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

[skydog]

2 minutes ago, lastings said:

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

For sure. @iacas comment made me think there should be a 'worst shots in major history' style thread.

[Lihu]

I'm going to have to go with Tiger on this one.

He's not calling for a 20% ball rollback. I think sanity and intelligence need to be factored into GOAT.

[iacas]

24 minutes ago, skydog said:

For sure. @iacas comment made me think there should be a 'worst shots in major history' style thread.

Go for it. Seve's to 15 has to be top ten, I'd think.

[jbishop15]

1 hour ago, skydog said:

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. 

No, I don't think so. Willet is a very good player, and deserved to win. Everyone who wins a tournament deserves to win it, and respected for it. 

[Wally Fairway]

1 hour ago, skydog said:

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. 

That is a whole different discussion, but I'm going to reply in this thread because now I'm thinking we can get to 350-400 pages.

Willett still has a lot of golf to play before he can take the WOAT title. You need to look to 2003/2004 for top flight contenders - the likes of Mike Weir, Ben Curtis, Shaun Micheel and Todd Hamilton.
Then you can throw in some journeyman who had long careers but found a way to win a singular major -Larry Mize, Bill Rogers, Bob Tway, Jeff Sluman, Jerry Pate, just to name a few.

I'm not doing the research (yet), but I have to think there are some long ago winners of The Open Championship who didn't have to beat a very deep field.

 

And, obviously, Spieth takes the worst for AGNC #12 chunk/hack'athon in 2016

 

Edited February 28, 2018 by Wally Fairway

[iacas]

@Wally Fairway, please stick to the topic.

[GrandStranded]

From what I'm gathering out of this thread (except for my stating to feel a little sorry for Danny Willet - really guys? would you be happier if the poor guy gave back his Green jacket?) is we have group of people discussing who they think is the better of whom every one pretty much agrees are the two best golfers ever. Then, unfortunately, we have ONE guy whose sole purpose on this site seems to be posting the most inflammable and or degrading remarks or insults to both other posters, or those being discussed. Why not just ignore him and maybe he will just go away? It seems to me there is nothing to be gained by engaging him, it only seems to empower him.

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

From what I'm gathering out of this thread (except for my stating to feel a little sorry for Danny Willet - really guys? would you be happier if the poor guy gave back his Green jacket?) is we have group of people discussing who they think is the better of whom every one pretty much agrees are the two best golfers ever. Then, unfortunately, we have ONE guy whose sole purpose on this site seems to be posting the most inflammable and or degrading remarks or insults to both other posters, or those being discussed. Why not just ignore him and maybe he will just go away? It seems to me there is nothing to be gained by engaging him, it only seems to empower him.

If ignoring him is what you suggest… why mention him?

He received a warning and was being ignored prior to this comment, and mine, and now will hopefully go back to being ignored.

[GrandStranded]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

If ignoring him is what you suggest… why mention him?

He received a warning and was being ignored prior to this comment, and mine, and now will hopefully go back to being ignored.

I'm sorry, That's my fault.  I didn't realize it had been addressed. I would have never brought it up. 

[iacas]

Just now, GrandStranded said:

I'm sorry, That's my fault.  I didn't realize it had been addressed. I would have never brought it up. 

All good man.

[sheepdog]

Well after reading the last ten pages I find out that Tiger is strung out on steroids and Jack's a racist. Brother this whole BS thread is nothing but a waste of time. I think I'll go back to political forums, they make more sense.

Edited March 1, 2018 by sheepdog

[Throwback]

2 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

Well after reading the last ten pages I find out that Tiger is strung out on steroids and Jack's a racist. Brother this whole BS thread is nothing but a waste of time. I think I'll go back to political forums, they make more sense.

LOL

[iacas]

57 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

Well after reading the last ten pages I find out that Tiger is strung out on steroids and Jack's a racist. Brother this whole BS thread is nothing but a waste of time. I think I'll go back to political forums, they make more sense.

Just go back five or six pages, actually, and you'll find the posts before a certain troll showed up.

Or go back to the first page, and read a few from there. Same arguments.

[Vinsk]

Woods dominated golf. A British Open by eight strokes,  a Masters by 12, a U.S. Open by 15. The career Grand Slam by age 24. The Tiger Slam. The second career Grand Slam by 29. Fourteen majors in 11 years. A book is needed to tell the rest. And to all the nonsense re: behavior or personality, remember there was no social media in Jack’s day. Nobody really knows what he did or didn’t do. Bam! Done.

[GrandStranded]

5 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Woods dominated golf. A British Open by eight strokes,  a Masters by 12, a U.S. Open by 15. The career Grand Slam by age 24. The Tiger Slam. The second career Grand Slam by 29. Fourteen majors in 11 years. A book is needed to tell the rest. And to all the nonsense re: behavior or personality, remember there was no social media in Jack’s day. Nobody really knows what he did or didn’t do. Bam! Done.

