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

[disco111]

Now I will offer one additional point of contention (and no I haven't reviewed all the previous posts), that may or may not have been addressed and that is the "Hurt Locker". I have no idea if Jack ever played through the kind of pain the Tiger reportedly endured, so that unto itself could be a tipping point, one way or another. For the life of me, I can't comprehend the metal fortitude that must take place to hit a golf ball, while knowing it's coming and steeling yourself to play through it. I'm talking about the leg fracture and the US Open, the back stops everyone cold, as we plainly see this year. So to sum up, is Tiger the best? --- Of the last 20 years, undoubtedly. The best of all time? --- Can't make that assessment until the majors are equal. It's like saying that the original 4 minute mile has been run under 3:45, but it was only actually for 7/8 of a mile.

[Patch]

Now I will offer one additional point of contention (and no I haven't reviewed all the previous posts), that may or may not have been addressed and that is the "Hurt Locker". I have no idea if Jack ever played through the kind of pain the Tiger reportedly endured, so that unto itself could be a tipping point, one way or another. For the life of me, I can't comprehend the metal fortitude that must take place to hit a golf ball, while knowing it's coming and steeling yourself to play through it. I'm talking about the leg fracture and the US Open, the back stops everyone cold, as we plainly see this year. So to sum up, is Tiger the best? --- Of the last 20 years, undoubtedly. The best of all time? --- Can't make that assessment until the majors are equal. It's like saying that the original 4 minute mile has been run under 3:45, but it was only actually for 7/8 of a mile.

I don't think anyone will ever be able to say "best of all time" with 100% certainty. I say this because Jack, and Woody never played against each other, or played against each other's competition, in their prime. Plus, I was fortunate to watch both of them play in their prime. You just don't know how Woody would have played against the likes Jack, Trevino, Watson, Player, Casper, and that guy Palmer. How would have Jack played facing Woody, Mickelson, Furyk, Goosen, Singh, and Els?  Which competitive group minus Jack, and Woody won more majors in their era of the game? (Yes, there are others I did not mention in each group. These players just came to mind) Would Jack have won more majors playing with the same quality of equipment, and on the better quality courses that Woody has played on? How would Woody have played using, and playing with the junk Jack had available to him?  No one will never know. What if Jack had a company like Nike building him precise equipment (tools) to play with back in his era of golf? The best that can be said is that there were great players who were the best of the best during their own era of golf. I put this Jack vs Woody in the same context of the slow play discussion. It's a riddle that will never be solved regardless of the arguments put forth. .

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by disco111

Now I will offer one additional point of contention (and no I haven't reviewed all the previous posts), that may or may not have been addressed and that is the "Hurt Locker". I have no idea if Jack ever played through the kind of pain the Tiger reportedly endured, so that unto itself could be a tipping point, one way or another. For the life of me, I can't comprehend the metal fortitude that must take place to hit a golf ball, while knowing it's coming and steeling yourself to play through it. I'm talking about the leg fracture and the US Open, the back stops everyone cold, as we plainly see this year. So to sum up, is Tiger the best? --- Of the last 20 years, undoubtedly. The best of all time? --- Can't make that assessment until the majors are equal. It's like saying that the original 4 minute mile has been run under 3:45, but it was only actually for 7/8 of a mile.

I don't think anyone will ever be able to say "best of all time" with 100% certainty. I say this because Jack, and Woody never played against each other, or played against each other's competition, in their prime. Plus, I was fortunate to watch both of them play in their prime. You just don't know how Woody would have played against the likes Jack, Trevino, Watson, Player, Casper, and that guy Palmer. How would have Jack played facing Woody, Mickelson, Furyk, Goosen, Singh, and Els?  Which competitive group minus Jack, and Woody won more majors in their era of the game? (Yes, there are others I did not mention in each group. These players just came to mind) Would Jack have won more majors playing with the same quality of equipment, and on the better quality courses that Woody has played on? How would Woody have played using, and playing with the junk Jack had available to him?  No one will never know. What if Jack had a company like Nike building him precise equipment (tools) to play with back in his era of golf? The best that can be said is that there were great players who were the best of the best during their own era of golf. I put this Jack vs Woody in the same context of the slow play discussion. It's a riddle that will never be solved regardless of the arguments put forth. .

