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

[Pablo68]

That's it; I'm getting a current driver and a current ball and taking them back to 1960 to see what Jack would do with them. Who has the keys to the Delorian?

[turtleback]

6 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

Fact majors represent the most important tournaments with the strongest fields era for era.

Jacks placed best in these games.  Best vs best. That’s fact.

That’s why I hold my opinion that’s all.  Scoreboard.

Its simple to me and that’s all I have to say on this except that I can’t wait for Tiger to get back in his groove and compete this year.  I hope his health is good and he can end this discussion permanently.

Carry on.

That may be true of majors NOW, but it was hardly the case throughout  Jack's career.  Throughout the 60s and early 70s the British Open had very few Americans competing at a time when Americans completely dominated golf.  And before Arnie rejuvenated it in the late 50s and early 60s the British Open was a major by history and courtesy only.  It rarely had even 20% of the top players.  One of the true all-time greats who was the best player in the world between 1968 and 1970, Billy Casper, only played the British Open 5 times in his whole career.  Could you imagine any top player during Tiger's era missing ONE major if they could help it, let alone only play a major 5 times in their whole career?

 

Then there is the PGA, which NOW probably has the strongest field among the majors, but which in Jack's day had a third of the field come from the ranks of club pros.

 

And you ARE aware, are you not, that the particular scoreboard you reverence has only BEEN the scoreboard since about 1979?  Before Jack contradicted his own statements for nearly 20 years and successfully lobbied to install that particular scoreboard NO ONE ever used most majors to determine the GOAT.  I flat out guarantee you that you cannot find a single source or article claiming that Walter Hagen was the GOAT throughout the 50s and 60s based on him having the most majors.  Not one.  So much for that silly scoreboard. 

 

It isn't scoreboard you are arguing, it is a soundbite.

 

 

[saevel25]

6 hours ago, turtleback said:

And you ARE aware, are you not, that the particular scoreboard you reverence has only BEEN the scoreboard since about 1979?  Before Jack contradicted his own statements for nearly 20 years and successfully lobbied to install that particular scoreboard NO ONE ever used most majors to determine the GOAT.  I flat out guarantee you that you cannot find a single source or article claiming that Walter Hagen was the GOAT throughout the 50s and 60s based on him having the most majors.  Not one.  So much for that silly scoreboard.

I knew Jack was a big proponent in lobbying for the modern Major rotation. I didn't know that before Jack there wasn't much talk about total majors being the metric for the best of all time.

 

[klineka]

11 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

I think that addresses responding to those who have kindly taken the time to point out their arguments to me.

Didnt address anything I had to say in post #5179 

Even if majors counted for 2 wins each, Tiger still has more total wins. Scoreboard.

[iacas]

32 minutes ago, klineka said:

Didnt address anything I had to say in post #5179 

Even if majors counted for 2 wins each, Tiger still has more total wins. Scoreboard.

Kevin, as a Tiger guy, it’s not a great argument. Majors are worth more than two regular Tour wins. Guys without one would give up five or more regular PGA Tour wins to get one major.

Just my opinion.

18 > 14, ignoring the strength and depth of fields, is about the only scoreboard that Jack “wins.”

[klineka]

23 minutes ago, iacas said:

Kevin, as a Tiger guy, it’s not a great argument. Majors are worth more than two regular Tour wins. Guys without one would give up five or more regular PGA Tour wins to get one major.

Just my opinion.

18 > 14, ignoring the strength and depth of fields, is about the only scoreboard that Jack “wins.”

Fair enough. I never thought about it from the perspective that someone without one would give up 5 regular wins for a major. 

Doesn't change my opinion on the overall topic though, I'm still Tiger all the way. There is just much more evidence that points to Tiger over Jack than there is Jack over Tiger.

[Moxley]

An interesting thread this.

I voted Jack in the poll (and have said so on other threads), but having read through responses on recent pages , I'm persuaded that the evidence points to Tiger. The numbers are too strong to ignore, despite the majors gap.

I think in terms of ability, a few people have made an excellent and convincing case to show that Tiger is(was) better, especially prior to the '09 incident. His domination was exceptional.

In terms of achievements, I think it is a less clear cut case. In relative terms (how impressive those wins were according to the circumstances at the time) , I think Tiger has it here - while it's obvious the fields had little depth in Jack's era, the strength at the top was impressive in both era's. However, as @iacas has fairly pointed out, it was Tiger's domination which makes his main opponents appear less impressive. When you consider how many golfers manage to win a major, It's also right to give fair consideration the depth of the field.   

The absolute scoreboard is the area where, for me, the Jury is still out though - the importance of majors , and Jack having a clear lead, is  something that makes it more difficult to split the two - in this aspect, I hope Tiger can go on add a few more to make his case more clear cut. I personally think his head will get him another one (if he keeps competing) , but I don't know whether he can  win as many as 4. 

However, looking at it more holistically, I'm settling on Tiger.

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, Moxley said:

I voted Jack in the poll

…

However, looking at it more holistically, I'm settling on Tiger.

You can "Show Vote Options" and change your vote.

[turtleback]

2 hours ago, saevel25 said:

I knew Jack was a big proponent in lobbying for the modern Major rotation. I didn't know that before Jack there wasn't much talk about total majors being the metric for the best of all time.

