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

[70sSanO]

4 hours ago, boogielicious said:

Sadly, Tiger wouldn't have been able to play on the tour because of the color of his skin.

Very sad indeed, especially in light of the GOAT argument.  To have lost such a talent due to blatant racism would have been such a travesty.  But it has happened with so many other greats in sports, and other endeavors, that were denied the opportunity strictly on race.

John

[Aguirre]

I'm extraordinarily late to this discussion, so this may have been mentioned before. But I think Tiger is the greater golfer, while Jack is the greater champion. Tiger's accomplishments in his incredible 10-12 year window are significantly unprecedented. And not just in terms of wins, but the margin of those wins. And their frequency. But, there's always a longevity and cumulative argument in sports. And Jack certainly (to this point), owns that over Tiger. 

Just as an example, Charley Hoffman was just in competition to win a green jacket. He's 50th on the all-time money list. Dude has won over $20 million dollars. Of course, this doesn't include sponsor money, which easily is in the millions considering his time on tour. He's won four PGA Tour events, including a FedEx Cup playoff event. At 40 years old, that's a hell of a career. The average player who gets a card should be so lucky.

Here's the thing: Despite all of that, he's played in just 23 majors. Jack Nicklaus has 37 finishes in the top 2.

Edited April 17, 2017 by Aguirre

[iacas]

9 hours ago, Aguirre said:

I'm extraordinarily late to this discussion, so this may have been mentioned before. But I think Tiger is the greater golfer, while Jack is the greater champion. Tiger's accomplishments in his incredible 10-12 year window are significantly unprecedented. And not just in terms of wins, but the margin of those wins. And their frequency. But, there's always a longevity and cumulative argument in sports. And Jack certainly (to this point), owns that over Tiger. 

Just as an example, Charley Hoffman was just in competition to win a green jacket. He's 50th on the all-time money list. Dude has won over $20 million dollars. Of course, this doesn't include sponsor money, which easily is in the millions considering his time on tour. He's won four PGA Tour events, including a FedEx Cup playoff event. At 40 years old, that's a hell of a career. The average player who gets a card should be so lucky.

Here's the thing: Despite all of that, he's played in just 23 majors. Jack Nicklaus has 37 finishes in the top 2.

I disagree.

I don't think the "longevity" bullshit matters. At all.

[ScouseJohnny]

Quote

I'm extraordinarily late to this discussion

To spare you 200+ pages: psychologically, it is actually quite fascinating in many ways. A lot of quasi-statistical analysis earnestly advanced in an attempt to prove (or disprove) an entirely emotional hypothesis.

[Aguirre]

On 4/17/2017 at 7:54 AM, iacas said:

I disagree.

I don't think the "longevity" bullshit matters. At all.

You disagree with what? I did say that Tiger was the greatest golfer.

[jbishop15]

On 4/17/2017 at 11:19 AM, ScouseJohnny said:

To spare you 200+ pages: psychologically, it is actually quite fascinating in many ways. A lot of quasi-statistical analysis earnestly advanced in an attempt to prove (or disprove) an entirely emotional hypothesis.

I think a lot of people, myself included, with disagree with the idea that it's an "entirely emotional hypothesis". It's not an easy discussion, certainly, not does either side lack evidence for their point of view, but exclusively emotional it certainly is not. 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Aguirre said:

You disagree with what?

That longevity matters.

[ScouseJohnny]

On 4/18/2017 at 6:03 PM, jbishop15 said:

I think a lot of people, myself included, with disagree with the idea that it's an "entirely emotional hypothesis". It's not an easy discussion, certainly, not does either side lack evidence for their point of view, but exclusively emotional it certainly is not. 

It's an emotional hypothesis because "the greatest of all time" is meaningless unless you connect with the concept, emotionally. Can you chart the time at which golf will end? No, and nor can I. Can anyone prove that Jack's or Tiger's achievements are unrepeatable or unbeatable? No, and, "Statistically highly unlikely" isn't good enough to attribute GOAT status. For all we know some Chinese wunderkind appears in 2020 and wins 20 majors in 5 years. If you want to call either Jack or Tiger, "The greatest we have seen to date, in living and/or recorded memory, up until now," then I'd probably concur, but that lacks a certain pithiness, despite its factual basis.

