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

[chspeed]

2 minutes ago, jbishop15 said:

Read entire post please. Point is that the answer to who is the GOAT is subjective. You can choose facts, statistics, or polls you want to support your conclusion, and discount others that don't. If we can't agree on the definition of GOAT, we'll never agree on the determinative criteria.

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, chspeed said:

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

What's the context?

I haven't talked about which is "the better driver" or any of those things (which aren't really facts, either). My comment re: skydog was re: him making up the 70% thing as if it was a fact.

Also, please, save the political commentary.

[chspeed]

10 minutes ago, iacas said:

What's the context?

I haven't talked about which is "the better driver" or any of those things (which aren't really facts, either). My comment re: skydog was re: him making up the 70% thing as if it was a fact.

Also, please, save the political commentary.

Apologies for the politics.

I was talking about the bigger picture of this entire debate.

[Golfingdad]

5 hours ago, phillyk said:

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.

This passage reads two ways to me.  The way I think you mean it is that people actually count their opinion of Tiger as a person towards his qualifications as GOAT or SGOAT (second greatest of all time ).  I agree that off the course stuff doesn't really play into it for me, but I can see where people might consider it if on the course stuff doesn't solve the issue for them.

The other way to read it - that I think is probably true - is that were it not for his personal life issues in 2009, this wouldn't be much of a discussion or debate because he'd (probably) have several more wins and major wins to his name.  As it is, 18>14 barely holds up as an argument, so we can imagine the flimsiness of an 18>16 or 17, or worse, the absurdity of a 18>18 or 18>19 argument. 

[jbishop15]

19 minutes ago, chspeed said:

Read entire post please. Point is that the answer to who is the GOAT is subjective. You can choose facts, statistics, or polls you want to support your conclusion, and discount others that don't. If we can't agree on the definition of GOAT, we'll never agree on the determinative criteria.

Of course it is subjective. That's the point of the thread. Facts and stats are combined to make arguments for one or the other. If you don't feel that we can ever truly settle on who the GOAT is, then this thread isn't for you.

I don't mean that as an insult. It just seems that you're wasting your time trying to convince anybody that it is unknowable, because that's literally the reason we're all here; because we think it is knowable, and arguable. 

[skydog]

47 minutes ago, iacas said:

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.

So I have to proceed everything with the 'IMO' comment but you don't need to when you declare your opinion? Got it, good to know. I don't think anyone would read my comment and need to see fine print that is was my opinion but OK. 

 

47 minutes ago, iacas said:

I didn't consider the poll in forming my opinion. And my one vote counts as just one vote, like everyone else's.

You didn't consider the poll in forming your opinion but you often reference it as support when stating that Tiger is the GOAT. 

Edited February 27, 2018 by skydog

[lastings]

Man, this thread has gone to an...   interesting place..  

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, skydog said:

So I have to proceed everything with the 'IMO' comment but you don't need to when you declare your opinion? Got it, good to know.

That's not at all what I said.

I said that when you make up numbers like "70%," that it's an attempt to sound like a fact, when really it's just a guess based on your opinion.

"Tiger is the GOAT" is an obvious opinion. "70% of people aged 60+ would vote for Jack" is not obviously an opinion. It's an opinion masquerading as a fact.

4 minutes ago, skydog said:

You didn't consider the poll in forming your opinion but you often reference it as support when stating that Tiger is the GOAT. 

No, I don't.

I have pointed out that Jack supporters are in the minority. But a poll not at all a "reason" why I think he's the GOAT.

I'm not swayed by the majority. I've used a Mac continuously since the 80s. The majority is a data point, but how much weight you give it is up to you. I don't give it much at all.

[skydog]

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

That's not at all what I said.

I said that when you make up numbers like "70%," that it's an attempt to sound like a fact, when really it's just a guess based on your opinion.

"Tiger is the GOAT" is an obvious opinion. "70% of people aged 60+ would vote for Jack" is not obviously an opinion. It's an opinion masquerading as a fact.

No, I don't.

I have pointed out that Jack supporters are in the minority. But a poll not at all a "reason" why I think he's the GOAT.

I fail to see the distinction but we'll agree to disagree. Again i don't think anyone would read my comment and think my 70% number were fact but OK. 

FWIW at my club it's probably more like 80/20 of the old timers. Sit around the card room with them and there's not much love for Tiger. Does that mean anything? No of course, not, just like my 70% pie in the sky guess/rhetorical number meant nothing other than to make the argument that the poll will inevitability be heavily skewed based on those in the poll. That is a known reality of statistics, not a comment of slander. 

