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

[Wally Fairway]

4 hours ago, iacas said:

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.

I agree with your point, but the differentiation isn't at great as your example of 10 years versus 25 years. Nobody is claiming that Jack was a dominant player into his 40's, I would argue that his '86 win at the Masters is an outlier and the fact that he played in majors until late 90's should not dilute his earlier statistics.

From when Jack turned pro in 1962 he won 17 majors in the next 19 years and from when Tiger turned pro in 1996 he won 14 majors in the next 13 years. I agree that Tiger was more dominant and over an extended period of time. I also think that people can believe that either is the GOAT (or that Bobby Jones is), and that they can discuss (oh let's be honest and say argue) who is THE best golfer ever.

I can't wait for this thread to be bumped when Tiger is healthy and playing the senior tour, and then the discussion will be if he can match Jack's 8 senior majors (or maybe Langer will be the GOAT senior golfer when he gets to a dozen or more

[Jack Watson]

2 hours ago, Marty2019 said:

 

Such a tough question, who is the greatest golfer.  Greatest over an entire career?   Greatest over a 10 year period?

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.  

This.

If longevity is out of the question I vote Furyk since he shot 58.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

This.

If longevity is out of the question I vote Furyk since he shot 58.

That's just stupid.

Longevity isn't "out of the question." Jack supporters use it as some sort of magical "plus" for him when it really just means he was less dominant and achieved about the same level of success over weaker fields but it took him longer to do it.

4 hours ago, Marty2019 said:

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

I'm not arbitrarily creating a standard.

I think Tiger's career, if it ended today, is greater than Jack's career. Period. Full stop. No arbitrary anything.

P.S. http://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/7948682/australian-pro-rhein-gibson-shoots-55-oklahoma-according-report

[Jack Watson]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

That's just stupid.

Longevity isn't "out of the question." Jack supporters use it as some sort of magical "plus" for him when it really just means he was less dominant and achieved about the same level of success over weaker fields but it took him longer to do it.

I'm not arbitrarily creating a standard.

I think Tiger's career, if it ended today, is greater than Jack's career. Period. Full stop. No arbitrary anything.

P.S. http://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/7948682/australian-pro-rhein-gibson-shoots-55-oklahoma-according-report

I have said I don't really believe in the goat concept because the players can't play each other.  It's like arguing the 87 88 Lakers would crush the Curry led Warrior teams or the Bradshaw led Steelers with Swann would crush the Montana led 49ers or Montanas Niners would crush Brady's Pats.

In golf it seems one chooses either Tiger or Jack as 'their guy'.  I think having a long career is part of the equation simply because it's such a rare and difficult thing to do.  Bo Jackson was pretty darned dominant-for a while.  Mike Tyson was great-for a while.

Golf is different though.  Physical conditioning/strength/agility/speed plays into it far less than the other sports.  It's largely a skill game.  You walk the course and swing the club.  So the potential exists for players to excel for a very long time as long as their technique or whatever (training) does not lead to debilitating injury.  I have to believe Tigers decisions to train/swing change(requiring countless extra reps) had something to do with the fact that he is injured.  I wish this on no man.  To me paramount to all golf is avoiding injury.  I don't think many consider the forces in the swing we are dealing with and how bad motions can contribute to injuries.  I wish Tiger had never gotten these debilitating injuries but at some level I cannot rid my mind of the idea that he had a large influence on this due to his approach to training and swing.

My wish is that he is able to rehabilitate himself enough to play a limited schedule well.  He still has a chance...

I am just very doubtful anymore though.  I don't know if you can go back after what he has done and 'get the mojo back'

Foley had him blaming myelin for his inability to hit like Hunter.  Wth was Tiger doing trying to hit like Hunter?  To me it's a total loss in confidence.  Like most I am sure I would love nothing better than to see Tiger make a run at Augusta at least before he's done.  I still think he could do it.  Sadly at the moment I am typing this I think the odds of it are very slim.  It's really sad.  I don't see really any possibility of the senior tour at all and right now his body after two years of rehab can't play four rounds.

Did he make a deal with the devil?  Ten years great and then you have chip yips can't putt or hit consistently ever again due to injury?

