Jump to content
IGNORED

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


sungho_kr

Greatest Golfer (GOAT)  

214 members have voted

  1. 1. Tiger or Jack: Who's the greatest golfer?

    • Tiger Woods is the man
      1629
    • Jack Nicklaus is my favorite
      817


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, turtleback said:

Nope, you blindly worship Jack.  It is obvious that you have not read much, if any, of the thread.  But hey, you saw Jack.  In person, yet.  So what.  I did too.  I saw him win his last USGA championship at Cherry Hills.  I saw Tiger play as well - although in person I only saw practice rounds.  So what.  That does not make my assessment of their respective careers more or less credible.  Geee, I never saw Hogan play so I guess we cannot count him in the discussion.  

You think Jack was better.  That is fine.  You are entitled to your opinion.  Just don't spoil it with specious reasons or arguments.  Because those we will slice apart like one of Klinger's salamis.

 

I'm amazed by some of the putdowns I see here towards anyone who dares suggest that Jack may have been better than Tiger. Both of them have had sensational careers...Tiger's may not yet be over, of course...but trying to declare that one was better than the other is a tough call. Shouldn't reasonable people be able to express an opinion one way or the other without being the object of scorn?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
3 hours ago, Pendragon said:

I'm amazed by some of the putdowns I see here towards anyone who dares suggest that Jack may have been better than Tiger. Both of them have had sensational careers...Tiger's may not yet be over, of course...but trying to declare that one was better than the other is a tough call. Shouldn't reasonable people be able to express an opinion one way or the other without being the object of scorn?

It is more for the posters who don't read any of the thread then declare their love for Jack or Tiger or dislike of either bringing up the same points that were discussed in the first 272 pages. I call this a fly by posting. They are not interested in the thread or discussion. They just zip in, post and leave. It is very tiring for the members who have participated in the discussion from the beginning. There just happens to be more Jack fly by posts than Tiger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

3 hours ago, Pendragon said:

I'm amazed by some of the putdowns I see here towards anyone who dares suggest that Jack may have been better than Tiger. Both of them have had sensational careers...Tiger's may not yet be over, of course...but trying to declare that one was better than the other is a tough call. Shouldn't reasonable people be able to express an opinion one way or the other without being the object of scorn?

Of course he is entitled to his opinion.  But when he lards it with attempts at bolstering his opinion with stuff like "I saw Jack play", and "He was nice at a clinic" and challenges people as to whether other people saw Jack play like he did and just where did you see him play . . .  well then scorn comes into play. 

Especially when his claim is not just that Jack is better, but he claims that Jack is " by far the best".   By far?  Really?  There is an assessment I hadn't previously seen in the thread even from the most avid Jack supporters.  One can argue for Jack rationally, but claiming he is 'by far" the best, and adducing as evidence the facts that a) he saw him play, b) Tiger is not winning now, c) Jack was nice the time he saw him at the driving range?  Is that remotely a rational argument?  Not to mention this little piece of . . I don't know what:  " What is Tiger doing now? He sure is not winning. His historical achievements are nice but they don't win tournaments."  means or has anything to do with anything.  I mean, replace the word Tiger with Jack and it is equally true and equally besides the point. 

So your criticism is completely off base.  Reasonable people certainly can disagree.  There is a difference between scorn at someone's opinion, and scorn at the reasoning process they claim as the basis of their opinion.  He gets his opinion for free. But his facts and reasoning, should he choose to share them as he did, are subject to logical analysis and challenge.  You are free to like chocolate, but if you give your reason for liking it as "my favorite hat is brown and so is chocolate" then people will look askance at you.  As they should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
16 hours ago, Patch said:

A long time ago, by Tiger's own admission,  said a golfer's career is measured by "majors won" . So if Woody does not break Jack's major record, then according to Woody, his career will be second to Jack's.

A long time ago, by Jack's own admission, said a golfer's career is measured by "tournaments won." So if Jack does not break Tiger's or Snead's tournament record, then according to Jack, his career will be third to Tiger's and Snead's.

