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

[iacas]

29 minutes ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

I certainly think fields are deeper now, but Jack almost won the 1998 Masters at age 58 and Watson almost won the 2009 Open at age 59. Makes you wonder just how good those guys were in their prime.

It doesn't here.

The math is pretty simple.

[MuniGrit]

Golf aside who has been better off the course?

[klineka]

2 minutes ago, MuniGrit said:

Golf aside who has been better off the course?

Thats off topic and doesnt really matter when talking about who is the greatest golfer.

[turtleback]

14 hours ago, iacas said:

Guys, c’mon.

Start a new topic if you want. Leeway now completely exhausted.

Sorry, my bad.  New topic started.

[Chanceman]

If you dont believe the stats I guess it comes down to "Tiger's the best because I said so" but stats dont lie they only provide a basis for judgement, there is no way of actually proving it  - so Jack Nicklaus is the best golfer who ever lived.

(How long? -  10/15 minutes?)

[iacas]

47 minutes ago, Chanceman said:

If you dont believe the stats I guess it comes down to "Tiger's the best because I said so" but stats dont lie they only provide a basis for judgement, there is no way of actually proving it  - so Jack Nicklaus is the best golfer who ever lived.

(How long? -  10/15 minutes?)

Be a smartass all you want. You're not even considering the facts here. You're not considering dominance. You're not considering strength and depth of field. You're not reading anything already posted hundreds of times in other topics, or in this topic.

And so you're not bringing anything new to the topic. You're just saying what you think.

To that, all I have to say is "cool." You like Jack. Good for you.

[Chanceman]

I would contend that modern technology has allowed more people to play the game and made it easier, even for the pros. Also with golf scholarships available at every two-bit university there is a huge number of moderately talented kids getting golf tutelage, thus increasing the "depth" if that is the term, eg with all the secondary tours around the world, not just in the US. Despite all this though someone has to be top dog. As Jones and Hagen played with ridiculous equipment, so too did Nicklaus. There were no hybrids around or gap wedges or Scotty Cameron putters or 460cc drivers in the 1960s. Nicklaus was a huge driver but then used a 6 iron where Tiger might use a wedge today.  Fair comparison? Players use what is available. Who is to say one is really better than another? You cant which is why we use stats as a guide. So far Jack is ahead but Tiger wont be satisfied unless he goes to the front.

[Dr. Manhattan]

8 minutes ago, Chanceman said:

I would contend that modern technology has allowed more people to play the game and made it easier, even for the pros. Also with golf scholarships available at every two-bit university there is a huge number of moderately talented kids getting golf tutelage, thus increasing the "depth" if that is the term, eg with all the secondary tours around the world, not just in the US. Despite all this though someone has to be top dog. As Jones and Hagen played with ridiculous equipment, so too did Nicklaus. There were no hybrids around or gap wedges or Scotty Cameron putters or 460cc drivers in the 1960s. Nicklaus was a huge driver but then used a 6 iron where Tiger might use a wedge today.  Fair comparison? Players use what is available. Who is to say one is really better than another? You cant which is why we use stats as a guide. So far Jack is ahead but Tiger wont be satisfied unless he goes to the front.

 

If anything, the technology from back in the day actually helped the greats like Nicklaus or Hogan separate themselves from everyone else. Tiger had similar advantages over the field until the Pro V1 and hybrid clubs came along. He was able to hit high, soft long iron shots that no one else could hit. Very very similar to what Nicklaus did to his opponents as well.

Tiger grew up as a young kid playing balata and persimmon. He has said in the past he would prefer if the professionals still had to use that technology. It would be a major benefit to him because he's a much better shotmaker than 99.9% of them (Bubba Watson is the one exception). 

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, Chanceman said:

I would contend that modern technology has allowed more people to play the game and made it easier, even for the pros. Also with golf scholarships available at every two-bit university there is a huge number of moderately talented kids getting golf tutelage, thus increasing the "depth" if that is the term, eg with all the secondary tours around the world, not just in the US. Despite all this though someone has to be top dog. As Jones and Hagen played with ridiculous equipment, so too did Nicklaus. There were no hybrids around or gap wedges or Scotty Cameron putters or 460cc drivers in the 1960s. Nicklaus was a huge driver but then used a 6 iron where Tiger might use a wedge today.  Fair comparison? Players use what is available. Who is to say one is really better than another?

