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

[Phil McGleno]

2 hours ago, Chanceman said:

I am interested in the depth of field argument. Jack beat guys like Player (9 majors), Palmer (7), Watson (8), Faldo (6), Trevino (6), Thomson (5) and Ballesteros (5). Woods beats Mickelson (5), Els (4), and Singh (3). Go figure.

If we ignore for a second that your list does more to prove that Jack played against weaker fields-I love it when people make these lists as if Nicklaus really played against all of these guys.

Nicklaus won his next to last major in 1980 and won his last in 1986.

Faldo won his first major in 1987 and his last major in 1996.

Tiger won his first in 1997.

But you chose to put Faldo under Nicklaus instead of under Tiger.

And if Tiger wins even one more major you get to add everyone who has won majors since:Jordan, Rory, Padraig.

---

And seriously how do people continue to make this argument? The words are STRENGTH and DEPTH of field. Would you rather play a tournament with three other really good players or ten really good players plus ninety good players?-How would the wins be distributed in each of those cases?

Take that for what ever you want to give it.

[Chanceman]

You are just choosing to ignore the obvious which is that Jack played in an era of great champions while Tiger has played at a time when the ranks have been decidely thinner. Faldo was into his decline by 1998 and his great play was pre-tiger. This is an era of mainly manufactured college players all with the same swing comapred to the old era of basic home grown talent. There cant be any serious suggestion that Tiger's record is better than Jack's, in majors anyway. Otherwise its just hero worship. Ta Ta.

[Moxley]

7 minutes ago, Chanceman said:

You are just choosing to ignore the obvious which is that Jack played in an era of great champions while Tiger has played at a time when the ranks have been decidely thinner. Faldo was into his decline by 1998 and his great play was pre-tiger. This is an era of mainly manufactured college players all with the same swing comapred to the old era of basic home grown talent. There cant be any serious suggestion that Tiger's record is better than Jack's, in majors anyway. Otherwise its just hero worship. Ta Ta.

It has not been ignored - it has been pointed out that Tiger's dominance was such that fewer other victories were available for 'great champions' to be apparent. 

Had Tiger won at a similar pace to Jack , then Ernie, Phil, Monty, Duval, Garcia etc would have probably picked up a few more wins and have been regarded more like Watson, Player etc. 

In the same way that a lack of depth in Jack's era helped Jack pick up more wins, it almost certainly helped to elevate the status of his main competitors.

 

 

[Ty_Webb]

29 minutes ago, Chanceman said:

You are just choosing to ignore the obvious which is that Jack played in an era of great champions while Tiger has played at a time when the ranks have been decidely thinner. Faldo was into his decline by 1998 and his great play was pre-tiger. This is an era of mainly manufactured college players all with the same swing comapred to the old era of basic home grown talent. There cant be any serious suggestion that Tiger's record is better than Jack's, in majors anyway. Otherwise its just hero worship. Ta Ta.

It's easy to be a big fish in a small pond.

[iacas]

28 minutes ago, Chanceman said:

You are just choosing to ignore the obvious which is that Jack played in an era of great champions while Tiger has played at a time when the ranks have been decidely thinner.

No we haven't! I feel like you aren't even reading the responses typed up.

Those other players also benefited from the weaker fields of the time.

This is the big point you're missing out on, completely. Who to qualify in the Faldo era is way, way, way down on the list.

28 minutes ago, Chanceman said:

Faldo was into his decline by 1998 and his great play was pre-tiger. Faldo was into his decline by 1998 and his great play was pre-tiger.

Faldo hadn't even won a major by the time Nicklaus won his final one, which itself came six years after his prior one.

And Faldo was the defending champion at that event when Tiger won his first major. So again, Faldo is a bizarre choice. Tiger won eight majors in the six years from Faldo's closest major (one year to the major), while Nicklaus won only one (and it was over a year distant from Faldo's major, Masters to British Open).

But again, this crap is way, way, way down on the list.

28 minutes ago, Chanceman said:

This is an era of mainly manufactured college players all with the same swing comapred to the old era of basic home grown talent.

Complete non-point that doesn't at all speak to the topic.

28 minutes ago, Chanceman said:

There cant be any serious suggestion that Tiger's record is better than Jack's, in majors anyway.

There can be, and it is.

Talk about stating an opinion as if it's fact, sheesh. At least I back up my opinions. And it's essentially a fact that fields are stronger and deeper these days. Simple math tells you that.

13 minutes ago, Moxley said:

It has not been ignored - it has been pointed out that Tiger's dominance was such that fewer other victories were available for 'great champions' to be apparent.

Not even that. If the entire field is stronger, it's tougher for a very good player to pick up wins.

