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

[GrandStranded]

His comments about players having to be better in 1996 to keep their card does seem to have some validity. The prize money in golf was exploding back then, much like the salaries in other pro sports. Many college players, who in the past would've never considered turning pro in past years, saw the opportunity to make much money in the sport then the business world. The game changed, look at the PGA. It used to be a flagship event for club professionals, now they allot a few token spots for them. Like all sports, the money changed everything. Kids began specializing at an early age in one sport. Private training and coaching became cottage industries. With all that said, and given the increase in relative skill level of those who play any sport today, the great ones still find a way to separate themselves. That quality survives generations. Give Jack the equipment and training Tiger had, would Tiger have destroyed him the way he did his peers? I don't think so. By the same token, if Tiger played in Jacks day, with those MacGregor clubs, and crappy MacGregor balls, would Jack dominate him? Don't think so either.  

[mvmac]

4 hours ago, GrandStranded said:

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. 

Haha yeah it is.

I think there is certainly a difference in how Tiger and Jack approached winning an event. Jack might play more conservatively the first couple rounds to make sure he didn't play himself out of the tournament. Then would "change gears" depending on what it would take to win. Tiger seems to start with the pedal to the metal and then might back off a bit when he got a comfortable lead.

Whether all that was on purpose or just the way it panned it I can't say for sure, both players were really good and if they had their A or A- games that week they would most likely win. Tiger's winning percentage with a lead after 54 holes is ridiculous. 

[MuniGrit]

It is amazing to me how well Tiger closed with a 54 hole lead of a major. It is also amazing to me he never won one where he wasn't at least tied for the lead going into the final round.

[Chanceman]

Anyone know what their Missed Cuts stats were/are? That might be one key factor in the who's best equation.

[boogielicious]

4 hours ago, Chanceman said:

Anyone know what their Missed Cuts stats were/are? That might be one key factor in the who's best equation.

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

Two that jump out:

Quote

3. Woods had 142 consecutive PGA Tour events without missing a cut, from 1998-2005. That is 29 more than the second-longest streak in the Tour’s history (Byron Nelson, 113 in a row). There are only four other such streaks even half as long as Woods’

13. Woods has missed 15 cuts on the PGA Tour as a professional. Spieth has missed 13. Spieth was three years old when Tiger turned pro. 

 

[skydog]

The 142 straight cuts has got to be one of the most impressive records in all of sports...and probably the most underrated. 

[sheepdog]

19 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.

Might want to check out Billy Casper's record before saying he was a notch below. The guy won 51 PGA Tour events and is generally regarded as the most under rated player of all time. The man was also regarded as the best putter of his time.

[lastings]

19 hours ago, GrandStranded said:

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.

Got it.  Lee Trevino is a TRUE hall of famer.   But, we don’t even mention Phil Mickelson.    Phil’s only got about 20 more pga tour wins than Travino.

[TigerIsTheGOAT]

1 hour ago, lastings said:

Got it.  Lee Trevino is a TRUE hall of famer.   But, we don’t even mention Phil Mickelson.    Phil’s only got about 20 more pga tour wins than Travino.

Its also a bit of a circular argument.  Could it be that everyone in Jack's era was elevated due to shallower pools?  People always cite the other HOF's Jack played against, but its possible they were able to have such success given the relative lack of deep player pool.  

The pro-tiger side will say, "Jack only had to beat 50 or 60 other guys (whatever it was), few to no international players, country club pros", etc.  And then the pro-Jack side will say, yeah but Jack was beating all time greats.  Palmer, Watson, Player, Trevino etc. Palmer had 6 majors, Watson 8 etc And then it goes in circles.

 Jack facing multiple HOFers doesn't refute the shallow player pool argument,  In fact it probably re-enforces it.  I wasn't alive when they were playing so I cant comment myself.  But it makes sense that its a lot easier to only have to beat 50 guys than 100 to win a tournament,  And if that's the case, then that played a part in Jack getting to 18, but also Watson getting 8.  Watson having 8 majors does nothing to refute the initial claim that Jack faced shallower competition.

Similarly, the anti-Tiger guys will say, "Tiger never beat anyone,  few multiple major winners" etc.  But you could easily argue that's specifically because of Tiger.  Its because of Tiger's dominance that there were so few other multiple winners.  This argument doesn't necessarily offer evidence that Tiger didn't face any true competition.   

So in summation, the pro-Tiger argument seems to be stronger and more logical, whereas the pro-Jack/ anti-Tiger is really a circular argument that is tough to substantiate. 

 

 

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, TigerIsTheGOAT said:

Its also a bit of a circular argument.  Could it be that everyone in Jack's era was elevated due to shallower pools?  People always cite the other HOF's Jack played against, but its possible they were able to have such success given the relative lack of deep player pool.

 

[TigerIsTheGOAT]

18 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

Thanks.  Relatively new to this forum (love it ) so I hadn't seen that thread.  I will check it out.

