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

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, skydog said:

Huh? I’m confused... I never said you deleted posts.

Then what is a "disappearing comment"?

[GrandStranded]

27 minutes ago, iacas said:

Then what is a "disappearing comment"?

He meant "disparaging". Not "disappearing".

[iacas]

Just now, GrandStranded said:

He meant "disparaging". Not "disappearing".

I guess. I only reacted to what he wrote.

I disagree that they're disparaging. It's a discussion. A disagreement at times, an argument at other times. Whatever. Be a man, stick to your guns, defend your point.

And if you'd rather not, there are thousands of other less disagreed upon topics.

[GrandStranded]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

I guess. I only reacted to what he wrote.

I disagree that they're disparaging. It's a discussion. A disagreement at times, an argument at other times. Whatever. Be a man, stick to your guns, defend your point.

And if you'd rather not, there are thousands of other less disagreed upon topics.

Not trying to stir the pot. Just following along in the thread at this point, thought I might help clear up a "mis speak" (if that's a word). I already gave my opinion earlier. I don't have anything more to add that's going to change anyone's mind. But thanks for the advice....

[skydog]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Then what is a "disappearing comment"?

Ahh yea...I meant disparaging...not sure if that was autocorrect or if I’m just an idiot and mistyped. 

[iacas]

Okay.

[skydog]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

 What's the point in talking about the level of play for a bunch of great players during ONE event they wouldn't have won playing at their best, anyway? I don't know. Do you?

I don’t want to put words into someone else’s mouth but I believe he’s making the point that the SOF difference between the 70s and 90s might not be as dramatic as some on here contend and he’s using the 97 field as an example of that. Acknowledging that of course it didn’t matter to the outcome of that event but it matters (for some) when thinking about tiger’s record vs. jack’s. 

I’ve acknowledged all along that Tiger beat significantly better fields than Jack...I’ve just never been fully committed to whether that difference was enough to make 14>18. Maybe it is, I don’t know. Or maybe it isn’t but Tiger is still the goat. 

I’ve also always said that if Tiger could extend his major career past the age of 32 then I would say he is the uncontested goat and it’s looking like that could happen. I hope it does.

I think right now an objective person can make a reasonable argument for either guy. If Tiger wins 5-10 more tournaments and 1-2 more majors, I don’t think there’s any discussion to be had.

Edited March 11, 2018 by skydog

[iacas]

17 minutes ago, skydog said:

I don’t want to put words into someone else’s mouth but I believe he’s making the point that the SOF difference between the 70s and 90s might not be as dramatic as some on here contend and he’s using the 97 field as an example of that. Acknowledging that of course it didn’t matter to the outcome of that event but it matters (for some) when thinking about tiger’s record vs. jack’s.

 

Late 60s to 00s is probably a better comparison. And one tournament can only illustrate so much.

18 minutes ago, skydog said:

I think right now an objective person can make a reasonable argument for either guy. If Tiger wins 5-10 more tournaments and 1-2 more majors, I don’t think there’s any discussion to be had.

We shall see.

[skydog]

22 minutes ago, iacas said:

Late 60s to 00s is probably a better comparison. And one tournament can only illustrate so much.

Very much agreed

[turtleback]

On 3/9/2018 at 8:24 AM, MuniGrit said:

How many PGA Tour wins did Els have in 97? Seriously look it up. 

Where have I ever said Tiger won because of a weak field? I have said nobody was beating him. That leaderboard outside of him was pathetic is all I said. 

The leaderboard was pathetic but you're not saying the field was weak.  Really?

But take a look at the field in one of Jack's early majors, the 1966 British Open.  Of the EIGHT Americans in the field (at a time when American golf was so dominant that they were in the midst of administering some of the worst beatings in the Ryder Cup that Britain ever suffered - and the vast majority of that field was made up of Brits) only one failed to make the cut, Fred Haas.  The other 7 Americans all finished in the top 15.

