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

[onthehunt526]

55 minutes ago, iacas said:

Jack's second-place finishes are looked up to by many, but… are also a result of the weaker fields against which he played.

Same is true of the other players who were "great" during Jack's time.

Arnold Palmer comes onto the scene in 2005? He might not a major. Gary Player? Forget it. He'd be lucky to win a few PGA Tour events.

If you have ten good players and 140 sucky players, those 10 players are going to win a lot of events. They too benefit from the weaker fields.

If you have 100 good players and only 40 or 50 players who are just a step behind them, the wins are going to be spread out a lot more.

It's very simple.

IMO Tiger doesn't have to continue. He's already the GOAT.

And his "relationship with the fans and media" has nothing to do with it, also IMO.

Lemieux was the best. Even Gretzky will tell you that if you're asking him in confidence.

That's your opinion. I think he did enough to be considered the GOAT, and he did it against much stronger, deeper fields.

A third to a half of the fields against which Nicklaus competed were club pros.

Again, Trevino, Casper, Palmer, Player… they all benefited from the weak fields as well.

Sports like golf, when you're judging wins and losses, are a zero sum game - someone wins, someone loses. If you put a scratch golfer against a bunch of 10 handicappers, the scratch golfer's going to win quite often.

Yet in every other sport, players have arguably gotten better. People run faster, swim faster, hit the ball farther, throw harder… etc. Why would golf be any different? It's not. Players are better today than they were 50 years ago.

Jack himself said that a modern-day average player would have been a star in his day, and the greats would have been superstars.

Fields are deeper AND significantly stronger.

I don't think you're being realistic at all. Take little ol' Gary Player and put him on the PGA Tour in 2000 and he likely struggles to win a single major.

The fields are stronger AND deeper now. You know this. You say it later on.

It doesn't.

It was a freak event, and one that could have only taken place on a hard, baked British Open where distance was essentially equalized, where local knowledge and an ability to play the winds and different types of shots than what the Tour plays the other 50 weeks or so of the year come into effect… etc.

I think you're seeing what you want to see. An objective and logical look at things supports the idea that the fields are much deeper and much stronger now.

The quality appeared higher because they were also benefiting by playing against the same weak fields.

The fields in Jack's prime were very weak as a whole. They did get better toward the very end of his prime, but we're talking about maybe 30 quality Superstars as opposed to 10-15 at the beginning of his prime. I consider Jack's 30s were his prime for the most part. Yes there were a lot of one time major champions in the 1970s. And Jack did win 20% of the majors in the decade, and contended in several more.

Tiger from 1999-2008 was just so much better than everyone else. And it wasn't even close. Jack might have been closer to the top in every major with his C game. Tiger was beating people with his B game most of the time, and nearly won the PGA in 02 and 05 with his C game. 

Yes, I agree if Tiger had taken better care of his body in his prime that more than likely he would already have the majors record and the tour wins record. Tiger has lost nearly three full years due to injury since 2008. I believe a healthy Tiger may have already broken all the records....

That being said Tiger is the GOAT.

[iacas]

11 minutes ago, 70sSanO said:

But alas, history is already recorded and those that won in any era are sitting on that list without the asterisk.  Fifty years from now there will probably be someone who wins 20 majors and Jack and Tiger will both be just winners that couldn't compete in that future era.  Kind of a fitting conclusion to this discussion.

I think that's unlikely.

Someone might only have to win 11 or 12 majors to be the GOAT.

At some point, field sizes being limited to 150-ish limits how deep or strong the fields can be. You can only ever have 150 "A" level players, after all.

[saevel25]

I look at it this way. Did the web dot com tour exist back then?  That's 120+ golfers who only a select few will make it to the PGA tour versus half the field in tournaments filled with club pros? Come on, there are many more better golfers today than in the past. That doesn't include the other mini-tours, the hitting coaches, the exercises routines, the use of more advanced training methods, ect... 

Right now there the PGA tour field strength is over-saturated with very good players when back in Jack's time the field was only 2/3rds full. 

 

[Patch]

In my opinion, they are both "GOTEs". That being Greatest Of Their Eras.  This Woody/Jack comparison is not unlike the chicken or the egg discussion. Only difference is that with the chicken or the egg, their is also a rooster involved. 

[Jack Watson]

Really the whole concept of trying to decide once and for all who the goat is is flawed.

Tiger peaking can't play Jack at his peak.  The field can't play the field.