5 hours ago, Pendragon said:

I'm amazed by some of the putdowns I see here towards anyone who dares suggest that Jack may have been better than Tiger.

Such as…? Calling people who vote Jack "blindly worshipping" him, maybe?

Edit: @turtleback already responded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Well hopefully not a fly-by post but 273 pages is too much for me to even considering attempting. I expect I've read and heard enough golf commentary to offer something at least considered.

To a large degree I think it depends a lot on what performance benchmark is important to you. Broadie did an article on Tiger's 'beat the field' stats that is mind-blowing. That speaks very strongly for Tiger at his peak as the best golfer. Total wins is a big deal in evaluating a golfer's career - the field is the field - and both Tiger and Jack are elite of the elite on that stat (as well as Majors) if that is your important measuring tape.

I don't have the stats for either, but I would hazard a guess that Tiger's win percentage per non-major PGA start is better than Jack's.  It is for the majors at 18% to 16%. Estimating a Euro tour win at 75% and 'other sanctioned' wins at a fairly generous 25% of a PGA win (based on relative field strength), Tiger has 14 more 'PGA equivalent' wins than Jack. That's almost 2 really good careers for a typical pro.

Now Jack has 4 more Major wins. The average among Major winners is about 1 major per 6 tour wins so if you value Majors more, Jack could be argued to be 10 'equivalent wins' ahead of Tiger. Of course Jack's total came after 112 major starts (up to age 47). Tiger only has 76, but hasn't finished his career and could still get there. Hopefully he will bounce back from his back injury and make some sort of run at Jack's  career longevity. Not clear to me that Tiger will continue to enjoy the game like Jack did even when not as competitive, but Tiger's said he misses teeing it up with the guys so remains to be seen.

Now the field is the field but arguments can be made that the field is deeper with good golfers than it's ever been so that would give a nod to Tiger as better golfer. But Jack's Major and PGA winning span overlapped with many more top of the list HOF's (wins & major wins) than Tiger. Phil & Ernie are certainly legends, but do they stack up against Palmer, Player, Watson, Trevino, Ballesteros, & Casper? Or is the record of those latter golfers helped by possibly weaker field depth at that time? I don't know. I personally feel that with such a wide base to the competitive amateur and PGA population in America, that any field for a Major and probably almost any sanctioned event is elite enough so in my view Jack faced at least stiffer 'top' competition while Tiger likely face fields a bit deeper on average..

Did they have more large field tournaments 'back in the day'? 17 of Tiger's wins are WGC's'  Were a lot of Jack's wins in similar sized events? Probably, but I don't know. Size of field can be significant as well as average rank of field, because it means there's a greater chance of some random player getting a really hot hand. WGC's and Fedex events concentrate the best players, but they also shrink the field. That's one of the reasons that all of the Major winners on my list average a much lower rank at The Masters than the other 3 Majors, It's a small field to start and it's chock full of aging former champions. All the guys in top form automatically have a better chance, almost like a limited field Major. Not a limited field event is the U.S. Amateur. Tiger has 3 to Jack's 2.

If competitive consistency in Majors is more important to you than just winning percentage (where Tiger has the edge), Jack may have an edge in consistent Major ranking with an average rank (up to age 47) of about 16.5, while Tiger averaged about 22. That gives Jack a 3rd all-time (among guys who won over 4) behind Hogan & Nelson, with Tiger 6th after Snead & Jim Barnes (latter may be from too early an era to include).

In terms of raw skills in their primes, I think Nicklaus had the edge in both power and accuracy off the tee (thinking Tiger with persimmon & balata). Tiger had a much better short game. Tiger may have a edge on putting, but not huge. Were their irons skills similar or might Tiger have an edge? Hard to argue they weren't both superb golfers. How cool would it have been to see them go head to head in their primes?

Out pf curiosity, does anyone have stats on total PGA starts for both Tiger & Jack? I kinda think Jack may have had a bit fewer starts per year on average, but that's just a hunch.