[sheepdog]

5 hours ago, lastings said:

Got it.  Lee Trevino is a TRUE hall of famer.   But, we don’t even mention Phil Mickelson.    Phil’s only got about 20 more pga tour wins than Travino.

Mickelson was number two to Tiger, Compare the number two to Nicklaus that played the PGA tour full time which would be Arnold Palmer, 62 wins 7 majors, or Tom Watson, 39 wins and 8 majors, not Trevino.

[TigerIsTheGOAT]

Just now, sheepdog said:

Mickelson was number two to Tiger, Compare the number two to Nicklaus that played the PGA tour full time which would be Arnold Palmer, 62 wins 7 majors, or Tom Watson, 39 wins and 8 majors, not Trevino.

Still ignores the possibility (high likelihood) that Palmer and Watson's (and Jack's and everyone else) numbers are inflated due to a shallower pool of players.

You cant just point to Watson having 8 majors as evidence that Jack played steeper competition.  Its very likely that Watson was able to win 8 because he had to beat 50 or 60 guys instead of 90 or 100 (or whatever the #s are).  Likewise Phil's 6 could easily be 10 or 12 with a shallower pool of players or without Tiger. 

 Its impossible to compare eras for this reason.   The argument is that Jack didn't have to play against as deep of a pool of players (#'s wise).  Citing Tom Watson winning 8 majors does nothing to refute this.

[GrandStranded]

You guys seem to conveniently forget I gave the slight edge to Tiger. But that's not good enough for the "Tiger and it's not even close" crowd.I love this depth of field argument. Maybe right now in 2018 it holds water, but the level of play, and depth of field didn't take near the jump from the 80's to the mid 90's. I saw both eras, so give me a break. The only "depth" Tiger faced late 90's early 2000's was the depth of choke artists, or in the case of an Ernie Els, excellent players whose will seemed to be broken. Also, nowhere did I dismiss Phil. Casper I listed a notch below Nicklaus, Palmer, Watson and Trevino. But put him in the field againt the 90's field, he would've kicked butt. I'm standing by that. Lastly, someone whose THREAD name is TigeristheGOAT is the last guy I'd look to for an unbiased opinion.

[TigerIsTheGOAT]

24 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

You guys seem to conveniently forget I gave the slight edge to Tiger. But that's not good enough for the "Tiger and it's not even close" crowd.I love this depth of field argument. Maybe right now in 2018 it holds water, but the level of play, and depth of field didn't take near the jump from the 80's to the mid 90's. I saw both eras, so give me a break. The only "depth" Tiger faced late 90's early 2000's was the depth of choke artists, or in the case of an Ernie Els, excellent players whose will seemed to be broken. Also, nowhere did I dismiss Phil. Casper I listed a notch below Nicklaus, Palmer, Watson and Trevino. But put him in the field againt the 90's field, he would've kicked butt. I'm standing by that. Lastly, someone whose THREAD name is TigeristheGOAT is the last guy I'd look to for an unbiased opinion.

Wow what a thoughtful response.  You directly addressed all of my points.  Actually you didn't address a single thing I said, provided zero analysis or stats whatsoever, and all of your points are 100% opinion.

Why don't you address the points I made rather than make assumptions based on my name?

Are they valid points or not?  Do you agree or not?  My username has nothing to do with it.

And frankly nothing I never even stated an opinion on the topic, simply refuted someones point.  Do you agree or disagree with my rebuttal?

Also you seem to confuse depth of field with quality of field.  Depth field simply means if there are 100 guys in a field, you are probably less likely to win than if there are only 50 guys or 20 guys, and so on.  Even if the smaller quantity may have higher quality, but it doesn't' even take quality into consideration. Pretty simple math here.

[Throwback]

What the hell is a Goat any way? Jack was the best in his day, Tiger the best in his. The real question is who is next.

Edited March 6, 2018 by Throwback

[GrandStranded]

Sorry, didn't ignore the points you made, I simply disagreed with them. You take random charts, stats (any can be easily skewed to support either side) and depth vs quality arguments which favor your side of the discussion and take them as gospel.I'm going by what I saw with my own eyes. Thats good enough for me.  Again for the last time, I favored Tiger, by a slim margin. This isn't good enough for the pro Tiger crowd, so be it.  

Apparently both cannot be given that much credit. One has to be better, and by a lot, it seems.

2 hours ago, sheepdog said:

Mickelson was number two to Tiger, Compare the number two to Nicklaus that played the PGA tour full time which would be Arnold Palmer, 62 wins 7 majors, or Tom Watson, 39 wins and 8 majors, not Trevino.

Where was it ever said Trevino was #2? By who? The guy who just took it out of context?

[skydog]

4 hours ago, GrandStranded said:

Again for the last time, I favored Tiger, by a slim margin. This isn't good enough for the pro Tiger crowd, so be it.  

Apparently both cannot be given that much credit. One has to be better, and by a lot, it seems.

 

A reasonable case for either guy can be made and neither side is wrong. IMO the only side that is wrong is those who think it’s a clear landslide in either direction.