 

How could it be when the number of opportunities to play in majors varied so widely from era to era?  Vardon effectively had one major to play plus a couple of US Opens.  When Walter Hagen won his 11th and final major, it was in the 31st major he played in.  Jack won his 11th major in the 50th major he played in.  In his whole career Hagen played in 57 majors.  In his whole career Jack would play in 164 majors.  So between these two guys how in the world can anyone take Jack seriously when he claims the only fair way to compare players of different eras is by number of majors won when he had 3x the number opportunities?

THIS is the 'scoreboard' that is elevated over every other consideration by the 18>14 crowd.

 

 

 

[Jack Watson]

@turtleback

We aren’t discussing the Haig or Vardon. 

In all GOAT discussions in all sports number of the biggest championships won weighs very heavily.

 

 

[saevel25]

5 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

In all GOAT discussions in all sports number of the biggest championships won weighs very heavily.

That doesn't validate the point because not all majors are created equal.

Look at the Olympics, world records are being smashed each year. These iconic superstars of their time are having their accomplishments rendered obsolete by better athletes.

Carl Lewis won 9 gold medals from 1984 thru 1996. Paavo Nurmi won 9 gold medals from 1920 thru 1928. Which is more impressive? Do you think Paavo Nurmi wins 9 gold medals against Carl Lewis from 1984 thru 1996? I doubt it. Carl Lewis has had the benefit of decades of advancement in training and medicine. He also had stiffer competition to go up against. More countries are in the Olympics. The world's population increased, so there are more athletes in each country. By your argument, Paavo Nurmi should be equal with Carl Lewis.

You can't just look at a number and say things are this and that with out delving into the complexity of how that number was achieved. You can have two math problems that gives you the same number, but one can be significantly more complex and difficult to solve.

[Jack Watson]

@saevel25

The big difference in golf is it’s such a skill sport.  Most healthy people of average build have adequate physicality to play professionally.  Imo makes golf great.

[saevel25]

9 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Most healthy people of average build have adequate physicality to play professionally.  Imo makes golf great.

They do not. It's not even close.

Spoiler

Nearly 50% of golfers average 91 to 100 mph clubhead speed. That makes it about 200 to 220 yards of carry distance. They are not getting on to the PGA Tour. The lowest clubhead speed on the PGA Tour is 105 MPH. That means, just over 7% of average male golfers have that distance requirement. That isn't to say they can come close to the accuracy requirement. 93% of golfers mostly likely have no shot to make the PGA Tour. Far from your claim of "Most".

Chart by Trackman Golf

 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Jack Watson said:

We aren’t discussing the Haig or Vardon.

They're still relevant. For all we know Hagen would have won 20 if he had more opportunities. Then Jack fans would find themselves citing strength and depth of field…

And, it points out that Tiger should just redefine "GOAT" as "Majors + WGCs." Tiger's total: 32. Jack's total? Still only 18. That's basically what Jack did.

1 hour ago, Jack Watson said:

In all GOAT discussions in all sports number of the biggest championships won weighs very heavily.

Tiger won 79 "championships" to Jack's 73.

Championships "weigh heavily" but you've provided next to no reasons beyond "18 > 14" to support your position.

38 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

You can't just look at a number and say things are this and that with out delving into the complexity of how that number was achieved.

Sure you can Matt. He's doing it.

It's just that it's an incredibly overly simplistic way of doing it.

16 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

The big difference in golf is it’s such a skill sport.

Completely ignores the point: golfers are better now than they were before. Golf is not the only sport that defies the advancement of sport. Football players today are better. Baseball players are better. Basketball players. Runners. Throwers. Skiiers. Etc.

And no, to cut off a possible argument, it's not just because of the equipment.

18 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Most healthy people of average build have adequate physicality to play professionally.

Completely laughable.

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, Jack Watson said:

 Most healthy people of average build have adequate physicality to play professionally.  Imo makes golf great.

Wow. This should be laminated and posted on the most outrageous quotes on TST. Come on @Jack Watson, you know that’s utterly ridiculous. So why don’t they? I’m healthy, above average physicality oh...and I hit hundreds of balls/week and want nothing more than to just have a 3-0 hcp. It’s not what makes golf great, it’s what makes it hard.

[Jack Watson]

@saevel25 and @Vinsk and @iacas 

Just to be clear I mean physicality and it’s not my intent to include hand eye coordination or athletic talent or timing or training by that.

I don’t see any reason preventing a person of average build/strength/range of motion of swinging 105+ except lack of the above qualities.  

Alvaro Quiros was asked about his length one time and his reply was most of it was the coordination.

 

 

[JxQx]

1 hour ago, Jack Watson said:

 

The big difference in golf is it’s such a skill sport.  Most healthy people of average build have adequate physicality to play professionally.  Imo makes golf great.

Depends on what type of healthy, USA healthy or rest of the world healthy? lol

I would agree that most pro golfers aren't super athletic but do have great hand eye coordination which is a physical gift. 

[saevel25]

10 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Just to be clear I mean physicality and it’s not my intent to include hand eye coordination or athletic talent or timing or training by that.

Then they do not have the physical ability.

Golfer A: 6', 180lbs, swings at 105 mph, can't get below a 15 handicap
Golfer A: 6', 180lbs, swings at 105 mph, scratch golfer

What makes the two different, it's their physical ability. The ability to control clubface to swing path, to the degree needed to play high level of golf, is a physical trait. That is why two people who look the same, can be completely different in athleticism.