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

[phillyk]

Tiger haters like to point to personal life endeavors by Tiger as reason for him being less great than Jack.  To me, personal life has absolutely nothing to do with greatness/dominance on the course. And if you think this PED business is personal and professional, please go back to the flat earth society forum boards and draw up your "facts" there for him taking PED's.

What really made me believe in Tiger's greatness was that look in his eye when he knew that 30ft putt was going in.  I've never seen anything like it.  When he's in his zone, you can see it on his face and in his movements, that there is no one who could possibly stop him.

The hard part of these arguments are to define what GOAT means.  Is it over a career or just a certain period of time or even just one year that can define greatness?

[skydog]

1 hour ago, Phil McGleno said:

Cuz buddy I played against Jack in the fields.-A lot of us did. The fields were weak weak weak back then.

Most of your playing days were in the 80s. A whopping decade before Tiger came on the scene....I'm not buying that there was much of a difference of SOF  between 1986 and 1996. Now between 1966 and 1996, yes there's a big difference. 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Dufferpauly said:

HAHAHAHAHAHA...Mac O’Grady!  17 Q schools and nothing to show for it!  just as nutty as TW but basically a hacker...

39 minutes ago, skydog said:

Most of your playing days were in the 80s.

Oy.

That's not Mac O'Grady. It's a forum username.

Pretty sure he (@Phil McGleno) played against Jack in the 60s and 70s, @skydog.

And @Dufferpauly, the actual Mac O'Grady has two wins on the PGA Tour. Pretty sure that's two more than you. So much for "nothing to show for it."

[iacas]

1 hour ago, phillyk said:

Tiger haters like to point to personal life endeavors by Tiger as reason for him being less great than Jack.

They can't win on the relevant facts. The topic is about the greatest golfer.

1 hour ago, phillyk said:

The hard part of these arguments are to define what GOAT means.  Is it over a career or just a certain period of time or even just one year that can define greatness?

Choose any of those and you still likely end up with Tiger over Jack.

Tiger's 2000-2001 year when he held all four major titles beats Jack's best one-year stretch pretty easily.

Tiger's ten year stretch from 1997-2006, or even 1999-2008, beats any of Jack's ten year stretches.

Tiger's career - which is what this topic is about - beats Jack's career. For many (the majority), Tiger's career accomplishments are better than Jack's career accomplishments. For many, whatever he does post-2017 is gravy.

[Dufferpauly]

18 minutes ago, iacas said:

Oy.

That's not Mac O'Grady. It's a forum username.

Pretty sure he (@Phil McGleno) played against Jack in the 60s and 70s, @skydog.

And @Dufferpauly, the actual Mac O'Grady has two wins on the PGA Tour. Pretty sure that's two more than you. So much for "nothing to show for it."

Yeah, a real legend, that mac o grady...HAHAHAHAHAHA...

The angry, “used to sell shoes at Dicks till they got dumped onto the street where they belong, “pro” golfer crowd is very amusing

[MacDutch]

Big time troll alert ^

[Foot Wedge]

Yeah, this is getting childish.

[iacas]

@Dufferpauly, you're completely off topic.

And off base.

[skydog]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Oy.

That's not Mac O'Grady. It's a forum username.

 

Learn something new everyday. 

 

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Tiger's career - which is what this topic is about - beats Jack's career. For many (the majority), Tiger's career accomplishments are better than Jack's career accomplishments. For many, whatever he does post-2017 is gravy.

Tiger played the game at the greatest level ever seen. His greatest was greater than Jack's. Declaring that his career was better than Jack's is a different story and way more debatable. And you know this board leans young and Tiger centric as it's a bunch of folks that watched Tiger play in his prime and/or Tiger got them into the game. Conduct this same poll among 60+ year olds at any club in the country and it would lean 70/30 Jack. Not saying that proves anything other than these types of polls are inevitably popularity contests and skewed heavily based on the demographics of those taking the poll. 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, skydog said:

Declaring that his career was better than Jack's is a different story and way more debatable.

Kinda the whole point of the topic, no? I'm stating my opinion. "Declaring" my opinion, even.

1 hour ago, skydog said:

And you know this board leans young and Tiger centric as it's a bunch of folks that watched Tiger play in his prime and/or Tiger got them into the game.

I know that, just as I know that's a crutch that Jack supporters love to lean on, as if everyone is SOOO swayed by only what they watched.

Truth is, for me, and for a lot of people, it's not just about who they saw play. It's about considering the facts and reaching a conclusion that's valid to them, and supported by those facts.

1 hour ago, skydog said:

Conduct this same poll among 60+ year olds at any club in the country and it would lean 70/30 Jack.