13 minutes ago, Moxley said:

In the same way that a lack of depth in Jack's era helped Jack pick up more wins, it almost certainly helped to elevate the status of his main competitors.

This.

Just now, Ty_Webb said:

It's easy to be a big fish in a small pond.

Or a big three, four, or five fish.

When your pond is bigger and there are 50 big fish… you're not so big a fish anymore.

[Ty_Webb]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

Or a big three, four, or five fish.

When your pond is bigger and there are 50 big fish… you're not so big a fish anymore.

Precisely.

If I might expand a little. Imagine two golf clubs. Each club has 4 tournaments a year. Both clubs have 150 people at them. The first one has ten scratch players and 140 15 handicaps. Those ten scratch players divvy up the tournaments among themselves and basically no one else ever wins one. After 20 years, they wind up with one guy having 18, one guy having 11, one having 9, one having 8, one having 7 and the others sharing 5 or 6 each.

The second club has 149 +6 handicaps and one guy who's a +10. Over that same 20 year stretch, The +10 has won 14, one guy has 5, another couple have 3 and then the rest have split 2, 1 or 0.

There are some who would say that the guy with 18 at the first club is obviously better because he's won 18 while the guy at the second club has only won 14. They may even point to the fact that the guy who won 18 had to compete with people who won 11, 9, 8 and 7 etc. They would ignore the fact that it was spectacularly more difficult to win at the second club, as demonstrated by the fewer people who won lots of tournaments. And they would be straight up wrong.

To put that another way, Tiger has won 2.8 times as many majors as anyone else over the period since he started winning them. Jack only won 2 times as many as anyone else during his heyday.

My final thought on the matter is look at who Tiger has lost close ones to. Trevor Immelman, Rich Beem, YE Yang, Michael Campbell. Those guys wouldn't even have been playing in Jack's day. Take them out of the field and Tiger has 18.

[iacas]

@Ty_Webb I've made similar posts using "A" players and "B" players and so on. Plus this graphic illustrates the same:

There are not only more "star-level" players these days, but the players behind them are much closer (and number more).

Hence, much tougher to win a major now versus in 1970.

[Chanceman]

If you like facts , here are facts, not subjective opinions about "depth of field". Facts are very simple: in the first 15 years of their ascendancy Jack won 14 and top ten 28. Tiger was 14/21. ++ to Jack. And there is still 5 years to go to age 46 for Tiger to win 4 and have 17 top tens like Jack.  I dont think so. But you guys seem to argue that he does not have to prove he is the best because you already KNOW he's the best!!

Graphs, stats, coefficients of redistribution, whatever - Beethoven lived when the world population was tiny but he stands as the Greatest Composer, imho.

Minor point but I will argue that modern equipment gives Tiger an advantage ie he gets to play Driver/wedge whereas Jack had Driver/6 iron so your short game dominates not the overall game.

Sure there are more players now but they are NOT AS GOOD AS the players of the 60s and 70s - imho.

So if you want to be subjective : Jack Nicklaus GOAT imho.

[saevel25]

16 minutes ago, Chanceman said:

If you like facts , here are facts, not subjective opinions about "depth of field". Facts are very simple: in the first 15 years of their ascendancy Jack won 14 and top ten 28. Tiger was 14/21. ++ to Jack. And there is still 5 years to go to age 46 for Tiger to win 4 and have 17 top tens like Jack.  I dont think so. But you guys seem to argue that he does not have to prove he is the best because you already KNOW he's the best!!

Strength of field is not subjective, it's a fact. 

Your nostalgia for the past is falsely validating your opinions on how good those golfers were. You keep trying to re-validate that stance with weak arguments. Now you try to redirect the discussion to something you think is concrete, when it is just a poor tactic that will not fly. 

 

[iacas]

14 minutes ago, Chanceman said:

If you like facts , here are facts, not subjective opinions about "depth of field".

You start to go wrong when you call them "subjective opinions." There are a lot of facts to be had there.

14 minutes ago, Chanceman said:

But you guys seem to argue that he does not have to prove he is the best because you already KNOW he's the best!!

I won't speak for others, but no, that's not how I say things.

In my opinion (it's not something one can "know"), he's the GOAT because of the entirety of his career. 14 majors under stronger/deeper fields, more PGA Tour wins against stronger/deeper fields, higher performance, more domination, etc.

He's the better golfer, not just for a year, or two, but over his entire career.

Your entire argument boils down to "18 > 14." It's a very, very, very shallow way of looking at things. You're entitled to it.

14 minutes ago, Chanceman said:

Graphs, stats, coefficients of redistribution, whatever - Beethoven lived when the world population was tiny but he stands as the Greatest Composer, imho.