Edited February 27, 2018 by skydog

[iacas]

11 minutes ago, skydog said:

FWIW at my club it's probably more like 80/20 of the old timers. Sit around the card room with them and there's not much love for Tiger. Does that mean anything? No of course, not, just like my 70% pie in the sky guess/rhetorical number meant nothing other than to make the argument that the poll will inevitability be heavily skewed based on those in the poll. That is a known reality of statistics, not a comment of slander. 

The thing is… by trying to dismiss the weight of the poll by saying "people will vote for whomever they saw play" (paraphrased, not a quote), you're giving the poll more weight than I've ever given it.

We don't have to agree to disagree. It's okay to simply disagree.

[Jack Watson]

On 2/25/2018 at 9:18 AM, skydog said:

For the love of all that is good in this world, let's not compare Jack's 86 charge to what that pasty punk lucked into in 2016.

Jack shot a final round 65 and went four under on the last four holes to win. The other leaders had a hole or two (Seve on 15) that ended up costing them but none of them folded. Kite, Norman, and Seve (2/3/4th place finishers) shot final rounds 68, 70, and 70....not exactly folding. Jack just made a legendary back nine charge. 

Willett win circumstance shows what kind of real heart these modern guys lack.  People with perspective in life understand that.

Its tougher to beat five guys with heart than a hundred of spoiled sissies.

 

[jbishop15]

14 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Willett win circumstance shows what kind of real heart these modern guys lack.  People with perspective in life understand that.

Its tougher to beat five guys with heart than a hundred of spoiled sissies.

 

This is the argument people make when they have no argument. A straight appeal to emotion, and nostalgia. 

I also know that it's comforting to believe that, if you just tried a little harder, believed a little more, wanted it just a little bit more, that you'd come out farther in golf. But you don't. I guarantee you Tom Watson wanted that British Open more than Stewart Cink did. Tom Watson showed more "heart" than Stewart Cink. And yet, he came up short. 

You know what we called guys who had heart in high school? Backups. Everybody who makes it to the tour has "heart", but they have skill, too. 

[StefanUrkel]

You have to define goat.  My definition of Goat is how good a player is relative to his competition. A baseball stat like OPS+. For the same reason that Bonds> Ruth= Tiger>Jack.  At least Jack played against all players in the world. 

[boogielicious]

7 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

Willett win circumstance shows what kind of real heart these modern guys lack.  People with perspective in life understand that.

Its tougher to beat five guys with heart than a hundred of spoiled sissies.

 

Please walk up to Speith, DJ, McIlroy, Garcia, Els, Mickelson, B. Watson, Vijay, etc. and tell them they have no heart and call them 'sissies'. This is another one of you dumb statements.

[iacas]

10 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

Willett win circumstance shows what kind of real heart these modern guys lack.  People with perspective in life understand that.

Its tougher to beat five guys with heart than a hundred of spoiled sissies.

First response, @boogielicious already handled:

2 hours ago, boogielicious said:

Please walk up to Speith, DJ, McIlroy, Garcia, Els, Mickelson, B. Watson, Vijay, etc. and tell them they have no heart and call them 'sissies'. This is another one of you dumb statements.

Second response: How much "heart" did it take for Seve to chunk hook one into the pond on 15? Wasn't even CLOSE, and he was in an ideal spot. Seve had three holes left to make a birdie, but instead bogeyed 17 instead. How much "heart" did it take for Greg Norman to, once again, miss wide right on 18 when par gets him into a playoff and birdie wins? Tom Kite finished well, in shooting 67, but was one shot shy. Kite and his one major he ever won.

So please, tell us, how do "people with perspective in life" reconcile the failures of Seve and Norman? What "heart" did they display in choking and hitting two of the worst shots (chunk hook and a huge block well right) in major championship golf?

I mean, that Seve shot was pure 10-handicapper level stuff.

[MuniGrit]

He has hrart/no heart is a stupid term thrown around in sports. Heart (as it is thrown around) will win you nothing without talent.

[skydog]

We can't all agree on who the GOAT is but can we at least all agree that Willett is the WOAT (worst of all time)? We can only hope Augusta finds a way to revoke that whole lifetime invite thing so we don't have to see him for the next 40 years. 

[lastings]

I'm sure we can find a way to work Jean Ven de Velde into this conversation, can't we?