I agree, but you will never convince some of the people here who are absolutely certain that one or the other is better.  It's impossible to say that Jack wouldn't have done just as well as Tiger has if he'd been of the same generation, with the same equipment and competition.  You can compare stats all you like but it will always be an apple here and an orange there - maybe an occasional tangerine to make it even more confusing.  The differences in the two careers are simply too great to ever declare one of them the best with absolute certainty.  Comparing numbers that aren't founded on the same base is an exercise in futility.

Just as Bobby Jones is heralded as the only player to win the grand slam, but since he didn't win the grand slam we recognize today, what did he really do?  He was the best amateur of his era, but what competition did he face?  Most of the time it was just other amateurs.  Certainly not the same sort of competition as Jack or Tiger, and his equipment was markedly different too.  Since his slam includes two amateur titles that Jack and Tiger haven't even been allowed to play in since they turned pro, once again we are comparing totally different fruits.  I think that Jack and Tiger would have won just about any US or British Amateur that they entered if allowed to do so later in their careers - but wait, if they had been allowed so would the other pros, and then it wouldn't have been an amateur any more.  What a dilemma.

I don't see why we have this compulsion to label anyone as the best ever.  Especially when it's still nothing more than a matter of personal opinion.  Why can't we just say that they were the best of their time and let the rest go?

[iacas]

Can't make that assessment until the majors are equal.

You choose not to. Others are capable of deciding for themselves even without the incredibly lazy artificial constraint that lets you not even think about it. Yes, 18 > 14 or whatever is intellectually lazy IMO. Consider things. THINK a little. Decide. Why not?

[disco111]

"You choose not to. Others are capable of deciding for themselves even without the incredibly lazy artificial constraint that lets you not even think about it.

Yes, 18 > 14 or whatever is intellectually lazy IMO. Consider things. THINK a little. Decide. Why not?"

Of course I choose not to, because the equality of completion is not there. How in the world can it be intellectually lazy, your comparing apples and oranges, so to speak.Since apparently you didn't understand the analogy of the foot race, I'll afford you another example that may dis-wage your rather obtuse offering. Lets take base ball and the 56 game hitting streak. Since 56 is the bench mark, the same as 18 majors is the bench mark in golf, if a player only hits say 52 or even 54, is he or would he be considered just as good or better?

[boogielicious]

"You choose not to. Others are capable of deciding for themselves even without the incredibly lazy artificial constraint that lets you not even think about it.

Yes, 18 > 14 or whatever is intellectually lazy IMO. Consider things. THINK a little. Decide. Why not?"

Of course I choose not to, because the equality of completion is not there. How in the world can it be intellectually lazy, your comparing apples and oranges, so to speak.Since apparently you didn't understand the analogy of the foot race, I'll afford you another example that may dis-wage your rather obtuse offering. Lets take base ball and the 56 game hitting streak. Since 56 is the bench mark, the same as 18 majors is the bench mark in golf, if a player only hits say 52 or even 54, is he or would he be considered just as good or better?

If you use the quote button on a post you want to quote, it notifies the other forum member.  It helps keep the discussion going.  Otherwise, they don't know who you are responding to.

[Golfingdad]

How in the world can it be intellectually lazy, your comparing apples and oranges, so to speak.

This is exactly right ... except it's exactly why you can't say 18>14 and call it a day without it being considered lazy ... because it's apples and oranges.  If it was apples and apples - i.e. comparing Tiger to Phil, or Jack to Tom Watson - then by all means, you can take the easy way out and say he's won more tournaments or more majors or whatever and just be done with it.

But precisely because they are from such vastly different eras, with a myriad of mitigating factors (most notably, strength of field ) is why it's apples and oranges, and also why 18>14 doesn't hold water for a lot of people.

P.S.  Welcome to the forum!

[dkolo]

"You choose not to. Others are capable of deciding for themselves even without the incredibly lazy artificial constraint that lets you not even think about it.

