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

[bplewis24]

Given that all the percentages are within 6 points, I think it's safe to say there aren't really significant outliers, so we can draw some conclusions from all of this. And what's that conclusion? Tiger is playing against competition that is essentially the same as what Jack faced.

Out of curiosity, are the field sizes the same?  In other words, are there 33 unique winners for both eras but one has a pool size of 300 while another has a pool size of 100?  Is there any way to determine?

Nevertheless, the problem with this analysis it is still doesn't judge the quality of the talent.  33 unique winners out of 100 stronger players vs 33 unique winners of 100 weaker players is something that isn't really measurable in that context.

[geauxforbroke]

Out of curiosity, are the field sizes the same?  In other words, are there 33 unique winners for both eras but one has a pool size of 300 while another has a pool size of 100?  Is there any way to determine?

They didn't mention that in the article. But I have to think field sizes aren't that different (at least not 3:1 different). I'd be interested to know if anyone has insight on it.

Nevertheless, the problem with this analysis it is still doesn't judge the quality of the talent.  33 unique winners out of 100 stronger players vs 33 unique winners of 100 weaker players is something that isn't really measurable in that context.

I'm not sure it really matters. 33 unique winners is still 33 unique winners. And it's all relative. Jack and Tiger were both playing with the equipment they had, on the courses in place, against the fields that turned out. When I talk about "strength of field", I don't mean that there are more players from one era that would be more successful than the players from another era if they were to compete head to head. Regardless of the number of entrants, there is only one winner for each tournament, so I guess the theory is the more unique winners you have, the stronger the field, regardless of how talented the field actually is. Maybe a better term would be "competitiveness of the field" instead of "strength of the field".

I would be interested to see how many truly unique winners there were over each time span. I would assume it would be over 1997-2007, but that's merely a supposition.

[iacas]

They didn't mention that in the article. But I have to think field sizes aren't that different (at least not 3:1 different). I'd be interested to know if anyone has insight on it.

One could say that the effective field size was as big as 3:1.

I'm not sure it really matters. 33 unique winners is still 33 unique winners. And it's all relative. Jack and Tiger were both playing with the equipment they had, on the courses in place, against the fields that turned out. When I talk about "strength of field", I don't mean that there are more players from one era that would be more successful than the players from another era if they were to compete head to head.

That's kind of what it means.

To put it one way, Tiger could be competing against 150 A-rated players, while Jack only had to compete against 10 with 40 B-rated players and 100 C-rated or worse players.

Same old discussion though… so I've kept it short.

[geauxforbroke]

Quote:

Originally Posted by geauxforbroke

I'm not sure it really matters. 33 unique winners is still 33 unique winners. And it's all relative. Jack and Tiger were both playing with the equipment they had, on the courses in place, against the fields that turned out. When I talk about "strength of field", I don't mean that there are more players from one era that would be more successful than the players from another era if they were to compete head to head.

That's kind of what it means.

To put it one way, Tiger could be competing against 150 A-rated players, while Jack only had to compete against 10 with 40 B-rated players and 100 C-rated or worse players.

Same old discussion though… so I've kept it short.

I get what you're saying. I'm sure there are variances in the strength (in the sense of talent) of the fields. My whole point in this was to show that, at least from one analysis, the fields are probably more even than people might think. If anything, I believe the fields are probably stronger now (for the reason that you gave) than they were in Jack's time.

I just want Tiger to either win no more majors, or win about 10 more so this debate can die. Lord help us if he finishes at 18.

[flopster]

Tiger's career is not over yet so to make any final conclusion would be premature, I think of It like this, what if Tiger actually passes Jack in the next 4 years but then has a remaining career of blowing 5 or more majors like a Greg Norman on top of regular events, then I guess the argument will be who was greater in their prime? Realistic though I do think Tiger will eventually pass Jack or tie and then cut back his schedule even more to just his tournament, Bayhill, Memorial, Majors. I think the guy is wore out and just want's to get it over with.

[iacas]

My whole point in this was to show that, at least from one analysis, the fields are probably more even than people might think.

When analysis flies in the face of common sense, it's often practical to just throw out the analysis as "you can demonstrate anything if you choose the right statistics."

And if Tiger finishes at 18 he'll be the clear GOAT - more U.S. Amateurs (which counted for a little while), more PGA Tour wins, stiffer competition. More of just about everything else too - money titles, POTY titles, etc.

[geauxforbroke]

Quote:

Originally Posted by geauxforbroke

My whole point in this was to show that, at least from one analysis, the fields are probably more even than people might think.

When analysis flies in the face of common sense, it's often practical to just throw out the analysis as "you can demonstrate anything if you choose the right statistics."

And if Tiger finishes at 18 he'll be the clear GOAT - more U.S. Amateurs (which counted for a little while), more PGA Tour wins, stiffer competition. More of just about everything else too - money titles, POTY titles, etc.

First, I agree with you on this. Field are probably stronger now than they were in Jack's time. I was posting this in reference to someone saying the fields were definitely stronger when Jack played. At worst, the fields are about even. I happen to think they are probably stronger now (based on talent and depth), but it's just harder to quantify.