Even more subjective, and completely off topic. Plus, Beethoven wasn't competing against fellow composers to "win" a sporting event or trophy. Completely different situation.

14 minutes ago, Chanceman said:

Minor point but I will argue that modern equipment gives Tiger an advantage ie he gets to play Driver/wedge whereas Jack had Driver/6 iron so your short game dominates not the overall game.

You're wrong two ways there:

• Short game doesn't dominate the game. Ballstriking still matters most.
• Equipment helped narrow the gap between the greats and the rest of the players on the PGA Tour. Forgiving or "helpful" clubs don't benefit Jack or Tiger much - they benefit their competitors more. The lower skilled players.

Jack will tell you that. Both of those things, really.

14 minutes ago, Chanceman said:

Sure there are more players now but they are NOT AS GOOD AS the players of the 60s and 70s - imho.

Jack Nicklaus himself disagrees with you on that.

14 minutes ago, Chanceman said:

So if you want to be subjective : Jack Nicklaus GOAT imho.

That's not at all subjective.

It's the extremely basic "18 > 14" argument. That's it.

The only reasons you can't or won't respond to the points others have made against "18 > 14" is that either you don't understand them or you can't refute them. Or a combination of both.

[Chanceman]

I am not arguing 18>14 at all if you even read my text. Just that over the first 15 years of their careers Jack was better. There is no way to prove depth of field is greater now - there are more mediocre golfers around for sure if thats what you mean but fewer elite golfers. The population is greater which means more to beat, sure, but in that case Tiger will just be the best until the next wave and so on. I am not even sure that Jack was better than Bobby Jones - statistically yes but for a period of 6 or 7 years it is hard to argue against Jones as the GOAT. But again you will argue that no-way could he ever be the best because of the low turnout. Maybe, maybe not. Essentially you cant prove it, you only have the stats to guide you. And the stats say Jack.

[Dr. Manhattan]

35 minutes ago, Chanceman said:

If you like facts , here are facts, not subjective opinions about "depth of field". Facts are very simple: in the first 15 years of their ascendancy Jack won 14 and top ten 28. Tiger was 14/21. ++ to Jack. And there is still 5 years to go to age 46 for Tiger to win 4 and have 17 top tens like Jack.  I dont think so. But you guys seem to argue that he does not have to prove he is the best because you already KNOW he's the best!!

Graphs, stats, coefficients of redistribution, whatever - Beethoven lived when the world population was tiny but he stands as the Greatest Composer, imho.

Minor point but I will argue that modern equipment gives Tiger an advantage ie he gets to play Driver/wedge whereas Jack had Driver/6 iron so your short game dominates not the overall game.

Sure there are more players now but they are NOT AS GOOD AS the players of the 60s and 70s - imho.

So if you want to be subjective : Jack Nicklaus GOAT imho.

 

Modern equipment has narrowed the gap between Tiger and his competitors. He grew up with persimmon/balata/2-irons, not titanium/Pro V1’s/hybrid clubs.

Tiger has said multiple times he wishes the Tour forced them to use the older technology. It would provide an advantage for him just like Nicklaus had an advantage over his competition. 

[brocks]

9 minutes ago, Chanceman said:

Essentially you cant prove it, you only have the stats to guide you. And the stats say Jack.

Nope, the way you use stats, they say Young Tom Morris, because he won every single major played over a period of five years.  I very much doubt that anybody will ever match that.

Some Debbie Downers will claim that he played against weak fields, but the way you use stats, he played against the strongest fields in history.  When he won in 1867, a full 40% of the field were major champions, and 30% were multiple major champions.

So who cares if there were only 10 people in the field?  You sure don't care that there were only 9 Americans in the field when Jack won his first Open in 1966, or that there were only 6 Americans when Arnie won his first Open in 1961, and most of them were amateurs or seniors. 

And of course, when Gary Player won his first Open in 1959, there were only 3 Americans in the field, none of whom were touring pros.  The best performance turned in by an American was by amateur Bob Sweeney, who missed the cut by three shots.

But hey, a major is a major, and field strength is just subjective.

 

[iacas]

19 minutes ago, Chanceman said:

I am not arguing 18>14 at all if you even read my text. Just that over the first 15 years of their careers Jack was better.

Better how?

Tiger won the same number of majors and more PGA Tour events in his first 15 years against… wait for it… significantly stiffer competition.

Tiger also won more scoring titles. More player of the year awards. More high finishes on the money list. He completed the career grand slam three times. He dominated in more majors and more wins at never-before-seen levels. He set scoring records in majors.

So better how?

19 minutes ago, Chanceman said:

There is no way to prove depth of field is greater now - there are more mediocre golfers around for sure if thats what you mean but fewer elite golfers.