Edited by natureboy
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


It is interesting in reading through the comments (since this post started in 2006). I wonder how many of the early responders would change their vote. Jack and Tiger are both great golfers in their own ways. Each had a different field of competition too (like Jordan and LeBron). But the post started with the question.... Who is the greatest? 

Some define great by tournaments won. Some by consistent swing technique, or being in the top ten finishers. But in my opinion, a sign of true greatness is not only in playing good golf, but exhibiting good character and integrity on and off the course. Great, in my opinion... Is when the player finishes his round, picks up his golf ball and hands it to a child in the gallery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
1 hour ago, Dave325 said:

Some define great by tournaments won. Some by consistent swing technique, or being in the top ten finishers. But in my opinion, a sign of true greatness is not only in playing good golf, but exhibiting good character and integrity on and off the course. Great, in my opinion... Is when the player finishes his round, picks up his golf ball and hands it to a child in the gallery.

The question asks about the best golfer. How good of a family man they are is not relevant.

10 hours ago, natureboy said:

Now the field is the field but arguments can be made that the field is deeper with good golfers than it's ever been so that would give a nod to Tiger as better golfer. But Jack's Major and PGA winning span overlapped with many more top of the list HOF's (wins & major wins) than Tiger. Phil & Ernie are certainly legends, but do they stack up against Palmer, Player, Watson, Trevino, Ballesteros, & Casper? Or is the record of those latter golfers helped by possibly weaker field depth at that time? I don't know. I personally feel that with such a wide base to the competitive amateur and PGA population in America, that any field for a Major and probably almost any sanctioned event is elite enough so in my view Jack faced at least stiffer 'top' competition while Tiger likely face fields a bit deeper on average..

Did they have more large field tournaments 'back in the day'? 17 of Tiger's wins are WGC's'  Were a lot of Jack's wins in similar sized events? Probably, but I don't know. Size of field can be significant as well as average rank of field, because it means there's a greater chance of some random player getting a really hot hand. WGC's and Fedex events concentrate the best players, but they also shrink the field. That's one of the reasons that all of the Major winners on my list average a much lower rank at The Masters than the other 3 Majors, It's a small field to start and it's chock full of aging former champions. All the guys in top form automatically have a better chance, almost like a limited field Major. Not a limited field event is the U.S. Amateur. Tiger has 3 to Jack's 2.

Of course Palmer, etc. benefitted from the weak fields.

Jack himself has commented several times on this, and the facts are that 1/3 to 1/2 of the fields in Jack's days, particularly through the 70s, were local club pros who were exempted in. Remember the "PGA Tour" hadn't really split from the PGA until Jack and Arnie got involved and they split off in 1968. Before then, and after that for awhile, the PGA looked out for their members.

If only ten or 15 people had a good chance to win back then, those 10 or 15 are more likely to win more events. You want to talk limited fields… Those tournaments were some of the ultimate in limited fields.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

8 hours ago, iacas said:

The question asks about the best golfer. How good of a family man they are is not relevant.

Of course Palmer, etc. benefitted from the weak fields.

Jack himself has commented several times on this, and the facts are that 1/3 to 1/2 of the fields in Jack's days, particularly through the 70s, were local club pros who were exempted in. Remember the "PGA Tour" hadn't really split from the PGA until Jack and Arnie got involved and they split off in 1968. Before then, and after that for awhile, the PGA looked out for their members.

If only ten or 15 people had a good chance to win back then, those 10 or 15 are more likely to win more events. You want to talk limited fields… Those tournaments were some of the ultimate in limited fields.

I'd be curious to see just what Jack said. I think "10 or 15" having a chance to win for typical PGA Tour events in any era is an exaggeration of the relative weakness of the fields. Even before there was a depth of talent in the U.S. and the 'golf craze' here took off, the money drew top level golfers from overseas who were following the better money available here in tournaments and pro positions.