Better equipment is, as you said, supportive of the idea that the fields are stronger/deeper now. Better equipment narrows the gap between the best player and the players beneath him.

12 minutes ago, Chanceman said:

You cant which is why we use stats as a guide. So far Jack is ahead but Tiger wont be satisfied unless he goes to the front.

Huh? Jack is ahead in roughly one stat: majors won. Tiger is ahead in a bunch of other stats.

[rehmwa]

I already voted Tiger.  It'll get easier over the next couple seasons.

It'll take more than one year, but Tiger will pass Sam, and not pass Jack.

I hope I'm wrong and he does both, that would end the conversation for all but the irrationally partisan folks.  And good on them for sticking to their guns.

[brocks]

On 3/11/2018 at 3:16 PM, turtleback said:

I am going to post something i did not write, but which was written by a guy whose screen-name was jugglepin back in the days when the Golf Channel message boards were usable.

Hello, turtleback!

I consider it an honor to be confused with jugglepin, but that was actually my post.  I went by "bobo" on the old Golf Channel board.  As I recall, jugglepin specialized in refuting the guys who thought Arnie, Jack, Gary, et al never faltered down the stretch, by citing one event after another where they blew a lead.  But I may be confusing him with tearwrist.

Anyway, I was out of the country for a few years, but now I'm retired, and Tiger is back, so I'm resuming participation on this board.  Unfortunately, a knee injury prevents me from playing any more golf, and incidentally gives me even more appreciation of Tiger's 2008 US Open win.

Glad to see you are still here fighting the good fight, and I hope to help you out on some of the Tiger vs Jack topics.

Edit: By the way, there is nothing wrong with the way you copied the post, and most of the newspaper links still work.  The SI links no longer work because they have changed their URL, but you can usually find the article if you just google the quote.

Edited March 13, 2018 by brocks

[Dr. Manhattan]

30 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

I already voted Tiger.  It'll get easier over the next couple seasons.

It'll take more than one year, but Tiger will pass Sam, and not pass Jack.

I hope I'm wrong and he does both, that would end the conversation for all but the irrationally partisan folks.  And good on them for sticking to their guns.

 

I think one more major (preferably Augusta) and passing Sam will do the trick for many people, even though the Sam record is bogus in the first place. Sam is more like 75 wins excluding the tiny field team events.

Will be interesting to see how the WGC's are viewed in 20-30 years. Many of the younger guys on Tour seem to care a lot about winning them...probably because Tiger put emphasis on them. 

[turtleback]

47 minutes ago, brocks said:

Hello, turtleback!

I consider it an honor to be confused with jugglepin, but that was actually my post.  I went by "bobo" on the old Golf Channel board.  As I recall, jugglepin specialized in refuting the guys who thought Arnie, Jack, Gary, et al never faltered down the stretch, by citing one event after another where they blew a lead.  But I may be confusing him with tearwrist.

Anyway, I was out of the country for a few years, but now I'm retired, and Tiger is back, so I'm resuming participation on this board.  Unfortunately, a knee injury prevents me from playing any more golf, and incidentally gives me even more appreciation of Tiger's 2008 US Open win.

Glad to see you are still here fighting the good fight, and I hope to help you out on some of the Tiger vs Jack topics.

Edit: By the way, there is nothing wrong with the way you copied the post, and most of the newspaper links still work.  The SI links no longer work because they have changed their URL, but you can usually find the article if you just google the quote.

Sorry for the misidentification.  In my defense, I am also retired.  Tiger showing REAL signs of life are bringing us out of the woodwork.  Glad to have you aboard.

[Dr. Manhattan]

What do y'all think about the LPGA point system for Hall of Fame status? Takes into account major wins, regular wins, scoring titles/money titles, etc. I think it would be cool as hell if they came up with something like that on the men's side. It would show once and for all what many of us have been saying...Tiger is underrated.

In the OWGR system for winners: majors are 100 points, PLAYERS is 80 points, WGC's are around 75 points, Arnie/Memorial are 60 points, and regular events are 50 points. 2nd place in majors is 60 points, 3rd place is 40 points...so let's just do some quick math on all this crap (very rough math)...

