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

[Jack Watson]

@saevel25

where is it documented Tigers driving was more powerful than Jacks?  A quick search yields this but no idea if accurate.  Of course remember the huge equipment difference.  Look at Jacks gir.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Jack Watson

[jbishop15]

This thread is my favorite place on earth. it never dies, and it never changes. A rock in a shifting sea.

Having said that-- Tiger is the GOAT. To paraphrase Bill Simmons, if an alien came down and we had to play it in golf for the fate of our planet, I'd pick prime Tiger over prime anyone else every time.

Edited April 12, 2017 by jbishop15

[70sSanO]

40 minutes ago, jbishop15 said:

This thread is my favorite place on earth. it never dies, and it never changes. A rock in a shifting sea.

Having said that-- Tiger is the GOAT. To paraphrase Bill Simmons, if an alien came down and we had to play it in golf for the fate of our planet, I'd pick prime Tiger over prime anyone else every time.

So why didn't you post this on page 1 instead of page 280?  I mean if Bill Simmons thinks Tiger is GOAT, who am I to disagree.  I really enjoyed his coverage at this year's Masters or was it last year's Open Championship, I can't recall.  I know how much of a well regarded golf analyst Bill is... some of his calls are legendary.

Thanks for setting me straight.

John

[14ledo81]

8 hours ago, jbishop15 said:

This thread is my favorite place on earth. it never dies, and it never changes. A rock in a shifting sea.

Having said that-- Tiger is the GOAT. To paraphrase Bill Simmons, if an alien came down and we had to play it in golf for the fate of our planet, I'd pick prime Tiger over prime anyone else every time.

Are you sure you wouldn't pick Will Smith or Bruce Willis?

[skydog]

Last night in the Jack series Tom Selleck declared that Jack is the GOAT...I did say it's a coin flip but I'm going to have to give the edge to whatever this guy says.

[jbishop15]

8 hours ago, 70sSanO said:

So why didn't you post this on page 1 instead of page 280?  I mean if Bill Simmons thinks Tiger is GOAT, who am I to disagree.  I really enjoyed his coverage at this year's Masters or was it last year's Open Championship, I can't recall.  I know how much of a well regarded golf analyst Bill is... some of his calls are legendary.

Thanks for setting me straight.

John

l m a o you can find my posts all over this thread my dude. 

Nice job, too, deflecting: I wasn't saying that Simmons' opinion was the be-all end-all, just that the thought experiment of 'one player to save us all' was a way of looking at it. But you knew that; it's just easier for you to snark at me instead of discussing the point. 

58 minutes ago, 14ledo81 said:

Are you sure you wouldn't pick Will Smith or Bruce Willis?

..... okay, fair

[Jack Watson]

Jacks performance in the most important tournaments is unequalled.

Tigers run during his younger days was unequalled.

 

 

[iacas]

55 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Jacks performance in the most important tournaments is unequalled.

Tigers run during his younger days was unequalled.

That's your opinion.

I disagree.

Tiger's performance in the most important tournaments is unequalled.

Tiger's ten best years beat Jack's ten best years.

Oh, wait, the latter one gets close to the facts…

[boogielicious]

11 hours ago, jbishop15 said:

This thread is my favorite place on earth. it never dies, and it never changes. A rock in a shifting sea.

Having said that-- Tiger is the GOAT. To paraphrase Bill Simmons, if an alien came down and we had to play it in golf for the fate of our planet, I'd pick prime Tiger over prime anyone else every time.

It reminds me of the Masters. It comes around every year. Same discussion (like the Masters is the same course), but new players.

[70sSanO]

8 minutes ago, iacas said:

Tiger's ten best years beat Jack's ten best years.

This is actually the entire discussion and it is true.  There is no denying that during Tiger's run no one has been better and maybe no one ever will be better.  His dominance, record setting 72 hole numbers, winning margin, percentage of tournaments won, you name it, it isn't even close.

But GOAT isn't Greatest Of All Ten.  At 40 Jack won 2 majors.  At 40 Tiger was on Twitter.  If you want to limit criteria to a select period of time and not the entire body of work, I got nothing.

In Tiger's defense, it is sad.  His future in the game is not very appealing. So many greats rode out into the sunset, he's riding out at noon.  Hopefully he will still be able to play someday.