And If Tiger stops at 18, the debate won't die. Regardless if you, I, or anyone else thinks it's definitive. Jack supporters will point to the 19 runner-up finishes, and the debate will rage on. I don't believe Tiger even has to get to 18 to be the GOAT.

[Dr Draw]

Tiger brought an aspect to golf that got everyone excited and really into the sport. The fire he had when he was younger was unbelievable and his skills are still undoubtedly the best. You can count on tiger to never give up and keep pushing, to beat all the odds. Jack was great and obviously still holds the major title record, however when tiger gets his game in check it's only a matter of time until he beats it. But there's always been a side to Tiger I've never liked. I try to get away from his personal life and personality and give him the respect as the greatest to ever plAy the game.

[tooc]

The Faldo, Norman Price era was just about over when Tiger came along, Ernie was really the only one up to that level at that time with a couple of Majors. Once Mickelson got his mind in the right place and got fit he was well able to beat Tiger. That's 2 players maybe Goosen and Harrington could also be considered Tigers main opposition. This year's Augusta will be a big one

[desertpig]

Jack had tougher compettion and won 18 majors but even more unbeliveable he finished second something like 15 times!!

I wasn't alive at jack's prime so I go with tiger being the greatest golfer, also tiger can rip it further, has a better short game, and he's a built athlete, what else is their to say?

Hi Sungho_Kr - sorry that you are too young to really know the greatness of the Golden Bear but let me give you something to read about him and see how Tiger stacks up to Nicklaus ( http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/04/15/tiger-woods-jack-nicklaus-comparison/2083049/ ). For me, until Tiger (14 majors) beats Jack's 18 majors, he is NOT the greatest.

In addition - Tiger is not a better person compared to Jack. You don't hear Jack and scandal mentioned in the same breath.

[desertpig]

That's a really subjective statement. I'm not going to do research to see if it has merit. I'd be curious to see if you have any stats to back it up.

I did come across a pretty interesting article the other day comparing the strength of the field during Nicklaus's prime vs. Tiger's. They have a method they came up with which seems sound, but I'm sure there have been other analyses performed which are in conflict. Nonetheless, it's interesting, so I thought I would share. The full article can be found here.

The method:

First, the time periods being compared were set at 1962-1972 and 1997-2007. Now, I realize that Jack won 7 of his majors after his period. However, using the methodology below, this actually increases the chances of the field appearing stronger during Jack's time than Tiger's (since Tiger has won only 1 major subsequent to his respective "prime" period). For the sake of consistency and unbias, I think the writers just decided to go with the first 10 years after each player's first major.

Then the number of tournaments played for each year during the period was counted up, as well as the number of unique winners for each year. The number of tournaments and the number of annual unique winners was then totaled. Keep in mind that the number of different winners for the whole time span is not the number of overall unique winners, it is the sum of the unique winners for each of the 10 years.

Here are the results:

Category

1962-1972

1997-2007

Tournaments

474

519

Different Winners

329

369

% Different Winners

69%

71%

Majors

44*

44*

Different Winners

33

32

% Different Winners

75%

73%

*The time spans are actually 11 years,  not 10. Therefore 4 majors/year x 11 years = 44 majors.

So what does this all mean? The theory is that the greater the percentage of different winners, the stronger the field. As you can see, the percentages are very comparable. While the field would appear to be marginally stronger in majors during Jack's time, the field appears to be stronger during regular tournaments during Tiger's era. Given that all the percentages are within 6 points, I think it's safe to say there aren't really significant outliers, so we can draw some conclusions from all of this. And what's that conclusion? Tiger is playing against competition that is essentially the same as what Jack faced.

Again, this is just one way to look at it, and I'm sure someone will quickly point out the flaws of this analysis, but I thought it was worth a share.

Trying to compare the field and its strengths and weaknesses in order to assess which player (Jack or Tiger) had it harder to win is a bit asinine. Dealing with those variables isn't going to give you a better determination of who is GOAT - it will only make things worse. If you're going to use those variables and statistics, you might as well consider the conditions (weather, course, relative condition of the players doing that time) and trying to add those metrics up - you might as well use a supercomputer to do all those crunching; and even then you will not get a clear assessment. So let's keep this discussion simple, who has more majors - simple. Until Tiger wins 19 majors, then he's GOAT, otherwise, Jack still has him beat.

[The Recreational Golfer]

Those two things were effectively part of the Stevie Williams bachelor party. I don't think his attention has shifted from golf. He was married before he had a phenomenal 2005, you'll recall.

I also recall the end of 2009 was pretty phenomenal, too. Jack never did anything close to that.

[iacas]

So let's keep this discussion simple, who has more majors - simple. Until Tiger wins 19 majors, then he's GOAT, otherwise, Jack still has him beat.

Welcome to the site.

