiger's cut streak is so impressive, it has to factor in.

How the fv<# did he do that?  Tiger has tons of these, from seemingly impossible shots in clutch situations to the 91-hole Open victory on a broken leg.

Then there's another factor that I give a ton of credit to Tiger for:  comebacks.  Tiger has been seemingly out--washed up--twice in his career. In 2004 because of the swing change, and then from 2010-2011 because of injuries and scandal.  But then Tiger rebuilt his swing--again--and dominated.  He hasn't won a major yet, but he did win nine times in about 18-19 months.  It's huge for a golfer to do that once in a career.  Tiger did it twice (and counting).

So, all in, Tiger passed Jack this year IMO.  I think he came back from his "demons."  You don't, because he hasn't won a major yet, which is a fair opinion--I just don't fully share it.

I still deduct from Tiger's account his extreme difficulty in controlling his driver, and his poor success in making a Sunday charge from 2 or 3 strokes behind.  Jack didn't have to make all of those "How the fv<# did he do that?" shots because his overall game was more in control.  But Jack's contemporaries were just as in awe of his 1 iron and other long irons as current golfers are of Tiger's wedges from all over creation.  The difference is that Jack was usually in the fairway, or just off - not as likely as Tiger is to be 30 or more yards out in no man's land.

You can still crunch all the numbers you want, but when the inputs are derived from different fruits, it still comes down to opinion.  You can try all you like, but you will never convince me that percentages built on different data have any conclusive merit.  The resemblance is only superficial.

[mvmac]

How is 4 a massive lead for majors, but 6 in tour wins isn't? I mean, if you're going percentage wise I get it, but then Tiger has a massive lead in US Am titles too then, as it would breakdown like this:

Tiger has 50% more US Am titles

Jack has 29% more Majors

Tiger has 8% more Tour wins

Just playing the Devil's advocate....yet again...:D

Jack has 7 more Senior majors than Tiger, that's gotta count for something!

[Slice of Life]

4 major victories puts you in the top-20 all time for major victories, and I put a thumb on the scale in Jack's favor for 19 runner-up finishes.  Runner-up finishes aren't really that important (like making a cut) until you amass so many of them that it can't be overlooked.

And US Ams are important, but the sample size is too small to really be significant.  I.e. saying that 2 vs 3 is a 50% lead is somewhat statistically misleading.

Let's play a game...find the subliminal message in my post you quoted.

Jack has 7 more Senior majors than Tiger, that's gotta count for something!

Yeah, I would have added that, but that's dividing by 0. No bueno.

[jamo]

How is 4 a massive lead for majors, but 6 in tour wins isn't? I mean, if you're going percentage wise I get it, but then Tiger has a massive lead in US Am titles too then, as it would breakdown like this: Tiger has 50% more US Am titles Jack has 29% more Majors Tiger has 8% more Tour wins [COLOR=FFFFFF]Just playing the Devil's advocate....yet again...:D[/COLOR]

Where does e-penis size get factored into this?