Yes, 18 > 14 or whatever is intellectually lazy IMO. Consider things. THINK a little. Decide. Why not?"

Of course I choose not to, because the equality of completion is not there. How in the world can it be intellectually lazy, your comparing apples and oranges, so to speak.Since apparently you didn't understand the analogy of the foot race, I'll afford you another example that may dis-wage your rather obtuse offering. Lets take base ball and the 56 game hitting streak. Since 56 is the bench mark, the same as 18 majors is the bench mark in golf, if a player only hits say 52 or even 54, is he or would he be considered just as good or better?

DiMaggio's streak is a poor comparison because it was a streak, not a cumulative lifetime achievement. It would be a better comparison to Woods's made-cut streak, which, I think, might actually be more impressive than his major wins, considering the level of competition he played against. (That last part is a half-baked idea that struck me as I was writing the sentence so, don't hold me to that, haha) Irrespective of that, yeah, if achieving the same number in a different era would be more difficult, a lower total may actually be more impressive. That's why you have to have a very considered analysis of eras before putting numbers up for comparison. Baseball has developed WAR (wins above replacement), a metric that tries to normalize production compared to the era, so that performances can be more accurately compared across eras. Golf lacks that sort of metric, as far as I can tell.

In any event, you're better off comparing it to the home run record, which is somewhat in reverse, in that home run totals now are easier to achieve than before. Maybe it's just bad to compare baseball to golf, haha.

[billchao]

Of course I choose not to, because the equality of completion is not there. How in the world can it be intellectually lazy, your comparing apples and oranges, so to speak.Since apparently you didn't understand the analogy of the foot race, I'll afford you another example that may dis-wage your rather obtuse offering. Lets take base ball and the 56 game hitting streak. Since 56 is the bench mark, the same as 18 majors is the bench mark in golf, if a player only hits say 52 or even 54, is he or would he be considered just as good or better?

Ok, let's play it like this: 79>73, therefore Tiger is the GOAT. That's just as weak an argument as 18>14. Here's a fun fact: Tiger has won 24.8% of PGA Tour events played (79 out of 318). Jack has only won 12.3% (73 out of 595). [Spoiler=OT Baseball Stuff]Your baseball analogy is a poor analogy. Nobody puts Joe DiMaggio in the GOAT discussion in baseball, despite the record. I've never once heard that as a criteria in assessing baseball's GOAT. Whose measuring stick is 56, anyway?[/spoiler]

[Patch]

I like "Fourputt's analogy of " You can compare stats all you like but it will always be an apple here and an orange there - maybe an occasional tangerine to make it even more confusing". Let's make it double more confusing. Let's also throw a lemon into the mix. Both Jack, and Woody lost a formidable competitor in Tony Lema, and Payne Stewart due to plane crashes. It might be a stretch, but it might have been possible that Lema, and Stewart could have stolen a major or two from Jack, and/or Woody if they had played a full PGA career. Yes, this is another "what if", but again, who knows.

Personally I have always thought that Woody was robbed of playing against Stewart. I thought Stewart was damn fine golfer who could have been a better challenge to Woody than those he has faced regularly over the years. I know Stewart dressed for the game better than Woody did.

[billchao]

I like "Fourputt's analogy of " You can compare stats all you like but it will always be an apple here and an orange there - maybe an occasional tangerine to make it even more confusing".  Let's make it double more confusing. Let's also throw a lemon into the mix. Both Jack, and Woody lost a formidable competitor in Tony Lema, and Payne Stewart due to plane crashes. It might be a stretch, but it might have been possible that Lema, and Stewart could have stolen a major or two from Jack, and/or Woody if they had played a full PGA career. Yes, this is another "what if", but again, who knows.

Personally I have always thought that Woody was robbed of playing against Stewart. I thought Stewart was damn fine golfer who could have been a better challenge to Woody than those he has faced regularly over the years. I know Stewart dressed for the game better than Woody did.