I tend to agree with you. Woods was probably the better of the two. The only things that give me the slightest of doubt are 1: Like with any comparison like this, the equipment, balls, clubs were so different. 2: THIS ESPECIALLY.  I have little respect for the top tier players Tiger was beating/dominating. It looked as if they were afraid of him. How many times did we see one of them play great for 3 rounds, Then get paired with Tiger on Sunday and shoot 75-77? It's one thing to lose when shooting a 70 or 72 to a guy who shoots a 68, but those guys outright choked. Constantly, it seemed. The only guys who put up much of a fight were usually one hit wonders like Bob May, or Rocco Mediate. Jack was going up against TRUE hall of famers like Arnie, Gary Player, Trevino, Watson, Miller etc. Even the guys a notch below like Casper, Weiskoph and others had a lot more heart then the likes of Love , Couples, Singh, etc.

[turtleback]

3 hours ago, GrandStranded said:

I tend to agree with you. Woods was probably the better of the two. The only things that give me the slightest of doubt are 1: Like with any comparison like this, the equipment, balls, clubs were so different. 2: THIS ESPECIALLY.  I have little respect for the top tier players Tiger was beating/dominating. It looked as if they were afraid of him. How many times did we see one of them play great for 3 rounds, Then get paired with Tiger on Sunday and shoot 75-77? It's one thing to lose when shooting a 70 or 72 to a guy who shoots a 68, but those guys outright choked. Constantly, it seemed. The only guys who put up much of a fight were usually one hit wonders like Bob May, or Rocco Mediate. Jack was going up against TRUE hall of famers like Arnie, Gary Player, Trevino, Watson, Miller etc. Even the guys a notch below like Casper, Weiskoph and others had a lot more heart then the likes of Love , Couples, Singh, etc.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it should be pointed out that, as is documented in this thread several times, Jack himself disagrees with you on both counts.  In his 1996 autobiography Jack said that the improved club technology made it harder for the best players to separate themselves.  In that same autobiography he also said that just to keep their cards, current (1996) players have to be as good as the top players and current top players have to be as good as the superstars of his era.

There is a thread on relative field strengths that you might find interesting.  One point is that the same weak fields that Jack faced, particularly in the majors early in his career, also helped the top guys of his era to win more majors, making them look better.  As to heart?  Jack is the guy who said he just had to hang around and guys would self destruct.  

You might also want to look at this rundown of those wins of Jack's:

And this is the post that quotes Jack on why the era of the superstar in golf is over and no one would ever dominate like guys did in his era.  Right before Tiger embarked on the most dominant period in golf history.  So it is a hard argument to make that somehow Tiger was aided by a more conducive environment, when Jack is saying the environment is so tough we'd never see another superstar.

 

Edited March 5, 2018 by turtleback

[GrandStranded]

1 hour ago, turtleback said:

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it should be pointed out that, as is documented in this thread several times, Jack himself disagrees with you on both counts.  In his 1996 autobiography Jack said that the improved club technology made it harder for the best players to separate themselves.  In that same autobiography he also said that just to keep their cards, current (1996) players have to be as good as the top players and current top players have to be as good as the superstars of his era.

There is a thread on relative field strengths that you might find interesting.  One point is that the same weak fields that Jack faced, particularly in the majors early in his career, also helped the top guys of his era to win more majors, making them look better.  As to heart?  Jack is the guy who said he just had to hang around and guys would self destruct.  

You might also want to look at this rundown of those wins of Jack's:

And this is the post that quotes Jack on why the era of the superstar in golf is over and no one would ever dominate like guys did in his era.  Right before Tiger embarked on the most dominant period in golf history.  So it is a hard argument to make that somehow Tiger was aided by a more conducive environment, when Jack is saying the environment is so tough we'd never see another superstar.

 

Jack said, and still says a lot of thing that make people, especially golfers, shake their head. If you look again at my post, I said Tiger was probably the better of the two. Nobody can say it definitively, it's impossible to know for sure. As far as the fields Jack played against, which is a better field? One with one of the 2 best of all time, 5 or 6 superstars, maybe ten excellent players, then 80 average pros, or going by his 1996, pre Tiger quote, a field of a few big names, who never really accomplished much before Tiger came along, and then were exposed by him when he did?            As far as equipment, Jack's comments strike me as, sorry, but I want to say stupid. Golf equipment has gone through many evolutions over the years, from hickory, to steel to graphite, just in shafts. The ball? c'mon! Club heads? Certainly. Yet in every single era the great players have always separated themselves. Just because Jack, or any author makes a controversial or dumb statement or two in a book or article, doesn't make it true.

[GrandStranded]

As far as what Jack said about getting to or very near the lead, making par, and waiting for the others in the field to self destruct? I've read that many times.  It all sounds very simple the way he explains it, doesn't it? So why doesn't EVERY golfer simply enter a major, get to or very close to the lead, then wait for others to self destruct? Because, when you think about it, it's another stupid statement by Jack. IT IS DAMN HARD TO DO! It's either said with arrogance, which I don't believe is true, or ignorance. He was a dominant, generational athlete. he finished second more times then the 18 major tournaments he won. But that doesn't make him the smartest.