To me longevity of career plays a huge factor.  More chances to add great results.  Let's face it aging sucks and with every year it gets much more difficult in sport.  People mid thirties will not relate to this at all but they will.

Anymore I am a huge fan of Mickelsen.  His move has not hurt him to the point he can't compete.  On video it's not a textbook swing but it hasn't taken him out of contention yet.

Look at Kelly Slater in pro surfing.  Part of his greatness is beating young studs from multiple generations just as Jack did in golf.

Tiger may never do this.  He is probably the greatest talent ever but without longevity he never fully realized his potential.

Careers in golf should be long.  When you are 46 and you beat every man in a major it's really incredible.  I value one major win more the older you are when you do it.  Being old there's a lot of scar tissue mentally as well as physically to deal with.  To me it's a bit of psychological mastery to win a major like Jack at 46 or finish second due to a hard bounce as Watson did at 58?

The gravity of accomplishments in golf made by aging players cannot be emphasized enough imo.  In golf as a prodigy you go from your twenties where you bomb it by almost everyone off the tee and bring courses to their knees.

By forty five you are doing it with guile and smoke and mirrors and whatever it takes.  It's just amazing.  You have to literally evolve your game to adapt to the fact that others now overpower the field.  Others are hitting eight iron into par fives.  The beauty of this game is that end of day score is what matters and if at an advanced age you can figure out how to use the limited skills you have left and beat a field of men in their primes it's a truly stunning achievement.

Longevity absolutely has to be considered when comparing careers in golf.

Theres so many reasons.  How did Jack keep the hunger?  It's said in 86 a newspaper article pissed him off and that kind of started the whole thing off.

How did Jack do it?  What kept Watson going all those years?  What about Player?  What they did is really beyond words for me.  It's like Kelly Slater... How is it he never lost focus?  

My view of Tiger is love his game under Butch but regardless of moves he has made I don't like I love the guys golf and wish so hard to see him again at the top at Augusta.

That said,  his road got bumpy (mostly his own doing,   Nevertheless)

He has not been able to respond.  Ten years is not enough for me to clearly say one is goat and one is not.

 

 

 

 

[70sSanO]

Slater is a great example of what Tiger should have been.  Crushed everyone in his youth and then stayed on top way past the time his peers burned out.  Ultimate stud.

John

[Jack Watson]

18 minutes ago, 70sSanO said:

Slater is a great example of what Tiger should have been.  Crushed everyone in his youth and then stayed on top way past the time his peers burned out.  Ultimate stud.

John

Jack builds course.  Kelly builds his own wave.  Sorry Ot I just find it an interesting parallel between two greats.

 

[iacas]

55 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Longevity absolutely has to be considered when comparing careers in golf.

No, it doesn't.

All that text, and it boils down to you thinking it does, and me thinking it doesn't.

Tiger accomplished more in his career than Jack, IMO. I don't care how long each played. Tiger did more.

[Jack Watson]

Just now, iacas said:

No, it doesn't.

All that text, and it boils down to you thinking it does, and me thinking it doesn't.

Well I can say I have fully expressed my view.  Your view saddens me.  That said I am now done here in this thread.

Disagreement fundamentally is what it is and probably cannot be changed.

A beautiful peeling wave is a lot like a great swing.  The energy gathers,  builds,  and then unloads with fury.  Tiger and Jack both had this dynamic.  Jack just did it longer.

For me that means something.  Maybe for others not so much.  

I am sorry that you see it as you do.  I can't add more here.

Good evening.

 

 

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

A beautiful peeling wave is a lot like a great swing.  The energy gathers,  builds,  and then unloads with fury.  Tiger and Jack both had this dynamic.  Jack just did it longer. Tiger just did it better.

For me that means something.  Maybe for others not so much.  

I am sorry that you see it as you do.  I can't add more here.

FTFY (the bold).

And I'm not the least bit sad that you disagree.

[iacas]

Just adding this here without comment:

[MrDC]

I think it becomes splitting hairs once you get to that many Majors won, it's not really all that relevant to compare them on that stat, they both won enough of them to be on equal ground there IMO.

I also agree that both had long enough career to be equal, sure Jack went longer and finished in the most glorious manner, but that doesn't matter, they both had long careers.