JACK

• 18 major wins (1800 points)
• 19 major 2nd's (1140 points)
• 9 major 3rd's (360 points)
• 3 PLAYERS wins (240 points)
• 52 regular wins (2600 points)

TOTAL: 6140 points

 

TIGER

• 14 major wins (1400 points)
• 6 major 2nd's (360 points)
• 4 major 3rd's (160 points)
• 18 WGC wins (1350 points)
• 2 PLAYERS wins (160 points)
• 8 Arnie wins (480 points)
• 5 Memorial wins (300 points)
• 32 regular wins (1600 points)
• 2 FedEx Cup trophies (160 points)

TOTAL: 5970 points

[klineka]

33 minutes ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

What do y'all think about the LPGA point system for Hall of Fame status? Takes into account major wins, regular wins, scoring titles/money titles, etc. I think it would be cool as hell if they came up with something like that on the men's side. It would show once and for all what many of us have been saying...Tiger is underrated.

In the OWGR system for winners: majors are 100 points, PLAYERS is 80 points, WGC's are around 75 points, Arnie/Memorial are 60 points, and regular events are 50 points. 2nd place in majors is 60 points, 3rd place is 40 points...so let's just do some quick math on all this crap (very rough math)...

JACK

• 18 major wins (1800 points)
• 19 major 2nd's (1140 points)
• 9 major 3rd's (360 points)
• 3 PLAYERS wins (240 points)
• 52 regular wins (2600 points)

TOTAL: 6140 points

 

TIGER

• 14 major wins (1400 points)
• 6 major 2nd's (360 points)
• 4 major 3rd's (160 points)
• 18 WGC wins (1350 points)
• 2 PLAYERS wins (160 points)
• 8 Arnie wins (480 points)
• 5 Memorial wins (300 points)
• 32 regular wins (1600 points)
• 2 FedEx Cup trophies (160 points)

TOTAL: 5970 points

IMO, I think that puts too much weight on finishing 2nd and 3rd in majors. You get more points for finishing 2nd in a major as you do winning a regular tournament? Even though some regular tournaments can have fields that are just as strong as a major and courses that are just as hard, if not harder. Whats next, M/C counts as negative points? 

I think it should be wins only. 

25% of Jack's total points come from not winning tournaments.

8.7% of Tiger's total points come from not winning tournaments.

Looking at wins only, Jack has 4640 and Tiger has 5450 points.

 

[Dr. Manhattan]

7 minutes ago, klineka said:

IMO, I think that puts too much weight on finishing 2nd and 3rd in majors. You get more points for finishing 2nd in a major as you do winning a regular tournament? Even though some regular tournaments can have fields that are just as strong as a major and courses that are just as hard, if not harder. Whats next, M/C counts as negative points? 

I think it should be wins only. 

25% of Jack's total points come from not winning tournaments.

8.7% of Tiger's total points come from not winning tournaments.

Looking at wins only, Jack has 4640 and Tiger has 5450 points.

 

 

Yes, it is pretty heavily slanted in Jack's favor. That's kind of my point though. Nobody is giving Mickelson extra credit for all of his 2nd place finishes. LPGA point system for the Hall of Fame doesn't mention anything about points for 2nd or 3rd place finishes in majors. Also giving Jack full credit for the modern day points when we know a lot of his wins were nowhere close to the field strength of today...it's heavily slanted in his favor...

...and even so, Tiger is DAMN close. If he can stay healthy over the next 5 years, it would not take much of a run from Tiger to blow right past the number I came up with for Jack. In any event, I saw something pretty shocking on Twitter earlier. John Feinstein is in the Tiger GOAT camp. Knowing his disdain for Tiger, I am very surprised he is not firmly in the Jack or Hogan camp. There are strong arguments for any of them.

[Dr. Manhattan]

PGA Player of the Year is another one that we could use in the points system. It goes back to 1948, so it easily covers all of Jack's career and obviously Tiger's career. I guess we can give 100 points for this. It's an entire year of performance.

Tiger --  11 x 100 = 1100 points plus 5970 = 7070 points total

Jack --   5 x 100 = 500 points plus 6140 = 6640 points total

[saevel25]

38 minutes ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

PGA Player of the Year is another one that we could use in the points system. It goes back to 1948, so it easily covers all of Jack's career and obviously Tiger's career. I guess we can give 100 points for this. It's an entire year of performance.

You are assuming that the points for player of the year should be the same. If the argument that Tiger faced deeper strength of competition is valid, which I believe, then him winning player of the year should hold more weight.

I think it should be more like, Tiger gets 120 points per player of year versus Jack getting 100 points.