The 7 were Jack*, Doug Sanders*, Dave Marr, Phil Rodgers*, Arnie*, Dick Sikes*, and Julius Boros.  This included only half of the top ten money winners on the PGA (the *s).  The leading money winner for 1966, Billy Casper wasn't in the field - neither were the 5th, 7th, 9th or 10th.  I wonder in how many of Tiger's majors the leading money winner wasn't in the field.  Oops, probably none or almost none of them, since that was usually him.  But I'd bet anything that the vast majority of the top FIFTY money winners were in each of the fields for his majors.  

Would you care to compare this field with that pathetic field that Tiger CRUSHED in 1997?  A field that by the very eligibility criteria of the 1997 Masters included the top 30 money winners?  As compared to the 5 top 10 money winners in the 1966 field?  And by 1997 the Masters had the WEAKEST field of the majors. Every single major Tiger ever won had in its field substantially all of the best players in the world.  And prior to the later part of Jack's career a tournament that included substantially all of the best players in the world was fairly rare - mainly due to the high cost of travel and the low purses (Jack got 2,100 pounds for his win - small wonder so few Americans, i.e., the best players in the world at the time, went over).  And foreign players, while not banned, were certainly not made to feel all that welcome here.

This is why I say that we make a mistake when we assume that majors always had the same value and cachet as they do today.  Could you even begin to imagine top players today just skipping majors despite being healthy and eligible?  Of course not, because of the importance they have assumed.  An importance largely enhanced by the Nicklaus sales job as majors being THE metric for determining the GOAT.

 

See, so when you try to criticize the field or leaderboard of the 1997 Masters vis a vis those steely hero's Jack had to overcome I have a very sound basis for calling that reason nonsense.  I was not saying your opinion is nonsense, I am saying that using this as a reason us nonsense.  There is literally no way that the 1997 field was not tougher than that 1966 field of Jack's.  

Since someone voiced concerns about disparaging opinions, it seemed like my nonsense remark may have been what they meant.  So I thought I should explain myself.  

[MuniGrit]

I was mistaken. 1997 Masters strongest field ever. Tiger played against the toughest fields ever I'm the years he won majors. Elin wasn't the nicest wife so I look past his behavior since he was under stress. DUIis no big deal since it wasn't booze. It was the Dr fault for prescribing him the medication.

 

Now back on topic so we don't get in trouble. Tiger is the GOAT which I've said. Carry on

[iacas]

Just admit @turtleback pwn3d you. Simpler than your misplaced snark.

This has been on topic. Except your comments about non-golf stuff. Nobody’s arguing those things here.

[MuniGrit]

2 hours ago, skydog said:

I don’t want to put words into someone else’s mouth but I believe he’s making the point that the SOF difference between the 70s and 90s might not be as dramatic as some on here contend and he’s using the 97 field as an example of that. Acknowledging that of course it didn’t matter to the outcome of that event but it matters (for some) when thinking about tiger’s record vs. jack’s. 

I’ve acknowledged all along that Tiger beat significantly better fields than Jack...I’ve just never been fully committed to whether that difference was enough to make 14>18. Maybe it is, I don’t know. Or maybe it isn’t but Tiger is still the goat. 

I’ve also always said that if Tiger could extend his major career past the age of 32 then I would say he is the uncontested goat and it’s looking like that could happen. I hope it does.

I think right now an objective person can make a reasonable argument for either guy. If Tiger wins 5-10 more tournaments and 1-2 more majors, I don’t think there’s any discussion to be had.

No point in even discussing it with these guys. SOF wasn't that big from 70s to 90s that's all I was saying and especially in 97 with the changing of the guard around that time. It's not downplaying or ripping down Tiger's epic performance. 

[MuniGrit]

9 minutes ago, iacas said:

Just admit @turtleback pwn3d you. Simpler than your misplaced snark.

This has been on topic. Except your comments about non-golf stuff. Nobody’s arguing those things here.

