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

[iacas]

@iacas is going to build a time machine later this afternoon and set up a match between 2000 Tiger and 1972 Jack

But which equipment will they use? Which course setups? And do we get to somehow change Tiger to be lazier, or make Jack more motivated, or whatever nonsense that was?

P.S. Tiger wins 2&1.

[Jakester23]

Ill take tiger now (it doesn't even have to be 2000 tiger) with jacks equipment on any course in any era

[Gunther]

But which equipment will they use? Which course setups? And do we get to somehow change Tiger to be lazier, or make Jack more motivated, or whatever nonsense that was? :-) P.S. Tiger wins 2&1. :-)

I heard Jack was king of the stymie on the green. Oh, wait, that was Byron Nelson.

[9iron]

2006 actually. May. Tiger didn't even have 14 then. Or 79.

And the poll doesn't ask who will be the GOAT. It asks who is.  Tiger's always led by about 30+%.

Always in this case includes only time during the Tiger era. 2006 still being in the Tiger era.

It's okay. You're in the minority. It happens.

Trust me, I'll survive.

[RJH999]

The answer is yes.

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9iron

Side Note: Jack may have 73 official PGA Tour wins, but he has 22 other wins from around the world durimng his prime. About 20 of the 22 would have been against players of tour quality. Events like the Australian Open, World Match Play and World Series of Golf. He never gets credit for those wins.

Having a very small handful of PGA tour pros in the Australian Open does not make it a good field.  Here is the top of the leaderboard from Jack's 1975 win:

Quote:

J Nicklaus 67 70 70 72 279
2 W Brask 71 68 70 73 282
3 I Stanley 73 68 72 71 284
D Graham 72 74 68 70
W Dunk 65 70 72 77
G Player 71 67 73 73
7 W Godfrey 72 71 72 70 285
8 R Hore 72 68 76 70 286
9 R Vines 73 70 70 74 287
J Lister 71 69 76 71
S Ginn 68 75 74 70
R Zender 70 73 72 72
13 K Nagle 73 71 72 72 288
* E Couper 66 73 76 73
M Tapper 72 72 71 73
J Toepel 68 69 74 77
17 I Brander 71 72 74 72 289
18 B Crampton 72 73 73 72 290
J Marshall 73 71 74 72
V Bennetts 69 72 77 72
R Taylor 72 70 76 72
T McDonald 71 77 70 72
S Owen 6

Out of 23 players I recognize 4 other than Jack (David Graham, Gary Player, Kel Nagel, Bruce Crampton) and I'd bet most folks, since they are younger than me, might even know less.

As to the 22 "other" wins:

You failed to mention that 6 of those 22 were 2-man team events.

As to the world Series of Golf.  You DO REALIZE, I hope that the field consisted of 4 players?

And finally, in the Picadilly World Match Play event, you DO KNOW that the field was 8 or 16?

I just mention those tidbits because if anyone tried to puff Tiger's record the way you just tried to puff Jack's they would be laughed off the board.  There is a reason that these events are counted as "other" - because they are not of the quality of PGA Tour events (and in some cases like the AO, not even at a level of a mini-tour event of today),

[Gunther]

I just mention those tidbits because if anyone tried to puff Tiger's record the way you just tried to puff Jack's they would be laughed off the board.

Incorrect. @saevel25 inadvertently "puffed" Tiger"s record by 28 wins in a post yesterday. No one laughed him off the board nor even pointed it out in a smart-ass kind of way. I asked a question about it, he reviewed and made the change. No one else even commented. The other side of this or most arguments here is not the enemy, just some folks who don't happen to agree with you.

[saevel25]

But which equipment will they use? Which course setups? And do we get to somehow change Tiger to be lazier, or make Jack more motivated, or whatever nonsense that was?

P.S. Tiger wins 2&1.

I would put them at Augusta National, they would use 2000's technology. I think Jack would be motivated. He always seemed to get up for good matches if someone was challenging him.

If it is best out of 5, I think Tiger wins 3 to 2 in stroke play.

If it was match play, Tiger would win 4-1. The guy was just insanely good at match play.

[iacas]

Incorrect. @saevel25 inadvertently "puffed" Tiger"s record by 28 wins in a post yesterday. No one laughed him off the board nor even pointed it out in a smart-ass kind of way. I asked a question about it, he reviewed and made the change. No one else even commented.

IIRC, someone pointed it out and he quickly corrected himself.

[turtleback]

Incorrect. @saevel25 inadvertently "puffed" Tiger"s record by 28 wins in a post yesterday. No one laughed him off the board nor even pointed it out in a smart-ass kind of way. I asked a question about it, he reviewed and made the change. No one else even commented.

The other side of this or most arguments here is not the enemy, just some folks who don't happen to agree with you.

So you would equate a factual mistake based on mis-interpreting a wiki article and quickly corrected with a systematic (and, unfortunately successful) campaign to change the golf world's criteria for greatest of all time?

Really??

[9iron]

So you would equate a factual mistake based on mis-interpreting a wiki article and quickly corrected with a systematic (and, unfortunately successful) campaign to change the golf world's criteria for greatest of all time?

Really??

Tiger benefitted for more then a decade by having opposition that folded up on Sunday, or at a minimum did basically nothing. Not 100%, but way too often. Jack's 18 m,ajor wins are stiill 18 to Tiger's 14. That's the barometer still, even according to Tiger.