Jack won a long drive contest with his persimmon club and balata ball at 341.  Try hitting a high cut blade long iron 250.  Jack could.  Jack was in contention at Augusta in 1998.  Arnie drove the green at a course I forget the name and a few modern pros came out to try with similar clubs and didn't come close.  I think Rory was one.

Everything between eras was so different.  The equipment was much more difficult to use back in the earlier days.  Snedeker played a round with vintage gear and if I am not mistaken shot around 80.

The ball spun way more.  The courses were not as perfect as today.   The clubs were much less forgiving.  Few people who came into golf in the Tiger era have tried vintage clubs.  The players were not all rich like today.  

Many of the players today are rich.  They have mental coach swing coach nutritionist etc.  These guys are the rich privileged elite.    I am not saying they are not very good.  I just doubt their guts (vast majority have never known what it's like to come up like a guy like Hogan for example who literally had to win a fistfight to get a caddie job.)  I agree with what Barkow said in the link I posted before-it's the money now.  Why should they be hungry?  They are rich and famous.  Sergio's driving a Ferrari at age 23-24.  Pouter has his own clothing line or whatever.

people forget how many times players crumbled trying to play a round with Tiger.   In Tigers prime no one truly believed they could beat him even at their best.  Who was Tigers main rival shooting back to back 65 in the final round of majors?

When Watson made his run at the Open at an older age he warmed up on the range just him and his caddie.  No Trackman wielding Foleyesque nerd behind him calling out numbers.  He just watched the balls he hit as he always had.  I think there's something pure about that that is pretty much lost forever now.  And he striped his approach on hole 72 and got a hard bounce.

Watson learned a lot from Byron.

I chose Jack partially because of something I have not heard talked about much.

Tiger never stopped monkeying with his swing.  Under Butch and Butch said it If his driver was on he was unbeatable.  Tiger was not satisfied with his swing ever like he was not satisfied with a Nordic blonde underwear model for a wife.

It was never enough for him and he screwed around too much with his game.

I like that Jack put down the clubs at the end of the season and let it be.  He knew what he had he knew he put in enough work and it wasn't going away and it didn't.  I am not saying Jack was not very fortunate either in terms of his environment but it's nothing like golf today in terms of the money.

So you can never never say one is goat and one is not.  They can't play each other.  I just listed some factors I take into account when voting who is my favorite.

 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2017 by Jack Watson

[70sSanO]

56 minutes ago, iacas said:

I think that's unlikely.

Someone might only have to win 11 or 12 majors to be the GOAT.

While Tiger has never stated that catching Jack's record was a goal of his, he has acknowledged it when asked.

Therein lies the GOAT with only 11 or 12 majors. It will still be less than both Jack and Tiger.  While the golf pundits and fans may acknowledge the GOAT, the name will still be down the list.

There are just too many sports where records do get broken.  I will return to tennis, but this time Federer and his 18 majors.  His main competition Djokovic (14) and Nadal (12).  44 majors between 3 players.  How could anyone not say he is GOAT.  And you know Novak is going for 19 and supplant Roger.

The competition discussion, regardless of the validity, never quite endures over time.  Let's face it, when Spieth was on that run a I heard talk of the possibly of reaching 18.  If he gets to 11 or 12 do you think anyone would give him the GOAT?  I wouldn't.  I wouldn't give it to him at 15.

John

 

[70sSanO]

12 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Really the whole concept of trying to decide once and for all who the goat is is flawed.

Tiger peaking can't play Jack at his peak.  The field can't play the field.

Jack won a long drive contest with his persimmon club and balata ball at 341.  Try hitting a high cut blade long iron 250.  Jack could.  Jack was in contention at Augusta in 1998.  Arnie drove the green at a course I forget the name and a few modern pros came out to try with similar clubs and didn't come close.  I think Rory was one.

Everything between eras was so different.  The equipment was much more difficult to use back in the earlier days.  Snedeker played a round with vintage gear and if I am not mistaken shot around 80.

The ball spun way more.  The courses were not as perfect as today.   The clubs were much less forgiving.  Few people who came into golf in the Tiger era have tried vintage clubs.  The players were not all rich like today.  

Many of the players today are rich.  They have mental coach swing coach nutritionist etc.  These guys are the rich privileged elite.    I am not saying they are not very good.  I just doubt their guts (vast majority have never known what it's like to come up like a guy like Hogan for example who literally had to win a fistfight to get a caddie job.)  I agree with what Barkow said in the link I posted before-it's the money now.  Why should they be hungry?  They are rich and famous.  Sergio's driving a Ferrari at age 23-24.  Pouter has his own clothing line or whatever.

people forget how many times players crumbled trying to play a round with Tiger.   In Tigers prime no one truly believed they could beat him even at their best.  Who was Tigers main rival shooting back to back 65 in the final round of majors?