I doubt it.

And please watch the line between fact and opinion. You're making what reads as a factual comment under a thin layer of opinion. You don't know how that poll would shake out.

@Phil McGleno is older. So is @turtleback. @BrandelChamblee has said it's Tiger by a mile. He's seen both play. Idolized Jack growing up.

1 hour ago, skydog said:

Not saying that proves anything other than these types of polls are inevitably popularity contests and skewed heavily based on the demographics of those taking the poll. 

Though there's likely some truth to that, it's certainly not 100% accurate, and may not even be mostly accurate.

Again, you're slandering countless people for being unable to consider and weigh the facts and to arrive at their own conclusion.

It's at least as rude, if not more so given the countless times some Jack supporters fall back to it, as saying a Jack supporter's argument boils down to "18 > 14" with no consideration for anything else.

[Vinsk]

I’ve enjoyed the stats provided and the discussion supporting each side. However, @Dufferpauly although originally entertaining with his powerful man crush on Nicklaus has just become the dope troll of the topic.

[skydog]

19 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

And please watch the line between fact and opinion. You're making what reads as a factual comment under a thin layer of opinion. You don't know how that poll would shake out.

 

Literally no more/less declarative than this...

3 hours ago, iacas said:

Tiger's career - which is what this topic is about - beats Jack's career. 

Clearly my inversion of the poll comment is my opinion and isn't a provable data point. Just pointing out that when you use the results of this poll to add weight to the Tiger=GOAT argument, it's far from an exact poll.

And slander? good grief, just saying that folks are inherently going to be biased towards whom they actually saw play. Not everyone, no, but enough to distort a poll.

[chspeed]

I'm with @skydog on this one.

Talking about facts and statistics and polls when debating who is the GOAT is pointless.

You can talk about who's the better putter, driver, finisher, etc. Those can be backed by relatively useful numbers. Although as we've seen, numbers are debatable too (faster greens, tougher competition, etc. etc..ad nauseam).

But going further and somehow trying to agree on which criteria and set of statistics you'll pick and choose to determine who is the GOAT is hopeless.

I don't mean to troll, I am was interested in this topic. I'm done though. Good luck.

[MuniGrit]

You can't say avoid opinion as facts when you say Tiger NEVER used PEDs. There is nobody on this board who knows the answer to that question on either side of the argument.

[iacas]

22 minutes ago, skydog said:

Literally no more/less declarative than this...

It is more so. By making up a number and throwing it in, you're trying to dress up your opinion as if it's a fact.

I did no such thing; I simply stated my opinion.

24 minutes ago, skydog said:

Clearly my inversion of the poll comment is my opinion and isn't a provable data point. Just pointing out that when you use the results of this poll to add weight to the Tiger=GOAT argument, it's far from an exact poll.

It's a data point. But it's also a factual one. Give it whatever weight you want. I give it almost none; I arrived at my conclusion on my own. I didn't consider the poll in forming my opinion. And my one vote counts as just one vote, like everyone else's.

I also didn't consider how much I'd seen each player play.

24 minutes ago, skydog said:

And slander? good grief, just saying that folks are inherently going to be biased towards whom they actually saw play. Not everyone, no, but enough to distort a poll.

I stand by what I wrote. You're making assumptions without any insight into the choices the voters have made over the years. I'm sure some voted based on who they saw play, but you don't know if that is 99% or 9% of voters.

7 minutes ago, chspeed said:

Talking about facts and statistics and polls when debating who is the GOAT is pointless.

Talking about facts is pointless?

5 minutes ago, MuniGrit said:

You can't say avoid opinion as facts when you say Tiger NEVER used PEDs.

That doesn't make any sense.

It's not my opinion, and I've never said it's a fact that Tiger didn't use PEDs. I've said there's virtually no actual evidence to support the idea that he did PEDs. Can you find any? No. So, that statement is a true statement of fact. Whether he did PEDs will likely remain a mystery. You know what they say about proving a negative.

[MuniGrit]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

. I've said there's virtually no actual evidence to support the idea that he did PEDs. Can you find any? No. So, that statement is a true statement of fact. Whether he did PEDs will likely remain a mystery. You know what they say about proving a negative.

I've never said one way or another because I know as much about it as you do which is just a wild guess. All I've said is none of us know one way or another. I had the same opinion when Lance Armstrong was accused of it for years. I can tell you your comment on his body size means nothing on whether a person has or has no done PEDs.

[chspeed]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

Talking about facts is pointless?

 

Oh come on - taking my quote out of context? Is this Fox News

[jbishop15]

20 minutes ago, chspeed said:

Talking about facts and statistics and polls when debating who is the GOAT is pointless.