I accept there's been a general strengthening of fields as the expansion in prize money and the total population of competitive golfers (see chart below) have forced top golfers to have more preparation and polish, but I don't think there's really ever been a lack of generally elite level competition on the PGA tour or at the Majors since about the 20's or 30's. I think if the effect of a tiny number of truly top level competitors taking on a bunch of club pro relative 'dubs' was as strong as you seem to think that most of the top multiple Major winners would be golfers from the early days of the tour. But to me it looks pretty balanced across eras. I'll see if I can work up some actual numbers. By the 1920s there were likely about 1.5 million golfers (in the U.S. alone), which is a pretty healthy base from which to draw potential 'top talent'. Total participation in golf from when Jack started to when Tiger started roughly tripled.

As far as rating 'achievement' you play in the era you play with the existing disadvantages and advantages. IMO, if Jack had grown up as a contemporary of Tiger with the same advantages of technology and swing instruction / coaching and the same disadvantages of a greater number of potential competitors that they would both have risen to elite levels and would have regularly been battling for Amateur and Major Championships. I don't think the potential ranges of human abilities / talent really change much in a few generations. Would I consider Tiger more competitively vetted, yes. Do I think that means his talent level and achievements were automatically greater than Jack's? No. I could see valuing Tiger's win total more than Jack's (and certainly Snead's with some 'iffy' events in the total) because of the relative talent base depth, but not sure that transfers as readily to the performance in Majors, particularly the Opens. I think it would have been amazing and exciting to be able to see them compete at their peaks rather than a boring foregone conclusion.

 

Est Golf Population - US.png

Edited by natureboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator
Just now, natureboy said:

I'd be curious to see just what Jack said.

He said something like "even your typical PGA Tour player these days would have been a superstar in my day." His point was that there are a TON more talented players who are far better than the guys he played against.

Just now, natureboy said:

I think "10 or 15" having a chance to win for typical PGA Tour events in any era is an exaggeration of the relative weakness of the fields.

I don't think it's quite as exaggerated as you might, but I also really don't care to get into it too deeply. The strength of field is multiple times stronger today than in 1968.

Just now, natureboy said:

Even before there was a depth of talent in the U.S. and the 'golf craze' here took off, the money drew top level golfers from overseas who were following the better money available here in tournaments and pro positions.

There weren't that many overseas players. Or players in the U.S., for that matter. That alone accounts for strength of field differences. Very few foreign players came over to play on the PGA Tour.

The money wasn't that good, unless you were one of the top players. It wasn't like it is today, and travel was still expensive. There's a reason players back then had to carpool, share hotel rooms, etc.

Just now, natureboy said:

By the 1920s there were likely about 1.5 million golfers (in the U.S. alone), which is a pretty healthy base from which to draw potential 'top talent'. Total participation in golf from when Jack started to when Tiger started roughly tripled.

Just look at the basic numbers. Once you get past the top one, two, maybe three players… it's folly to suggest it was likely that the top 15 players out of 1.5 million players is at all on the same level as the top 15 players from 100 million golfers. It's possible but highly, highly, highly unlikely. Furthermore, golf has attracted more and better athletes recently, too, which wasn't anywhere near as true in the 1960s.

I get it. People like to romanticize the past. But the games and athletes move on and get better.

Just now, natureboy said:

As far as rating 'achievement' you play in the era you play with the existing disadvantages and advantages. IMO, if Jack had grown up as a contemporary of Tiger with the same advantages of technology and swing instruction / coaching and the same disadvantages of a greater number of potential competitors that they would both have risen to elite levels and would have regularly been battling for Amateur and Major Championships.

That's irrelevant. He could only beat who he played against, and the truth is, he didn't beat weaker competition more often than Tiger Woods except in majors, he didn't win more money titles, more scoring titles, more individual awards, have higher margins of victory, etc. than Tiger Woods, all against weaker (Nicklaus's) competition.

Jack might have chosen football if he grew up today. He might have been a career Web.com Tour player. Or he might have won 23 majors because he was that good and the modern advancements would have helped him that much. We don't know. It's pointless to speculate, IMO.

Just now, natureboy said:

I could see valuing Tiger's win total more than Jack's (and certainly Snead's) because of the relative talent base depth, but not sure that transfers as readily to the performance in Majors, particularly the Opens. I think it would have been amazing and exciting to be able to see them compete at their peaks rather than a boring foregone conclusion.