Sure there is. But people like you won't get it, so… just keep thinking what you want. It's clear facts won't actually sway your opinion. You're an "18 > 14" guy. Own it.

19 minutes ago, Chanceman said:

The population is greater which means more to beat, sure, but in that case Tiger will just be the best until the next wave and so on.

That doesn't even make sense.

19 minutes ago, Chanceman said:

I am not even sure that Jack was better than Bobby Jones - statistically yes but for a period of 6 or 7 years it is hard to argue against Jones as the GOAT.

Not really. Bobby Jones played against significantly weaker competition than Jack Nicklaus. The amateur events in particular were very shallow.

19 minutes ago, Chanceman said:

But again you will argue that no-way could he ever be the best because of the low turnout.

Hey, you're the one denying basic math, as well as other common sense stuff.

19 minutes ago, Chanceman said:

Essentially you cant prove it, you only have the stats to guide you. And the stats say Jack.

Only one stat really says "Jack" and that's the entire basis for your argument: 18 > 14.

I'm of the opinion that 14 > 18.

15 minutes ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

Tiger has said multiple times he wishes the Tour forced them to use the older technology. It would provide an advantage for him just like Nicklaus had an advantage over his competition. 

Yep.

[GrandStranded]

So we have Tiger attempting a comeback to tournament golf the last month or so. He has performed very well so far, better then even his most ardent fans probably hoped, and he's put himself in contention. Here's my question. It has been argued here the level of play, and the number of good players increases with each generation. Even if some will argue the increase has or will slow at a subjective date, I think most here have argued that todays players are better and there are more of these good players. If this is true, how will Tiger stack up to this new generation of players he will be facing later this season in the elite events, beginning with the Masters? Most if not all of this next generations players will be entered every week, and Tiger will be giving away 10-15 years to most of them. To beat them Tiger will, according to the "next generation is better" theory, need to play at or above the level he did at the turn of the century since the level of competition is now better. Do you Tiger is GOAT guys think he can win consistently ever again, or maybe even become dominant again?.   

Edited March 16, 2018 by GrandStranded

[iacas]

1 minute ago, GrandStranded said:

If this is true, how will Tiger stack up to this new generation of players he will be facing later this season in the elite events, beginning with the Masters.

Not really the topic.

Short answer, very consistent, very easy: it'll be a bit tougher to win this Masters than the Masters in 1997.

But again, not really the topic ("Tiger's future.") Start a new topic if you want predictions, or at least participate in the "Predict Tiger's 2018 Season" topic.

[turtleback]

2 hours ago, Chanceman said:

If you like facts , here are facts, not subjective opinions about "depth of field". Facts are very simple: in the first 15 years of their ascendancy Jack won 14 and top ten 28. Tiger was 14/21. ++ to Jack. And there is still 5 years to go to age 46 for Tiger to win 4 and have 17 top tens like Jack.  I dont think so. But you guys seem to argue that he does not have to prove he is the best because you already KNOW he's the best!!

Graphs, stats, coefficients of redistribution, whatever - Beethoven lived when the world population was tiny but he stands as the Greatest Composer, imho.

Minor point but I will argue that modern equipment gives Tiger an advantage ie he gets to play Driver/wedge whereas Jack had Driver/6 iron so your short game dominates not the overall game.

Sure there are more players now but they are NOT AS GOOD AS the players of the 60s and 70s - imho.

So if you want to be subjective : Jack Nicklaus GOAT imho.

Just out of curiosity, why are you using 15 years?  It seems to gratuitously include years when Tiger was injured, yet doesn't bring us to now.  You could have used 11 years, in which case Tiger would have been ahead.  You could have used now, but I realize you were afraid you'd be thought of just another 18>14. It is just a weird argument, to pick 15 years.

And except for the unserious stuff about top tens in majors, by clearly endorsing majors as THE measuring stick you ARE effectively ineffectively arguing the foundation of 18>14.  I didn't see one word in your post about any other factor at all.  Not total wins.  Not Vardons. Not cut streaks.  Not winning streaks.  Not MAJOR winning streak.  Not margin of victory records.  Nothing.  You are just another in a long line of 18>14 ers, so your clever choice of years did not avail.

Edited March 16, 2018 by turtleback
click too soon

[GrandStranded]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

Not really the topic.

Short answer, very consistent, very easy: it'll be a bit tougher to win this Masters than the Masters in 1997.

But again, not really the topic ("Tiger's future.") Start a new topic if you want predictions, or at least participate in the "Predict Tiger's 2018 Season" topic.

Okay, fair enough. I thought it spoke to the argument about Jack and the earlier generation of players he competed against vs those Tiger later competed against. I get your point about predictions though.