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

[Dr. Manhattan]

3 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

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.

 

I haven't adjusted any of it because I wanted to see how close they would be if we gave Jack the same credit for his performances as we would give any of the modern players. Tiger fares very very well in this comparison despite the deck heavily stacked in Jack's favor (lots of points for 2nd and 3rd place finishes lol). You would have to go back and adjust all of these data points...the major finishes, the regular tour wins, the PLAYERS wins, etc.

[lastings]

Guys, don’t skew the stats.  

Jack was not eligible for WGCs, Arnie/Memorial bonus, fed ex cup bonus.  

Youre saying tiger should get strength of field bonus, but not aknowledging the extra bonuses he already gets.. 

Edited March 13, 2018 by lastings

[Dr. Manhattan]

18 minutes ago, lastings said:

Guys, don’t skew the stats.  

Jack was not eligible for WGCs, Arnie/Memorial bonus, fed ex cup bonus.  

Youre saying tiger should get strength of field bonus, but not aknowledging the extra bonuses he already gets.. 

 

Jack is already getting bonuses by giving him 50 points for tournaments that were probably more like 30 points in reality. And the "Jack didn't have WGC" argument falls apart when we realize neither Jack nor the media cared about screwing over the likes of Hagen, Jones, Hogan, Snead, and others in this debate many decades ago.

I think I'm being pretty dang generous to give Jack the points I gave him. Nobody is giving Phil Mickelson any extra credit for all of his 2nd and 3rd place finishes in majors, even though he has an incredible record in that regard.

[iacas]

38 minutes ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

I think I'm being pretty dang generous to give Jack the points I gave him. Nobody is giving Phil Mickelson any extra credit for all of his 2nd and 3rd place finishes in majors, even though he has an incredible record in that regard.

Just in U.S. Opens alone, he's got, what, six second-place finishes?

I'm not a big fan of the points system. It would come down entirely to how you weight them. As @turtleback showed, some of those British Opens were significantly easier to win than some regular PGA Tour events, even at the same time, let alone compared to NOW.

[turtleback]

1 hour ago, lastings said:

Guys, don’t skew the stats.  

Jack was not eligible for WGCs, Arnie/Memorial bonus, fed ex cup bonus.  

Youre saying tiger should get strength of field bonus, but not aknowledging the extra bonuses he already gets.. 

That never stopped Jack from touting total number of majors, and REALLY skewing the stats, since he played in WAY more than any prior player, including majors that didn't exist when the guys he had to beat out initially were playing.  Completely skews the stats, yet to Jack it was the 'fairest' way to compare.

[skydog]

@Dr. Manhattan II'm confused as to why the Memorial/API tournaments are treated separately from 'regular' events on that points breakdown? Seems to me they shouldn't be given any preferential points treatment. 

It's an interesting comparison, but for the other reasons already stated by you and others, is far from perfect. 

Edited March 13, 2018 by skydog

[Dr. Manhattan]

26 minutes ago, skydog said:

@Dr. Manhattan II'm confused as to why the Memorial/API tournaments are treated separately from 'regular' events on that points breakdown? Seems to me they shouldn't be given any preferential points treatment. 

It's an interesting comparison, but for the other reasons already stated by you and others, is far from perfect. 

 

Arnold and Jack get special treatment in the OWGR. Look at 2017 results...

http://www.owgr.com/en/Events/EventResult.aspx?eventid=6524

http://www.owgr.com/en/Events/EventResult.aspx?eventid=6605

 

Valspar winner got 52 points this week.

 

 

 

 

[brocks]

30 minutes ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

Arnold and Jack get special treatment in the OWGR.

No, they don't.  Other than the majors, the Players, and a few non-PGA tour championships, the number of WGR points is strictly based on the rankings of the players in the field.  The more strong players, the higher the points.  For example, the Genesis was worth more points than the API last year.

A PGA event can award as few as 24 points to the winner for weak-field events.  If the current WGR system had been around in Jack's era, almost all of his events would have been on the low end of the scale, since there were so few international players in PGA events.

Edited March 13, 2018 by brocks

[Dr. Manhattan]

2 minutes ago, brocks said:

No, they don't.  Other than the majors, the Players, and a few non-PGA tour championships, the number of WGR points is strictly based on the rankings of the players in the field.  The more strong players, the higher the points.  For example, the Genesis was worth more points than the API last year.

 

The Palmer fields have not seemed very strong lately, just looking at the names on paper. They even have past champs who have no business playing with current Tour players.