I think the depth of field still matters and mattered in the majors. Even in the Opens. Even in events including only the top 50 players, there's still a big gap in depth from the 60s to the 00s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 hour ago, iacas said:

He said something like "even your typical PGA Tour player these days would have been a superstar in my day." His point was that there are a TON more talented players who are far better than the guys he played against.

While I expect it's largely accurate, I was more interested in a link to the actual quote than your paraphrase. The context of the question and interview plus the exact wording gives a clearer understanding of the statement. I accept deeper field of talent, I don't accept that it's automatically 'a ton' or an order of magnitude greater.

Quote

I don't think it's quite as exaggerated as you might, but I also really don't care to get into it too deeply. The strength of field is multiple times stronger today than in 1968.

What's the average score relative to the field (or % making the cut) in the PGA for the Pros vs. the PGA qualifiers from then to now? That could provide some insight to relative gap between majors field depth then and now. I am certain it's gotten harder for the PGA qualifiers to make it tot he weekend. I am less certain by how much the margin has shifted. The reason I stress the Majors and Opens is that size of field and openness to qualifiers is very important in making the top competitors face many elite players with potential to have a hot run of form.

Quote

the top 15 players out of 1.5 million players is at all on the same level as the top 15 players from 100 million golfers.

You're comparing apples to oranges there. That was ~ 1.5 million players in the U.S., not the world population of golfers. About 26 million golfers today in the U.S. Worldwide in 1920 who knows? But including Europe, Australia, and other 'commonwealth' countries it was likely double that - maybe triple.

Also I can find no credible estimate that supports 100 million current golfers worldwide. Most generous is about 61 million. While there are a lot of clubs world-wide, participation of 'casual' unaffiliated golfers per club is not going to be the same as in the U.S. and that's the only way I get a number close to 100 million based on actual data. U.S. golf population talent base roughly tripled between Jack and Tiger and I expect worldwide it was a similar rate of increase. I think since the 1920's the U.S. has had about half the wold golf population, though that's started to decline of late as Asian participation increases.

Jack was head and shoulders above highly competitive fields for nearly a generation similar to Tiger. I don't think human abilities change by orders of magnitude in short spans of time so I expect that Jack was an outlier of similar human ability as Tiger. How close and who has the edge is IMO debatable. Were Tiger's achievements (esp. the 'beat the field' streak) tougher than Jack's because of field depth, yes. How much more I'm not as sure as you. Did a relative 'competitive break' from full field events offered by the WGC's help Tiger there? Don't know but it's possible.

Combine Tiger's regular wins and Majors and I have no problem giving him the greatest player of all time nod. I just don't think it's as cut and dried or by as large a margin as you seem to. They didn't play against each other so your confidence isn't any more a fact than my uncertainty. We're both estimating.

Quote

I think the depth of field still matters and mattered in the majors. Even in the Opens. Even in events including only the top 50 players, there's still a big gap in depth from the 60s to the 00s.

Size of the field actually competing matters too, not just who wasn't invited to the party. I like the idea of a top player field and enjoy watching the events, but if only the top 50 players are playing they all have a better shot statistically than if the field was open to 156 or more players who are still very 'elite' in skill. As you've said in many posts, golf skill performance is highly variable. I agree and that's why I think size of field is relevant to the comparison, because I think the scoring variability of the top 90 golfers in the world overlaps considerably with the next 90 down and even a bit beyond that.

That's why I wondered whether WGC wins are a bit less valuable than a major or a full field PGA tour event that's also open to Monday qualifying. Granted the world ranking system is better than it used to be, but it still weights international events more strongly than they deserve. Some of the reasons I think you may be undervaluing Nicklaus' achievement in comparing across eras.

Edited by natureboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator
1 hour ago, natureboy said:

While I expect it's largely accurate, I was more interested in a link to the actual quote than your paraphrase.

Find it yourself please.