When Watson made his run at the Open at an older age he warmed up on the range just him and his caddie.  No Trackman wielding Foleyesque nerd behind him calling out numbers.  He just watched the balls he hit as he always had.  I think there's something pure about that that is pretty much lost forever now.  And he striped his approach on hole 72 and got a hard bounce.

Watson learned a lot from Byron.

I chose Jack partially because of something I have not heard talked about much.

Tiger never stopped monkeying with his swing.  Under Butch and Butch said it If his driver was on he was unbeatable.  Tiger was not satisfied with his swing ever like he was not satisfied with a Nordic blonde underwear model for a wife.

It was never enough for him and he screwed around too much with his game.

I like that Jack put down the clubs at the end of the season and let it be.  He knew what he had he knew he put in enough work and it wasn't going away and it didn't.  I am not saying Jack was not very fortunate either in terms of his environment but it's nothing like golf today in terms of the money.

So you can never never say one is goat and one is not.  They can't play each other.  I just listed some factors I take into account when voting who is my favorite.

 

 

 

Excellent post.  It would be interesting to see if today's pros could compete in the 20's and 30's.  Take the train to the tournaments.  Away from family and little prize money.  Having to do it on their own.  Do they have the intestinal fortitude to compete in those conditions?

Each era has it's own challenges and it is impossible to know if someone from another era could adapt.

John

[Jack Watson]

This is what I mean with Tiger and his swing obsession mental defect.  Butch mentions about 1:20 that Tiger was stiffing it every time with the hold off wedge.  Tiger didn't like the look of what he was doing but when he was doing it he shot 62.  I think Tigers obsession about his swing was his undoing.  He worked hard to get a better looking wedge shot even though what Butch taught him was working.  I don't get it.

All the series of these videos is good.

 

 

[iacas]

8 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

Really the whole concept of trying to decide once and for all who the goat is is flawed.

Then there's no need to participate in this topic, eh?

8 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

Try hitting a high cut blade long iron 250.  Jack could.

Why do I have to try? Tiger could.

8 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

Jack was in contention at Augusta in 1998.

So?

Here's the deal with stuff like that… he didn't win. You can't say "winning" carries the weight and then throw in Jack's T6 (in a small-field event pre-changes).

8 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

Everything between eras was so different.  The equipment was much more difficult to use back in the earlier days.  Snedeker played a round with vintage gear and if I am not mistaken shot around 80.

The ball spun way more.  The courses were not as perfect as today.   The clubs were much less forgiving.  Few people who came into golf in the Tiger era have tried vintage clubs.  The players were not all rich like today.

Which Jack rightly says makes it tougher for the likes of Tiger Woods to separate himself. It closes the gap between the superstars and the stars.

Tiger would benefit from a return to all of those things.

8 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

people forget how many times players crumbled trying to play a round with Tiger.   In Tigers prime no one truly believed they could beat him even at their best.  Who was Tigers main rival shooting back to back 65 in the final round of majors?

Bob May did it. Others did it too.

Jack crumbled a few times in the final rounds. So did his opponents. Jack didn't win his first 14 majors from ahead. Why? Because he trailed, and the guys ahead of him crumbled and he was able to pass them.

Hell, look at his first major: Arnold Palmer 3-putted ten times as often as Nicklaus that week.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_PGA_Championship#Third_round

Nicklaus led "Don Iverson" and "Mason Rudolph" one shot behind. They shot 74, 73 on Sunday to Jack's 69. Crumble.

First major win of Jack's I looked at, too.

8 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

When Watson made his run at the Open at an older age he warmed up on the range just him and his caddie.  No Trackman wielding Foleyesque nerd behind him calling out numbers.

You want to talk about pointless points? You have no idea if Jack would have used Trackman if they'd been available. Hogan would have, many are certain of that.

And Jack faced lesser competition. Tiger wanted to use Trackman - and the current world #1 uses it quite a bit too - because they need every edge available to them. Every last one. Maybe that wasn't true in Jack's day. Maybe you could come off a vacation, be a bit rusty, and still win.

8 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

Tiger never stopped monkeying with his swing.  Under Butch and Butch said it If his driver was on he was unbeatable.

Yet that's got nothing to do with what he actually accomplished on the golf course.

8 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

So you can never never say one is goat and one is not.  They can't play each other.  I just listed some factors I take into account when voting who is my favorite.