John

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, 70sSanO said:

But GOAT isn't Greatest Of All Ten.  At 40 Jack won 2 majors.  At 40 Tiger was on Twitter.  If you want to limit criteria to a select period of time and not the entire body of work, I got nothing.

The "longevity" argument makes no sense to me.

If two players played against each other (so there was no "strength of field" consideration), the player who won 20 majors over 10 years would likely be seen by many as the better golfer - or at least the same - as the golfer who won 20 majors over 25 years.

Tiger's the greatest because he amassed the best record over "all time," IMO. He also happens to have done so in a shorter period of time, but so what? Heck, I could make an argument that doing "more" in a shorter period of time makes you even greater.

[70sSanO]

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

The "longevity" argument makes no sense to me.

Come back in 20 or 25 years from now and we can discuss longevity, if I'm still alive.  It is funny how longevity has more meaning as the years tick away and one's abilities start to diminish; more aches and pains and the recovery time increases but you just keep pushing forward.

John

[ScouseJohnny]

Quote

if an alien came down and we had to play it in golf for the fate of our planet, I'd pick prime Tiger over anyone else every time.

I'd pick John Daly, just to confuse it.

[iacas]

47 minutes ago, 70sSanO said:

Come back in 20 or 25 years from now and we can discuss longevity, if I'm still alive.  It is funny how longevity has more meaning as the years tick away and one's abilities start to diminish; more aches and pains and the recovery time increases but you just keep pushing forward.

Absolutely no need.

If two contemporaries accumulate the same record, but one does it in half the time… I could make a compelling case that the one who did the same things in less time is the "better" of the two.

To me, Tiger's already done enough for me to call him the GOAT in my opinion. I don't care if he retired at the end of 2013 or if he comes back and wins a single PGA Tour event when he's 49…

[70sSanO]

39 minutes ago, iacas said:

Absolutely no need.

If two contemporaries accumulate the same record, but one does it in half the time… I could make a compelling case that the one who did the same things in less time is the "better" of the two.

To me, Tiger's already done enough for me to call him the GOAT in my opinion. I don't care if he retired at the end of 2013 or if he comes back and wins a single PGA Tour event when he's 49…

I was referring more to your longevity, or anyone's else's, in what you do.  You have received acolades, deservingly so, as one of the best young teachers.  Down the road you want to be known as one of the best teachers and not used to be one of the best young teachers.  It is that perseverance over the long haul that is the measure.

Not exactly the same comparison as Tiger because of his injuries, Lord willing you never have to face.  But I hope you would still strive to be the best.  And if that meant you had to change approach, you would do it.

John

[mvmac]

43 minutes ago, iacas said:

If two contemporaries accumulate the same record, but one does it in half the time… I could make a compelling case that the one who did the same things in less time is the "better" of the two.

I think most would agree with that. 

The longevity bit to me is just about the fact that Jack was so good for so long. His skill/swing/ability held up for 30+ years. I don't think anyone doubts that if Tiger was healthy he'd still be one of the best players in the world and why some people were predicting he's win 20+ majors.

[Marty2019]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Absolutely no need.

If two contemporaries accumulate the same record, but one does it in half the time… I could make a compelling case that the one who did the same things in less time is the "better" of the two.

To me, Tiger's already done enough for me to call him the GOAT in my opinion. I don't care if he retired at the end of 2013 or if he comes back and wins a single PGA Tour event when he's 49…

 

Such a tough question, who is the greatest golfer.  Greatest over an entire career?   Greatest over a 10 year period?   Greatest over some other period of time?   Who would have won more if they had both been at their peak at the same time and for the same period of time, and had the same equipment and the same training?  Who played against better competition?   Who would have been better if they hadn't been injured? 

Such a hard question.   I really have no answer.   I vote for Jack because of the majors: 18 times in first, 19 times in second, 56 times in the top 5.   Tiger might have been the greatest golfer of all time if he had not been injured.  But he did get injured. 

Really, to answer the question, you have to come up with some sort of arbitrary standard that disadvantages one of them.  

[14ledo81]

I look at the "greatest" question as this:  Who had the "greatest" achievements?  My answer to that question is Tiger.