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

What's the average score relative to the field (or % making the cut) in the PGA for the Pros vs. the PGA qualifiers from then to now? That could provide some insight to relative gap between majors field depth then and now.

I don't think that would provide much insight. Courses, technology… all very different. Too many differences.

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

The reason I stress the Majors and Opens is that size of field and openness to qualifiers is very important in making the top competitors face many elite players with potential to have a hot run of form.

People who qualify for the Opens rarely actually compete for them. The winners and top finishers almost always come from those who qualify automatically.

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

You're comparing apples to oranges there. That was ~ 1.5 million players in the U.S., not the world population of golfers.

I'm not. Very few foreign golfers played on the PGA Tour in the 60s. It's been steadily growing - and travel has made it easier, too - through to now. And even now we're starting to see Asian golfers really take over. The only Asian golfer many could name who competed against Nicklaus was Isao Aoki. Maybe Jumbo Ozaki.

I'm just talking about the number of golfers. There are a ton more now.

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

Also I can find no credible estimate that supports 100 million current golfers worldwide.

I don't care. I realize perhaps your condition forces you to take everything literally, but I wasn't being literal here. The PGA Tour takes the best 150 players or so out of X. As X grows, the amount of separation between those top 150 players narrows. We're in a very narrow phase right now. When Jack was playing, the gap was significantly wider.

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

Jack was head and shoulders above highly competitive fields for nearly a generation similar to Tiger.

No. Tiger was quite a bit more dominant and "above" even MORE highly competitive fields. Both halves of that are true: Tiger won by larger margins and against stronger fields.

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

I don't think human abilities change by orders of magnitude in short spans of time so I expect that Jack was an outlier of similar human ability as Tiger.

I agree. And I've said similar things.

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

How close and who has the edge is IMO debatable.

No…? You don't say? (On page 273 of a thread doing just that…)?

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

Did a relative 'competitive break' from full field events offered by the WGC's help Tiger there? Don't know but it's possible.

You seem to be the only person who regards WGCs as weaker fields that offer a "competitive break." It says a lot about how others should consider your opinions on strength of field.

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

I just don't think it's as cut and dried or by as large a margin as you seem to.

You're assuming or haven't read many of my posts in this thread, because I've said several times that I'd put it within a few points of 50/50. Maybe 55/45. Hardly what I'd call "strong." Of course we're both "estimating."

Tiger's record, IMO, against significantly stiffer competition, puts him ahead. Not by a lot.

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

Size of the field actually competing matters too, not just who wasn't invited to the party. I like the idea of a top player field and enjoy watching the events, but if only the top 50 players are playing they all have a better shot statistically than if the field was open to 156 or more players who are still very 'elite' in skill.

Not really.

If only 30 players had a realistic chance to win a tournament, adding players beyond that 30th player does little to affect the strength of the field. The WGCs could add 200 club professionals that would never win and… the strength of field would remain exactly the same.

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

As you've said in many posts, golf skill performance is highly variable.

Where have I said this? Because even if I did, it doesn't support whatever you're trying to force it into supporting here. The odds of a club pro beating anyone on the PGA Tour these days are slim to none. They were slightly more likely back when fewer "A" players played the PGA Tour… like in the 60s and 70s. A "C" player's game almost never varies enough - not for four days - to beat even 10 or 15 "A" players.

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

That's why I wondered whether WGC wins are a bit less valuable than a major or a full field PGA tour event that's also open to Monday qualifying. Granted the world ranking system is better than it used to be, but it still weights international events more strongly than they deserve. Some of the reasons I think you may be undervaluing Nicklaus' achievement in comparing across eras.

Here's an opinion, but one I could probably back up if I cared enough to take the time (I do not): a modern WGC has a stronger field than many (perhaps all) of the majors Nicklaus won.


I've said this before, and will say it again here:

In Jack's day, there were maybe 10-15 "A" players, 25 "B" players, and the rest were "C" players. Today there are 100+ A players and the rest B players.