Sure you can. It's an opinion.

8 hours ago, 70sSanO said:

Therein lies the GOAT with only 11 or 12 majors. It will still be less than both Jack and Tiger.  While the golf pundits and fans may acknowledge the GOAT, the name will still be down the list.

If you're one of the "18 > 14" reductionists, then just say it and we can move on…

8 hours ago, 70sSanO said:

The competition discussion, regardless of the validity, never quite endures over time.  Let's face it, when Spieth was on that run a I heard talk of the possibly of reaching 18.  If he gets to 11 or 12 do you think anyone would give him the GOAT?  I wouldn't.  I wouldn't give it to him at 15.

I think plenty would. (/me points up at the results of the poll…).

[skydog]

25 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yet that's got nothing to do with what he actually accomplished on the golf course.

IMO it has everything to do with what he didn't accomplish and why this topic is even debatable. Tiger had the talent and should have eclipsed Jack's record....Jack said so himself. IMO one of the reasons he failed to was because of the constant swing changes. There's obviously no way to prove this one way or the other but nothing is going to make me believe he didn't cost himself several majors with his constant tinkering. He was the most talented golfer to probably ever step foot on the earth...how he could conceivably take career altering advice from clowns like Haney and Foley will forever be beyond be.

 

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, skydog said:

IMO it has everything to do with what he didn't accomplish and why this topic is even debatable. Tiger had the talent and should have eclipsed Jack's record....Jack said so himself. IMO one of the reasons he failed to was because of the constant swing changes.

Yet, in the minds of many, Tiger didn't have to reach 18 to be the GOAT.

2 minutes ago, skydog said:

There's obviously no way to prove this one way or the other but nothing is going to make me believe he didn't cost himself several majors with his constant tinkering.

Or maybe he'd have gotten only a few. Or won 5 Masters and 1 other one, but that's it?

The point remains… discussing "maybes" is pretty pointless. Discuss what they both actually accomplished.

And hey, another of Foley's guys just almost won the Masters.

[skydog]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yet, in the minds of many, Tiger didn't have to reach 18 to be the GOAT.

I've never said he had to get to 18 to be the GOAT...I'm just saying that if he did...or the 20-24 I think he could have won, this wouldn't even be much of debate. As their two careers sit today, I think it's a coin flip of a debate.

 

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

The point remains… discussing "maybes" is pretty pointless. Discuss what they both actually accomplished.

No more pointless than trying to speculate how the greats of Jack's era would have stacked up in Tiger's fields. It's all just opinions with no provable answer.

[klineka]

 

9 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

 

people forget how many times players crumbled trying to play a round with Tiger.   In Tigers prime no one truly believed they could beat him even at their best.  Who was Tigers main rival shooting back to back 65 in the final round of majors?

So wouldnt the fact that this one singular golfer, (Tiger) literally made other golfers crumble and lose belief in their own game make him the GOAT? That just goes to show how good Tiger really was. It's not fair to hold it against Tiger for not having a rival, its not Tiger's fault nobody else was on the same level as him.

9 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

When Watson made his run at the Open at an older age he warmed up on the range just him and his caddie.  No Trackman wielding Foleyesque nerd behind him calling out numbers.  He just watched the balls he hit as he always had. 

So youre going to fault today's players for using modern technology to help improve their game? Cmon man. I bet the majority of the players on tour can hit a shot and tell you within a couple yards how far it went based on feel without a launch monitor, but if you have access to precise technology, why wouldnt you use it? 

You wouldnt fault Jack or Arnold for using a wooden tee instead of a mound of dirt as their tee like previous golfers did, its not a fair comparison to hold new technology against newer players. Yes different technology makes it much more difficult to compare players from different eras, but I dont think you can hold it against players for using the technology that is available to them. 

9 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

I chose Jack partially because of something I have not heard talked about much.

Tiger never stopped monkeying with his swing.  Under Butch and Butch said it If his driver was on he was unbeatable.  Tiger was not satisfied with his swing ever like he was not satisfied with a Nordic blonde underwear model for a wife.

It was never enough for him and he screwed around too much with his game.

I like that Jack put down the clubs at the end of the season and let it be.  He knew what he had he knew he put in enough work and it wasn't going away and it didn't.  

 

I also dont understand how you can hold this against Tiger. One, his off the course issues should not affect whether or not he is the best golfer of all time, I simply dont find that relevant. Two, there is no one way to do something, Tiger constantly making adjustments and tinkering with his swing obviously worked for him, and Jack putting down the clubs at the end of the season worked for him. That doesnt mean one is better than the other, just different ways those two guys worked at their job. 