Whatever he never read what I wrote and just was offended by my observation. He wasted his time trying to explain something that just ate up a bunch of his time. All I said initially is one COULD argue the strength of the 97 field vs Jacks era. You have never heard me say Jacks Era was better fields. 

[turtleback]

Those who have read this thread for a significant period of time might recall that my argument for Tiger is based on his transcendent degree of DOMINANCE over a sufficient period of time.  My thesis has been that his degree of dominance is an order of magnitude above any other ever seen. In the course of expounding this argument I've written many comparisons of Tiger's record in comparison to Jack's performance.  But I came across an interesting article from a little while back that looks just at 40 amazing Tiger statistics.  It doesn't compare them to anyone else except for context.  It does not make an argument.  But it demonstrates his utter dominance.

I don't recall seeing this article linked here before, but if it has, sorry.

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

I'm going to comment on a few of the items:

34. I didn't like the last line comparing Tigers lifetime earnings in WGC Bridgestone with Arnie's total career earnings.  Intergenerational money winning comparisons are absurd.

33. Raw scoring average is of very limited value so I don't care for this one.

30. Another intergenerational money winning absurdity

20.  This point could have been stronger.  He owns the largest margin of victory in 2 majors outright, plus the largest British Open winning margin in 100 years.  Rory holds the record for the PGA.

16.  An amazing stat, but on today's broadcast they came up with a similar one I hadn't heard before.  When Tiger has been T2 or better after 54 holes his win rate is around 76%.

12.  I'll give credence to this stroke average point because it is based on adjusted stroke average, which normalizes it to the field.

9.  This is a little bogus, because of his 40 Euro tour victories, 14 were majors and 18 were WGCs, which really aren't Euro tour events.  I don't like double dipping, since these also count as PGA tour wins.

5.  Could have been way stronger.  Tiger had a 7 event winning streak (exceeded only by Byron Nelson's 11 which was in war-depleted times and included partner and short-field events that would never count today).  He also had a 6 event winning streak, matched only by Ben Hogan, and a 5 event winning streak.  So he has 3 of the 5 longest (and some might say 3 of the 4 'legitimate' longest streaks.)

The rest of the items speak for themselves.  I've tried to identify the items that seemed to distort or stretch things a bit.  Tiger's record doesn't need that kind of help.

 

[boogielicious]

8 hours ago, MuniGrit said:

No point in even discussing it with these guys. SOF wasn't that big from 70s to 90s that's all I was saying and especially in 97 with the changing of the guard around that time. It's not downplaying or ripping down Tiger's epic performance. 

You have no data to back this up. It is only opinion. Others have presented data, lots of data, to back up their positions. You chose to ignore that and stick to your dataless opinions or give some snarky, “I’m smarter than you” response. 

Your “changing of the guard” position is weak and baseless. Jack played against club pros. Club pros only watched Tiger from the gallery. 

[MuniGrit]

3 hours ago, boogielicious said:

You have no data to back this up. It is only opinion. Others have presented data, lots of data, to back up their positions. You chose to ignore that and stick to your dataless opinions or give some snarky, “I’m smarter than you” response. 

Your “changing of the guard” position is weak and baseless. Jack played against club pros. Club pros only watched Tiger from the gallery. 

Again I agree with you Tiger played against better fields. I don't kniw why it's so hard for you guys to think I'm saying Jack played against tougher fields. 

[lastings]

38 minutes ago, MuniGrit said:

Again I agree with you Tiger played against better fields. I don't kniw why it's so hard for you guys to think I'm saying Jack played against tougher fields. 

The thing is, we don’t think you’re saying that.  Or, at least, we don’t think we do.  No one can really figure out what point you are trying to make.  Except, I think, the leaderboard in the 97 masters was weak.  Which doesn’t appear to be based in fact.   Or maybe that the entire field in ‘97 was weak, but you haven’t really provided any evidence to back that up either.