[disco111]

OK, this is actually very easy to disseminate. By Tiger's own admission, Jack's 18 majors was his main focal point. This was the "bar" if you will, that he wants to attain and in stipulating this, his own words dictate, that for him to consider himself "the best" or "better than" or any other descriptive verbiage one wished to put forth, this had / has to be obtained. Regardless of all the rhetoric that has transpired, the Jack and Tiger debate is all about the majors. For those disagree, well we'll just agree to disagree..........

[billchao]

OK, this is actually very easy to disseminate. By Tiger's own admission, Jack's 18 majors was his main focal point. This was the "bar" if you will, that he wants to attain and in stipulating this, his own words dictate, that for him to consider himself "the best" or "better than" or any other descriptive verbiage one wished to put forth, this had / has to be obtained.

That's in his mind. Tiger won't feel he is the best ever until he has achieved that, because that's his personal goal. That doesn't change anything anyone else has said to the point that he already is the GOAT.

Jack says Tiger is the best. If your argument is that Jack is the best because Tiger says he is, then Tiger must be the best because Jack said so.

Regardless of all the rhetoric that has transpired, the Jack and Tiger debate is all about the majors.

No, it's not. Even if the debate boiled down simply to majors, Tiger's 14 is a tougher feat than Jack's 18 because of quality of competition. The debate is more than that, because evaluating a PGA Tour golfer's career simply based on the number of majors he has won is too simplistic. By that argument, Angel Cabrera is a better golfer than Fred Couples, and Padraig Harrington is better than Greg Norman.

[Patch]

My newest opinion on this topic............

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by disco111

Of course I choose not to, because the equality of completion is not there. How in the world can it be intellectually lazy, your comparing apples and oranges, so to speak.Since apparently you didn't understand the analogy of the foot race, I'll afford you another example that may dis-wage your rather obtuse offering. Lets take base ball and the 56 game hitting streak. Since 56 is the bench mark, the same as 18 majors is the bench mark in golf, if a player only hits say 52 or even 54, is he or would he be considered just as good or better?

Ok, let's play it like this: 79>73, therefore Tiger is the GOAT. That's just as weak an argument as 18>14.

Here's a fun fact: Tiger has won 24.8% of PGA Tour events played (79 out of 318). Jack has only won 12.3% (73 out of 595).

Jack also played on tour until he was 50.  Tiger has 11 years to go, and it's doubtful that he will ever reach Jack's total number of events played even if he manages to stay healthy.  Like most players Jack's winning percentage tapered off dramatically after age 40.  Only 5 of his 73 wins came after he turned 40, although interestingly, 3 of the 5 were majors.

Tiger started cutting back on his schedule earlier in his career than Jack, cherry picking some of the the venues that he liked and played well at.  His winning percentage already seems to have begun a steep decline, due in large part to health.  If he really is done, then many will point to his lack of longevity as a mark against him being the best ever.  Tiger himself will certainly feel that he failed to hit the target he aimed for.

[billchao]

Jack also played on tour until he was 50.  Tiger has 11 years to go, and it's doubtful that he will ever reach Jack's total number of events played even if he manages to stay healthy.  Like most players Jack's winning percentage tapered off dramatically after age 40.  Only 5 of his 73 wins came after he turned 40, although interestingly, 3 of the 5 were majors.

You have valid points (except that Jack played well into his 50's ). That's why I said it was a fun fact; it wasn't really meant as an argument.

Amended fun fact: If we only count events through the last year in which they won, Tiger's winning percentage rises to 26% (79 out of 304) while Jack's rises to 15.6% (73 out of 469).

If we want to make Jack's numbers more comparable, we can roll back to the end of the 1976 season, after which he competed in 322 events. He won 61 of those events (12 wins came after '76), an 18.9% winning percentage, with 14 major wins.

Even if we roll Tiger back to the end of the season when he was 36 (Jack was 36 in '76), Tiger would still have won 14 majors and his winning percentage would be 25.9% (71 out of 274).

Tiger started cutting back on his schedule earlier in his career than Jack, cherry picking some of the the venues that he liked and played well at.  His winning percentage already seems to have begun a steep decline, due in large part to health.