But the truly emotional aspect is reflected upon reading some of the posts on here. People really, really, really care about this shit. Both Jack's and Tiger's careers are firmly in the rear-view mirror. Did either of them set out to be the GOAT? Or did they just aim to win the competitions they entered, and now their respective fans wish to further embellish their historical achievements? Meanwhile, golf moves on without them, new records will be written - such is the nature of things.

 

 

Edited April 19, 2017 by ScouseJohnny

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, ScouseJohnny said:

It's an emotional hypothesis because "the greatest of all time" is meaningless unless you connect with the concept, emotionally. Can you chart the time at which golf will end? No, and nor can I. Can anyone prove that Jack's or Tiger's achievements are unrepeatable or unbeatable? No, and, "Statistically highly unlikely" isn't good enough to attribute GOAT status. For all we know some Chinese wunderkind appears in 2020 and wins 20 majors in 5 years.

C'mon, you're overthinking it.

GOAT is always "at this point in time."

[iacas]

http://www.golfchannel.com/article/golf-central-blog/stats-incredible-tigers-40-greatest-numerical-records/

Some pretty good stuff there.

[Zekez]

48 minutes ago, iacas said:

http://www.golfchannel.com/article/golf-central-blog/stats-incredible-tigers-40-greatest-numerical-records/

Some pretty good stuff there.

 During the 2000 PGA Tour season, Woods recorded one round higher than 73. It came in the first round of the Masters. He shot 75, on a day when the field averaged 75.59. 

From 2002-05, Woods had 1,540 putts from 3 feet and in on the PGA Tour. He only missed three of them. 

 

Edited November 29, 2017 by Zekez

[The Hook Meister]

I voted for Jack. He was on top one hell of a lot longer than tiger.  He has 18 majors, more than tiger. There has been very little or no drama off the course on Jack. Jack is the man.

[Used to Be a 3]

I'm old enough to have watched both win multiple majors.  For greatest peak, it's Tiger, for greatest overall career, it's Jack. Tiger was unable to sustain greatness and manage his career to Jack's level, and 18 major championships plus 19 second places is beyond anything Tiger approached.  Jack could've gotten close to 30 majors if the competition had not been so stiff in his era, but even though he lost a lot of majors to them, he still outlasted Palmer's, Player's, Watson's and Trevino's best. 

Those who say Tiger could outbomb Jack probably aren't old enough to remember just how far Jack could drive with steel shafts and persimmon when he needed to, give Jack modern equipment back in the mid-1960s when he was at the peak of his strength and he'd probably average 300 to 310 a drive.  Thing is, Jack often throttled back when the course dictated, so figures are misleading. 

There has never been as great a run as when Tiger held all four majors at the same time in 2000-01, at his peak Tiger was better than Jack at his peak, but there has never been as great a career as Jack's.

Edited January 15, 2018 by Used to Be a 3

[Piz]

It's Walter Hagen...then Jack...then Tiger.  The North Korean guy would be first; but he never won a major and that has to count for something.

[Patch]

Niether is GOAT, but both are GOTE. (greatest of their era)

Edited January 15, 2018 by Patch

[Used to Be a 3]

On 4/18/2017 at 8:38 PM, iacas said:

I disagree.  I don't think the "longevity" bull---- matters. At all.

Let me shoot across your bow here.  If longevity doesn't matter AT ALL, then couldn't the GOAT merely be the person who played the greatest in the biggest moment at a single point in time?  Again, if we're taking your words literally, the greatest should be defined like Bob Beamon broad jumping way, way farther than anyone at the '68 Olympics and pushing the record out two feet. Was he the GOAT by dint of a single great performance?  Few track and field experts would've considered him the greatest, even before his record was finally surpassed decades later. 

But by your definition (i.e., "I don't think this 'longevity' bull--- matters. At all"), if it really shouldn't matter how long one sustains greatness, then why not Johnny Miller for the GOAT?  Has anyone ever had a round during such a pressure-packed situation like his at Oakmont in '73?  Shooting a 63 at the U.S. Open with fairways 25 yards wide, rough up to the knees and greens stimping crazy fast with old school clubs?  I don't think Tiger has, nor Jack, nor anyone. Or, let's take it to the absurd extreme: Sarazen at the '35 Masters holing that shot for the double eagle.  You might say "Oh, come onnnnnn."  But hey, if longevity doesn't matter in any way, shape or form, hey, that was the greatest shot ever, perhaps, in a major (at least what was to become a major). 