I'm also going to request, mostly because of the number of times I've had to repeat myself in this thread, that you not quote or respond to me, @natureboy, in this thread. I'm not keen on repeating myself about something that, ultimately, I don't care that much about. It is what it is, their records are what they are, and they could only beat the guys they played against.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I know this has been going and going but i think its actually a hard one to call. IMO you have to factor in more than just just the number of W's (to quote Tiger), but the era in which they competed in, their adverseries and the equipment.

To use Formula one as an example. Going one wins alone Michale Schumacher was the best, but he had better cars (semi auto gearboxes etc.) and more strategy from the pit crew. Compare him to Senna, less wins but Senna did it in cars with manual boxes, no refueling and, many would say, stronger oppostion. But was he beter the Fangio or Ascari.

There is more to a person being the best than stats, its alson down to personal preference. 

For the record in golfing terms id go for Tiger, just for what he has done for the game. Oh, and Senna was better than Schumacher imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

 Here is just 1980 versus 1990. The number of golfers in each bin range. You can see in 1980 there was very few golfers who scored under 70.75. Then the number of golfers increased dramatically. In 1990 the low point for the elite shifted to under 69.25 (over 1 stroke better) and the number of golfers at the tail end shifted towards the right as well. If you shaded the area between the lines in the middle, that is how the field got more depth.

Chart1.thumb.JPG.6dd4d92d3a81ca271882f6f

Here is adding in 2015,
Same thing the number of players on the crappy end shifted right, getting better. The number of elite players increased as well as you can see more players above the red line on the right side. 
Chart2.thumb.JPG.1aaefb395a40e850ddc9956

As the tail end on the right raises upward the more elite players there are competing against Tiger, Rory, Jordan. Also, as more players shift right the higher probability of them being able to contend week in and week out in tournaments. 

Yea, Tiger faced much tougher competition. With Tiger having 2 more PGA Tour wins than Jack and he did it in 7 seasons versus Jack's career, and against tougher competition. I would say Tiger is the best of all time. This is still rehashing the same stuff. 

Over 2300 votes have been cast and Tiger is ahead by 30%. That looks like a pretty solid victor for Tiger in the GOT discussion ;) 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 hour ago, turtleback said:

Now consider that in the face of these comments by Jack, we immediately embarked upon an era when one player was more comprehensively dominant over his fellows during the next 15 years than any golfer has ever dominated his sport.  And Jack wasn't even taking into account the increased globalization of the game that brought in even MORE players and MORE competition.

Great find!

I am not sure the economical aspect brought into play yet on this subject. A good small sample equivalent would be the Ryder cup. Pre-1979 it was the United States versus Great Britain. The USA wracked up a 19-3 record. Since then it's been 7-10 Europe. 

An increase in the player pool of high quality golfers makes it more difficult to win. As such those wins are more impressive and should be weighted more. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

47 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Great find!

I am not sure the economical aspect brought into play yet on this subject. A good small sample equivalent would be the Ryder cup. Pre-1979 it was the United States versus Great Britain. The USA wracked up a 19-3 record. Since then it's been 7-10 Europe. 

An increase in the player pool of high quality golfers makes it more difficult to win. As such those wins are more impressive and should be weighted more. 

 

Thanks, although it wasn't much of a find since I have posted this quote from Jack in this thread at least 3-4 times, maybe more.

But a great illustration on your part using the Ryder Cup and the well-defined increase in the pool from which the other team was drawn.  I cannot recall anyone making that argument before, but it is a good one.  And possibly the first new point in this thread in years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

4 hours ago, turtleback said:

Thanks, although it wasn't much of a find since I have posted this quote from Jack in this thread at least 3-4 times, maybe more.

But a great illustration on your part using the Ryder Cup and the well-defined increase in the pool from which the other team was drawn.  I cannot recall anyone making that argument before, but it is a good one.  And possibly the first new point in this thread in years.

Not necessarily pertinent though.  It may point to nothing more than a change in the demographic power scale.  I'm not saying it does, just that it can't be stated as a deciding factor without more research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • iacas changed the title to Jack vs. Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
  • iacas locked this topic
  • iacas unlocked this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...