Maybe it's that I never saw Jack play, and I did watch Tiger that gives me bias, but I think Tiger is the GOAT.

Tiger fundamentally changed the game, it took decades? for the field to catch up to his level of play, and the influence he had across the globe, the game never saw such growth, the magic moments are close with both players, but I think Tiger had more, all that gives Mr Woods the edge for me.

 

[Zekez]

On 4/12/2017 at 9:32 PM, iacas said:

No, it doesn't.

All that text, and it boils down to you thinking it does, and me thinking it doesn't.

Tiger accomplished more in his career than Jack, IMO. I don't care how long each played. Tiger did more.

Depends on what you mean by more.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Zekez

[Aflighter]

Well unless your old enough to have watched them both play roughly the same amount of times then your opinion on this poll doesnt hold much water.  The younger generation ofcourse will say Tiger while I would imagine the older ones would say Jack. I cant say because I cant stand Tiger so im biased. Im old enough to have seen all of Tigers wins in majors and he definately was dominant and put fear in others. I also saw where most of his wins were from others doing nothing more than him running away with it shooting 65s. In that case the supposedly better fields were actually weak minded. Cant speak for Jacks career. I can see where the amount of majors won can be a factor but that doesnt always tell the story. We really need opinion of someone in there 60s or 70s.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Aflighter said:

Well unless your old enough to have watched them both play roughly the same amount of times then your opinion on this poll doesnt hold much water. 

Nah.

I think it's completely possible to simply look at the records, consider the state of the game at the time, and form an opinion.

[David L Yskes]

my vote goes to Jack... 

i think is Jack played in todays game he'd still have the same career if not better..     

the thing i've always mentioned with Tiger is,  look at where all of his wins came at...  it was courses that he won at all the time... 40 of his wins ( 53% ) have come at 7 courses ( as of 2013 ) 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_golfers_with_most_wins_in_one_PGA_Tour_event

i know a lot of todays pro's do the same thing, play courses they Play well at....  but back in the day lol, when Jack played, he had to play everything cuz he was always trying to provide for his family..  

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, David L Yskes said:

my vote goes to Jack... 

i think is Jack played in todays game he'd still have the same career if not better..     

the thing i've always mentioned with Tiger is,  look at where all of his wins came at...  it was courses that he won at all the time... 40 of his wins ( 53% ) have come at 7 courses ( as of 2013 ) 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_golfers_with_most_wins_in_one_PGA_Tour_event

i know a lot of todays pro's do the same thing, play courses they Play well at....  but back in the day lol, when Jack played, he had to play everything cuz he was always trying to provide for his family..  

Tiger played a pretty consistent schedule. He won a lot of places he played frequently. That tends to happen when you win a lot and when you play the same courses frequently - you tend to win on those courses.

He won on a lot of different types of courses.

[70sSanO]

Actually, it is a good point that had Jack been born in 1975, there is no way to know how good he would be.  His fitness level may have been higher, his swing would definitely not have been the same.

The whole approach to sports and fitness in general was so much different than the 40's/50's.

By the same token, had Tiger been born in 1940, he would not have the same game, swing, or fitness as the culture from that era was different.  No way is he pumping iron or doing Navy Seal training.  Without that dedication to a high fitness level, would he be just as dominant?

I'm sure each would have excelled in any time frame.  But any real comparison places each one in the other's era with the mores of that place in time.

John

[boogielicious]

6 hours ago, 70sSanO said:

Actually, it is a good point that had Jack been born in 1975, there is no way to know how good he would be.  His fitness level may have been higher, his swing would definitely not have been the same.

The whole approach to sports and fitness in general was so much different than the 40's/50's.

By the same token, had Tiger been born in 1940, he would not have the same game, swing, or fitness as the culture from that era was different.  No way is he pumping iron or doing Navy Seal training.  Without that dedication to a high fitness level, would he be just as dominant?

I'm sure each would have excelled in any time frame.  But any real comparison places each one in the other's era with the mores of that place in time.

John

Sadly, Tiger wouldn't have been able to play on the tour because of the color of his skin. But if he was able to, he would of been outstanding because he had the skill and drive. Jack would most likely have been outstanding regardless of when he played because he had the talent and drive too.

These two were once in a generation players.