Tiger's career is likely going to be cut short due to injuries, but it's clear to me who the more dominant player was, and I'm not even factoring in quality of competition. The only two things Jack has in his favor are the longevity and the number of majors, and the latter was a largely due to the former. If both players' careers ended at the age of 39 (Tiger has yet to turn 40), Jack would only have 1 more major than Tiger, as you pointed out.

If he really is done, then many will point to his lack of longevity as a mark against him being the best ever.

I would disagree with them. Longevity is not the same as greatness. Tiger having more success in a shorter span makes him the GOAT.

Tiger himself will certainly feel that he failed to hit the target he aimed for.

I mentioned it before, but that's on him. In my mind, he is already the GOAT. Hitting the major record would simply put an exclamation point on that.

[boogielicious]

My newest opinion on this topic............

I like it!

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Jack also played on tour until he was 50.  Tiger has 11 years to go, and it's doubtful that he will ever reach Jack's total number of events played even if he manages to stay healthy.  Like most players Jack's winning percentage tapered off dramatically after age 40.  Only 5 of his 73 wins came after he turned 40, although interestingly, 3 of the 5 were majors.

You have valid points (except that Jack played well into his 50's ). That's why I said it was a fun fact; it wasn't really meant as an argument.

Amended fun fact: If we only count events through the last year in which they won, Tiger's winning percentage rises to 26% (79 out of 304) while Jack's rises to 15.6% (73 out of 469).

If we want to make Jack's numbers more comparable, we can roll back to the end of the 1976 season, after which he competed in 322 events. He won 61 of those events (12 wins came after '76), an 18.9% winning percentage, with 14 major wins.

Even if we roll Tiger back to the end of the season when he was 36 (Jack was 36 in '76), Tiger would still have won 14 majors and his winning percentage would be 25.9% (71 out of 274).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Tiger started cutting back on his schedule earlier in his career than Jack, cherry picking some of the the venues that he liked and played well at.  His winning percentage already seems to have begun a steep decline, due in large part to health.

Tiger's career is likely going to be cut short due to injuries, but it's clear to me who the more dominant player was, and I'm not even factoring in quality of competition. The only two things Jack has in his favor are the longevity and the number of majors, and the latter was a largely due to the former. If both players' careers ended at the age of 39 (Tiger has yet to turn 40), Jack would only have 1 more major than Tiger, as you pointed out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

If he really is done, then many will point to his lack of longevity as a mark against him being the best ever.

I would disagree with them. Longevity is not the same as greatness. Tiger having more success in a shorter span makes him the GOAT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Tiger himself will certainly feel that he failed to hit the target he aimed for.

I mentioned it before, but that's on him. In my mind, he is already the GOAT. Hitting the major record would simply put an exclamation point on that.

The difference between us is that I'm not picking anyone as the best.  You can throw around all the stats you want, but the foundations they are based on are too far separated.  You can't say what one or the other might have accomplished if had Tiger come first, and Jack was in his prime now.  Jack didn't have the target that Tiger had, and despite some of the accusations bandied around here about his goals, he wasn't as consumed with golf as Tiger is.  Jack had a business to run, as well as family obligations that he actually took seriously.  Jack, despite his on course game face, also faithfully played in the big pro-am tournaments like the Crosby and the Gleason, which gave him at least the appearance of being more approachable.  Tiger has long since avoided playing in anything that might make him show a human side.

To me there is more than just numbers in the test of a player's worth, but if you want to use the numbers than you can't cherry pick them.  Those who back Tiger immediately poo-poo on Jack's 19 second place finishes in Majors.  I personally feel that they are significant in measuring his overall performance, how much he was in the hunt.  Jack also built part of his reputation on his "charge", coming from behind and trampling his competition as he passed them.  Tiger has a reputation as a front runner, but lacking the stuff to overtake a competitor.

All of these tangible and intangible factors weigh in to the final tally for me.  I was a Nicklaus fan and I was/am a Tiger fan.  I won't accept either one as the best ever (I really hate the acronym) unless Tiger affects a comeback and proves that he is better.  At the moment they are head to head, each with different stats factoring into the total, with enough unmeasurable or intangible or non-comparable achievements that it's just not possible for me to say that either one had the best career.