[brocks]

1 minute ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

 

The Palmer fields have not seemed very strong lately, just looking at the names on paper. They even have past champs who have no business playing with current Tour players.

Well, you can't just look at the names on paper, you have to look at their records.  Even the most dedicated golf fan doesn't closely follow more than a dozen or two players, so it's very easy to not realize that X has been racking up a lot of top tens, especially if he's come close but hasn't won.

And I would have to say that anybody who wins the API has proved he belongs on tour.

[JxQx]

I didn't really see any information posted (could be buried in this thread) on the amount majors the high level players from Jacks era competed in, though its been discussed a bunch.

Majors competed in Jacks era:

• Gary Player = 150
• Arnie = 143
• Billy Casper =94
• Lee Trevino = 89
• Jack Nicklaus = 164
• Nick Faldo = 100
• Tom Watson = 145
• Johnny Miller = 74
• Seve Ballesteros = 87

[brocks]

4 minutes ago, JxQx said:

I didn't really see any information posted (could be buried in this thread) on the amount majors the high level players from Jacks era competed in, though its been discussed a bunch.

Majors competed in Jacks era:

• Gary Player = 150
• Arnie = 143
• Billy Casper =94
• Lee Trevino = 89
• Jack Nicklaus = 164
• Nick Faldo = 100
• Tom Watson = 145
• Johnny Miller = 74
• Seve Ballesteros = 87

Very nice, but it would help to know what years you are defining as the Jack era, and whether you are including majors played after they were well past their primes.

[Hoganman1]

I didn't take the time to read all 306 pages of comments so forgive me if this is redundant. When Tiger wins his 19th major, I'l say he's the best ever. Until that happens; Jack is my pick for the best. Frankly, comparing Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan, Jack and Tiger is difficult because of how the game changed in each of their eras. I missed Mr. Jones's career and most of Mr. Hogan's, but I've had a front row seat for Jack and Tiger. For that opportunity i am most great-full. 

[JxQx]

5 minutes ago, brocks said:

Very nice, but it would help to know what years you are defining as the Jack era, and whether you are including majors played after they were well past their primes.

That is subjective as to what their prime is. I mean Jack came in 6th in 1990 at the masters, which still puts him at about 120ish majors and tied for 6th in the masters 1998 which puts him at 155ish. If we are talking wins then that still puts him at around 100ish. Still putting him past most even counting every major that the rest played "out of their prime".

Edited March 13, 2018 by JxQx

[brocks]

1 minute ago, Hoganman1 said:

I didn't take the time to read all 306 pages of comments so forgive me if this is redundant. When Tiger wins his 19th major, I'l say he's the best ever. Until that happens; Jack is my pick for the best. Frankly, comparing Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan, Jack and Tiger is difficult because of how the game changed in each of their eras. I missed Mr. Jones's career and most of Mr. Hogan's, but I've had a front row seat for Jack and Tiger. For that opportunity i am most great-full. 

Seriously?  If Tiger has only 18 majors, same as Jack, but more US Ams, more money titles, more scoring titles, more wins, more POTY awards, and more sheer dominance against much deeper fields, you still won't think Tiger is the best?

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, Hoganman1 said:

I didn't take the time to read all 306 pages of comments so forgive me if this is redundant. When Tiger wins his 19th major, I'l say he's the best ever. Until that happens; Jack is my pick for the best.

:sigh:

@turtleback continues to be proven right, and my old opinion wrong, about the sheer number of people who cling to "18 > 14" as their sole determining factor.

[Hoganman1]

10 minutes ago, brocks said:

Seriously?  If Tiger has only 18 majors, same as Jack, but more US Ams, more money titles, more scoring titles, more wins, more POTY awards, and more sheer dominance against much deeper fields, you still won't think Tiger is the best?

Nope. I'm sorry, but that's my standard. However, I'm not saying you can't consider him the best. There's no question Tiger was dominate for two decades and based on what I saw this past weekend he's not finished. Remember Hogan played some of his best golf after the wreck with a bus. Again it's hard to compare players that played in different eras, Just imagine what Bobby Jones could have done with today's equipment.

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, Hoganman1 said:

Again it's hard to compare players that played in different eras,

Except… you're literally punishing Tiger though, by requiring a higher standard, for playing against stiffer competition.

5 minutes ago, Hoganman1 said:

Just imagine what Bobby Jones could have done with today's equipment.

Probably not nearly as much as he accomplished playing with his equipment in his era, for two reasons:

• Better equipment narrows the gap between the "great" and the "very good."
• There are a lot more better players now.