Somewhere - actually, many times - in the last 4000 posts or so on this thread, you'll find that many people are not content to make such a simplistic argument. Tiger has faced stiffer competition, has won more PGA Tour events, and done a number of other things that far surpassed Jack. The argument for some is as simple as "18 > 14" but for many others, it's more complicated than that.

That's why this thread is 4000+ posts long.

[desertpig]

That was kinda my point, in a babbling sort of way.... :) If we're strictly talking records, I believe Tiger will break Jack's record...no doubt.

If you're talking potential - that's a bit of a stretch. What if he injures himself while bungee jumping or crashing a wall when he races cars for fun - we don't know how long he'll last playing this game. So let's just talk current wins. Tiger has 14, Jack has 18. Until Tiger wins 5 more, he's GOAT. So for now Jack is.

BTW, If someone suggests I'm an old timer, guess again. I'm 43 and I saw Tiger play most his amateur years and almost all of his pro years. I only saw Jack play live from 1980 to 1986 when during that span, he won the US Open, The Masters and the PGA - and I was between 10 and 16. So technically I am of Tiger's generation.And yet, I still believe Jack is better.

[desertpig]

Welcome to the site.

Somewhere - actually, many times - in the last 4000 posts or so on this thread, you'll find that many people are not content to make such a simplistic argument. Tiger has faced stiffer competition, has won more PGA Tour events, and done a number of other things that far surpassed Jack. The argument for some is as simple as "18 > 14" but for many others, it's more complicated than that.

That's why this thread is 4000+ posts long.

Why should it be more complicated? I don't get that. But to use that argument, to claim Tiger is the best, means he's dominant. In the last few games I've watched, he wasn't all that dominant. I'd like to quote a guy who posted here earlier (Last year, there were four Majors, and Tiger won one. Zach Johnson, Angel Cabrera and Padraig Harrington won the first three and Tiger won the last one---the PGA Championship. Winning one of four and losing to Zach and Angel and Padraig is NOT exactly DOMINANCE, in my judgement). Tiger isn't the best yet. Until he wins the masters at age 46 in a field dominated by Golf Hall of Famers like Lee Trevino, Seve, Arnie, Billy Casper, Johnny Miller, Gary Player, Raymond Floyd, and Tom Watson, then he's going to GOAT. And don't tell me the field he plays in (i.e. Zach, Angel, and Trevor) are in the same league as Arnie the the guys.

[iacas]

If you're talking potential - that's a bit of a stretch.

You're quoting a post from 2006, dude.

C'mon. At least skip ahead and read the last 20 pages or so. Don't start at the beginning, quoting posts as you go.

Why should it be more complicated? I don't get that.

Because to many, determining GOAT means more than just comparing the numbers 18 and 14 to one another.

Winning one of four and losing to Zach and Angel and Padraig is NOT exactly DOMINANCE, in my judgement). Tiger isn't the best yet.

Huh? Jack had several years where he didn't win, or won only once. Tiger has done far more to dominate than Jack. Money titles. Scoring titles. Margins of victory. PGA Tour wins. Etc.

And don't tell me the field he plays in (i.e. Zach, Angel, and Trevor) are in the same league as Arnie the the guys.

I won't. I'll tell you that the fields Tiger faces are more difficult than the ones Jack faced. Jack will tell you the same thing.

But like I said, please read recent posts, as we've heard and discussed all of these things about 20 or 30 times already. Thank you.

[desertpig]

In another post, I write that I cannot vote since not all the GREATS can get together and play each other when each is in his OR HER prime (let us not leave the ladies out, since Bobby Jones said that Joyce Wethered had the best golf swing that he ever saw, and Hogan said the same thing about Mickey Wright). I also wrote about Hogan's record in 1953 of winning 5 of the 6 tournaments that he was physically capable of playing and ALL 3 of the Majors----he is the ONLY ONE to win The Masters, the US Open, and the Open Championship in one calendar year. Craig Wood (1941), Arnie (1960), Jack (1972) and Tiger (2002) all won the first two but FAILED to win the next leg---the Open Championship (aka "The British Open").

Also, please do not forget Byron Nelson's year of 1945---18 wins and 11 in a row!! NO ONE has come close to that EXCEPTIONAL ELEVEN--not Jack, not Tiger, not any one.

Also, do not forget Walter Hagen---11 Majors when there was no Masters. Take Jack's 18 Professional Majors and subtract out 6 Masters and you get 12, one ahead of Hagen. Take Tiger's 13 and subtract out 4 Masters and you get 9, two BEHIND Hagen. Also, Hagen, the top Professional Golfer of his era and Bobby Jones, the top Amateur Golfer, played a match in 1926 that was scheduled to go 72 holes, but it went only 61 holes since Hagen CLOSED OUT Jones 12 and 11 in Match Play. Jones wrote that was his WORST LOSS EVER, and it took a year for him to get over it.

We cannot determine THE Greatest Golfer Ever since they all can not play together in their prime and PROVE it by playing it out on the golf course. All talk about it is simply IDLE CHATTER, and nothing more.

Awesome reply!

[iacas]

Awesome reply!

… from 2008. C'mon man.