[jbishop15]

Tiger benefitted for more then a decade by having opposition that folded up on Sunday, or at a minimum did basically nothing. Not 100%, but way too often. Jack's 18 m,ajor wins are stiill 18 to Tiger's 14. That's the barometer still, even according to Tiger.

I think it's been established that the argument of 18>14 is too simplistic and doesn't provide enough context.

[9iron]

I think it's been established that the argument of 18>14 is too simplistic and doesn't provide enough context.

Established by some, not accepted by others. On top of that, there are all kinds of metrics that still can be used to claim jack is the GOAT, but their side dismisses them out of hand as if they are meaningless. I'm not going to reciote them again. Easier to just say 18>14 and leave it at that.

Go check Jack's all time records. Even with Tiger coming later Jack still owns a massive number of records.

[Gunther]

So you would equate a factual mistake based on mis-interpreting a wiki article and quickly corrected with a systematic (and, unfortunately successful) campaign to change the golf world's criteria for greatest of all time?   Really??

Yep, based on an inane comment like puffing Tiger's record would get one laughed off the board.

[iacas]

Go check Jack's all time records. Even with Tiger coming later Jack still owns a massive number of records.

That's not really true.

Tiger blows Jack out of the water in a LOT of all-time records. Which do Jack hold? Margin of victory? No. Players of the Year? No. Wins in a season? No. WGC events? Of course not. PGA Tour victories? Nope. Vardon awards? No. Cuts made? No. Consecutive victories? Nope, Tiger again.

And there are more.

[jbishop15]

Established by some, not accepted by others. On top of that, there are all kinds of metrics that still can be used to claim jack is the GOAT, but their side dismisses them out of hand as if they are meaningless. I'm not going to reciote them again. Easier to just say 18>14 and leave it at that.

Go check Jack's all time records. Even with Tiger coming later Jack still owns a massive number of records.

That's not really true.

Tiger blows Jack out of the water in a LOT of all-time records. Which do Jack hold? Margin of victory? No. Players of the Year? No. Wins in a season? No. WGC events? Of course not. PGA Tour victories? Nope. Vardon awards? No. Cuts made? No. Consecutive victories? Nope, Tiger again.

And there are more.

18>14 doesn't give proper context because it's only one stat. I'm not sure how to phrase it any differently. Comparing only ERA's across the ages as a metric for best pitcher is flawed, as it is only using one metric. But you know this, because its been said literally a billion times in this thread.

And no, it's not easier to say 18>14 and leave it at that. That's ridiculous. That doesn't encompass the whole picture. Francis Ouimet won three majors, more than Freddie Couples and Johnny Miller. Are you prepared to make an argument that Ouimet was better than Miller or Couples? I hope the answer is no. 3>2 or 3>1 in that situation obviously does not speak to the whole picture.

Or, how about Peter Thompson v. Byron Nelson? Thompson won five majors, Nelson won five. 5=5. Are they of the same quality of golfer? I can go on like this forever.

As iacas said (for what I can only imagine is the zillionth time), Tiger has a lot of records that Jack does not, like Vardon awards or cuts. Not to mention that the idea of the modern "major" tournaments wasn't even a thing until Arnold Palmer came along. The North & South and the Western Open were considered top-flight tournaments in their day. Bobby Jones never played in the Masters in his prime for obvious reasons. Hogan only played in one British Open. It's a lot more complicated than just 18>14.

[jamo]

18>14 doesn't give proper context because it's only one stat. I'm not sure how to phrase it any differently. Comparing only ERA's across the ages as a metric for best pitcher is flawed, as it is only using one metric. But you know this, because its been said literally a billion times in this thread.  And no, it's not easier to say 18>14 and leave it at that. That's ridiculous. That doesn't encompass the whole picture. Francis Ouimet won three majors, more than Freddie Couples and Johnny Miller. Are you prepared to make an argument that Ouimet was better than Miller or Couples? I hope the answer is no. 3>2 or 3>1 in that situation obviously does not speak to the whole picture.  Or, how about Peter Thompson v. Byron Nelson? Thompson won five majors, Nelson won five. 5=5. Are they of the same quality of golfer? I can go on like this forever.   As iacas said (for what I can only imagine is the zillionth time), Tiger has a lot of records that Jack does not, like Vardon awards or cuts. Not to mention that the idea of the modern "major" tournaments wasn't even a thing until Arnold Palmer came along. The North & South and the Western Open were considered top-flight tournaments in their day. Bobby Jones never played in the Masters in his prime for obvious reasons. Hogan only played in one British Open. It's a lot more complicated than just 18>14.

That's one of the big arguments I spent time on in my article. Is Walter Hagen the third best golfers of all time? I doubt it. But he'd got 11, behind only Jack and Tiger.

[turtleback]

That's one of the big arguments I spent time on in my article. Is Walter Hagen the third best golfers of all time? I doubt it. But he'd got 11, behind only Jack and Tiger.

What is even more amazing is how deeply entrenched is the 18>14 position (I will no dignify it by calling t an argument) when the fact is that Jack is the ONLY player EVER to have been widely considered the GOAT based on this metric.  Before he got his 12th no one ever considered Hagen the GOAT, yet by the EXACT reasoning they use now he should have been.  They SAY that majors is the ultimate determining factor yet they would never use that in other contexts.  Or are we supposed to think they all believe Peter Thompson (5 majors) was a greater player than Billy Casper (3 majors).  John Daly is a greater player than Tom Kite?