 

I dont hold it against Arnold or Jack that Tiger is probably the most physically fit golfer the game will ever see, because it isnt relevant, there are different ways to do it. You can be great at golf without being the biggest and strongest guy on tour, just like you can have great practice and range sessions with or without a launch monitor and a "Foleyesque nerd" watching your shots. There are different ways to become great. 

Disclaimer I am too young to have seen Jack or Arnold in their prime, Tiger has been the guy I've grown up watching, so might have a slight bias there :)

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, skydog said:

I've never said he had to get to 18 to be the GOAT...I'm just saying that if he did...or the 20-24 I think he could have won, this wouldn't even be much of debate. As their two careers sit today, I think it's a coin flip of a debate.

Disagree on the coin flip part.

15 minutes ago, skydog said:

No more pointless than trying to speculate how the greats of Jack's era would have stacked up in Tiger's fields. It's all just opinions with no provable answer.

Fair enough, but that point is grounded in logic and fact: fields are deeper and stronger now. Stars in the 60s and 70s didn't have to beat nearly as many people to win things.

[dennyjones]

I voted for Tiger because he's what I remember watching.   I didn't watch much golf when Jack was playing.   Both are great for the game still today.  There is much more media coverage today than in times past and that contributes to a more knowledgeable fan base.   Many of the golfers in both generations knew entering a tournament that the favorite was either Jack or Tiger.  Both were fierce competitors.  

Compare this discussion to boxing.    There is very little disagreement about Mohammed Ali being the GOAT in boxing but when Mike Tyson was so dominate, very few competitors felt they could beat him (IMHO).  That doesn't make Tyson the greatest because he flamed out quickly.  

That being said..Tiger's what I remember, that is why I chose him.  

 

[70sSanO]

This has been an interesting discussion.  One that will never be resolved.  But at the root of it is whether people watched,  followed, and rooted for Tiger or Jack.

And it is the same thing regardless of the subject... any sport, music, cars, etc.  Bring up greatest and there will always be sides.  It is funny how Non-GOATs, including myself, can provide so much self assuring positions and then go out and hack around for a few hours.  But it is fun.

John

[Jack Watson]

Tiger v Jack...

Driving?  I give Jack the edge

Mid Long irons?  Again Jack

Short irons wedge play?  Tiger(before age 32)

Short game?  Tiger (caveat before age 32 and pre Foley yips)

Putting?  Wash (giving Tiger benefit of doubt for his pre age 32-after that definitely Jack)

Look at Tigers driving stats in the Haney era.  Went from basically the best or top ten on tour every year with Butch to dismal numbers under Haney.   The goat not being at the top in driving???   His ironplay under Haney was very good but difficult to see a big difference from Butch era due to lack of stats.  (maybe someone can chime in on this?)  I didn't find anything.

Butch said something to the effect if it ain't broke don't fix it and Tiger (possibly due to the loss of his fathers guidance) Did not agree.  He won more majors with Butch.  After Haney he was lost and won no more majors to this day almost a decade later now switching to Como?

So arguably the greatest of all time went from a coach with direct ties to Hogan and whose father won the Masters to what I would term theorists/scientists.  These people never to my knowledge ever even played in a PGA event.  How could they relate to Tiger?  How could this even happen?  Tiger should have been teaching THEM.  It makes no sense to me.  Hogan wrote that he worked on his swing and then tested it under pressure.  Under pressure is the true test.  There's millions of players with awesome textbook range swings who cannot do well under pressure.    Under Butch's guidance Tiger did his best.  He won the most majors.

Heres a vid I found...

http://www.golfchannel.com/video/jack-great-woods-vs-nicklaus-debate/

 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2017 by Jack Watson
Wrong link

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, Jack Watson said:

Tiger v Jack...

Driving?  I give Jack the edge

Mid Long irons?  Again Jack

Short irons wedge play?  Tiger(before age 32)

Short game?  Tiger (caveat before age 32 and pre Foley yips)

Putting?  Wash (giving Tiger benefit of doubt for his pre age 32-after that definitely Jack)

Driving: Tiger, more power. Power matters more than accuracy. 

Mid and Long irons: Tiger. Have you ever seen this guy hit these clubs? This chart shows that no one was even close to Tiger Woods in terms of accuracy with the mid and long irons. This is where he demolished the field. 

You think Jack's 1 iron was tough. This puts the 1 iron shot to shame! A 3 iron, from the bunker, trees in front of him, ball below his feet. 

Maybe this shot,