Certainly you think longevity matters somewhat, at least a little, surely you want to moderate that view.  Golf generally isn't viewed like world records in other sports or peak performance, I haven't seen anyone present it that way.  This is not the 100 yard dash.  Career depth and length and longevity matters somewhat, otherwise you can't argue from the perspective of Tiger's 14 majors, because by definition those point to the longevity of his career.

Edited January 15, 2018 by Used to Be a 3

[Vinsk]

2 hours ago, Used to Be a 3 said:

Let me shoot across your bow here.  If longevity doesn't matter AT ALL, then couldn't the GOAT merely be the person who played the greatest in the biggest moment at a single point in time?  Again, if we're taking your words literally, the greatest should be defined like Bob Beamon broad jumping way, way farther than anyone at the '68 Olympics and pushing the record out two feet. Was he the GOAT by dint of a single great performance?  Few track and field experts would've considered him the greatest, even before his record was finally surpassed decades later. 

But by your definition (i.e., "I don't think this 'longevity' bull--- matters. At all"), if it really shouldn't matter how long one sustains greatness, then why not Johnny Miller for the GOAT?  Has anyone ever had a round during such a pressure-packed situation like his at Oakmont in '73?  Shooting a 63 at the U.S. Open with fairways 25 yards wide, rough up to the knees and greens stimping crazy fast with old school clubs?  I don't think Tiger has, nor Jack, nor anyone. Or, let's take it to the absurd extreme: Sarazen at the '35 Masters holing that shot for the double eagle.  You might say "Oh, come onnnnnn."  But hey, if longevity doesn't matter in any way, shape or form, hey, that was the greatest shot ever, perhaps, in a major (at least what was to become a major). 

Certainly you think longevity matters somewhat, at least a little, surely you want to moderate that view.  Golf generally isn't viewed like world records in other sports or peak performance, I haven't seen anyone present it that way.  This is not the 100 yard dash.  Career depth and length and longevity matters somewhat, otherwise you can't argue from the perspective of Tiger's 14 majors, because by definition those point to the longevity of his career.

You're  just entering different categories. The question is "Greatest golfer of all time". You're stating: Greatest round of golf, greatest shot, greatest 'feats' if you will. Totally different topic. Tiger is, to this day, the greatest golfer that ever played. Period. Jack's 18 majors is a phenomenal accomplishment. But in Jack's early days his majors were much, much easier to attain compared to the fields Tiger faced from the very beginning of his career. In many of Jack's early wins, there might have been 5-10 players who really had any chance to win a major. The international field was next to nothing as well.

Edited January 15, 2018 by Vinsk

[Wally Fairway]

9 hours ago, Vinsk said:

You're  just entering different categories. The question is "Greatest golfer of all time". You're stating: Greatest round of golf, greatest shot, greatest 'feats' if you will. Totally different topic. Tiger is, to this day, the greatest golfer that ever played. Period. Jack's 18 majors is a phenomenal accomplishment. But in Jack's early days his majors were much, much easier to attain compared to the fields Tiger faced from the very beginning of his career. In many of Jack's early wins, there might have been 5-10 players who really had any chance to win a major. The international field was next to nothing as well.

Again though, it is hard to compare era's due exactly to the point you make about international players and travel. Who is to say what Bobby Jones could have done if playing golf was a "respectable" career, or Sam Snead look at the events not played due to WWII and if he wasn't hustling (playing money games and exhibitions)  to make more money than he did in PGA events.

Certainly the competition is much deeper today, primarily because there is so much money available - prize money & endorsements. There is no doubt that Tiger had the best 10+ years on the PGA tour, but IMO it is very hard to compare era's.

I love this thread - it is the best thing on the board, and I don't think it will ever die; until there is a new name to consider (Spieth, Thomas, Kizzire, some kid playing junior golf these days  ....)