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

[JoeInPI]

5 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Calm down everyone... He's new. Go easy.   BTW Welcome!

Let 'em flame away- doesn't make them right...

[brocks]

1 hour ago, GrandStranded said:

WHO WERE THE GREAT PLAYERS TIGER BEAT? (besides Jack and Ernie?) THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING. OKAY?

You have a very short memory, because you also asked this: "I agree with the argument about fields being deeper from twenty and down. But how often do those level players challenge the best ones?" 

And I gave you facts that answered your question.  In a fairly recent three-year stretch, 9 out of 12 majors were won by players outside the top 20, including 3 by players outside the top 100.  Those years were not cherry-picked, they just happened to be the years I kept track, until I lost interest.  So the answer appears to be 75% of the time, which in case you didn't know, is over half.

So that was a teaching moment.  You seemed to think it hardly ever happened, and you had a golden opportunity to increase your knowledge of the game. Instead, you chose to dismiss the data as random players about random events.  A guaranteed way to remain ignorant.

On the other hand, I learned something very important.  I learned that it is a waste of time to present facts to you, because you will just dismiss them from your fact-free world. 

So the next time you complain that people are just posting their stupid opinions, remember that with you, they have zero incentive to do anything else.

 

[Dr. Manhattan]

11 minutes ago, JoeInPI said:

I couldn't compare Jack and Tiger.  Different era obviously, WAY different ball AND club technology, so many variables it's kind of pointless to compare. (for me at least) For the competition argument, I'd bet a lot of Nicklaus' competition would have been a lot better playing the clubs and balls of the 90's than the stuff they played in the 60's.  I think they both hold their own place in their own era, just my opinion... :)

 

If you gave Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, and Lee Trevino today's technology, they would have beaten Nicklaus more often. Those three guys had a lower ball flight. Nicklaus had an advantage because of his natural ability to hit very high, soft long iron shots. Pretty much nobody else in golf could do that.

Now we have hybrid clubs and Pro V1 balls that allow even the 500th best guy on the planet to hit those same kind of high, soft approach shots from long yardage. Tiger had a big advantage in the 1990's before that technology came along in the early 2000's. It has leveled the playing field in a big way and it would have done the same with Jack's generation of players. 

[GrandStranded]

2 minutes ago, brocks said:

You have a very short memory, because you also asked this: "I agree with the argument about fields being deeper from twenty and down. But how often do those level players challenge the best ones?" 

And I gave you facts that answered your question.  In a fairly recent three-year stretch, 9 out of 12 majors were won by players outside the top 20, including 3 by players outside the top 100.  Those years were not cherry-picked, they just happened to be the years I kept track, until I lost interest.  So the answer appears to be 75% of the time, which in case you didn't know, is over half.

So that was a teaching moment.  You seemed to think it hardly ever happened, and you had a golden opportunity to increase your knowledge of the game. Instead, you chose to dismiss the data as random players about random events.  A guaranteed way to remain ignorant.

On the other hand, I learned something very important.  I learned that it is a waste of time to present facts to you, because you will just dismiss them from your fact-free world. 

So the next time you complain that people are just posting their stupid opinions, remember that with you, they have zero incentive to do anything else.

 

Now that's Classy. Notes like that are usually written in Crayon. Just don't let the babysitter find out you're on the internet unattended.

[turtleback]

52 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Because if he did play in the 60's and 70's he probably would've been about 5 years old. LOL Just kidding. Bu seriously, t if he could've he probably would have over 300 career wins.... ok sorry again, still just kidding!

Don't worry.  I haven't taken a single thing you have said in this thread seriously for some time now.  Can't be bothered with unserious people making unserious arguments.

I don't have the patience or forbearance that @iacas, @brocks, @mvmac have.

53 minutes ago, JoeInPI said:

I couldn't compare Jack and Tiger.  Different era obviously, WAY different ball AND club technology, so many variables it's kind of pointless to compare. (for me at least) For the competition argument, I'd bet a lot of Nicklaus' competition would have been a lot better playing the clubs and balls of the 90's than the stuff they played in the 60's.  I think they both hold their own place in their own era, just my opinion... :)

Huh?  Sure Nicklaus might have hit better shots with better clubs.  But so would the guys he was playing against.  And according to Jack, technology helps the lesser players more than the better players.  And there wasn't much difference between the clubs Jack played with and the clubs Tiger played while growing up, winning 6 USGA Amateurs, and setting the margin of victory record in the '97 Masters.

46 minutes ago, JoeInPI said:

Let 'em flame away- doesn't make them right...

Nope.  We have facts and analysis for that.  But you have to be willing to dig a little and interact with the facts if you want to be taken seriously.

[JoeInPI]

40 minutes ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

 

If you gave Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, and Lee Trevino today's technology, they would have beaten Nicklaus more often. Those three guys had a lower ball flight. Nicklaus had an advantage because of his natural ability to hit very high, soft long iron shots. Pretty much nobody else in golf could do that.

Now we have hybrid clubs and Pro V1 balls that allow even the 500th best guy on the planet to hit those same kind of high, soft approach shots from long yardage. Tiger had a big advantage in the 1990's before that technology came along in the early 2000's. It has leveled the playing field in a big way and it would have done the same with Jack's generation of players. 

Exactly- that's the thought. The guys that say "Jack only beat 3-4 great players back then" don't take into account the tech of the 60's when comparing Tiger.  Of course he had more great golfers to beat, but part of that reason is because of the technology of the 90's and 00's that the tour had vs. leather grip blades in the 60's and 70's.  If that tech was in existence back then, the whole argument would be different.  How many more majors and titles would Hogan have won?  How far back can we go?  I just think it's apples and oranges.  Or maybe Macintosh apples and golden delicious apples... 

...and if they wanted to, anyone could have learned to hit those high irons. They still can- watch "Golf My Way" no different than Tiger's ability to turn Augusta (pre-Tigerproofed) into a par 3 course.

[GrandStranded]

1 minute ago, turtleback said:

Don't worry.  I haven't taken a single thing you have said in this thread seriously for some time now.  Can't be bothered with unserious people making unserious arguments.

I don't have the patience or forbearance that @iacas, @brocks, @mvmac have.

Well thankfully there are serious people like you who deal with these serious issues seriously because these are serious times so that's why you're serious about being serious. Seriously.

[Dr. Manhattan]

Just now, JoeInPI said:

Exactly- that's the thought. The guys that say "Jack only beat 3-4 great players back then" don't take into account the tech of the 60's when comparing Tiger.  Of course he had more great golfers to beat, but part of that reason is because of the technology of the 90's and 00's that the tour had vs. leather grip blades in the 60's and 70's.  If that tech was in existence back then, the whole argument would be different.  How many more majors and titles would Hogan have won?  How far back can we go?  I just think it's apples and oranges.  Or maybe Macintosh apples and golden delicious apples... 

...and if they wanted to, anyone could have learned to hit those high irons. They still can- watch "Golf My Way" no different than Tiger's ability to turn Augusta (pre-Tigerproofed) into a par 3 course.

 

Hogan would not have won more majors if you gave that entire generation better equipment. He was an incredible ballstriker, so the shitty equipment of that time period actually HELPED him separate from other people on the leaderboard who did not have the same ballstriking ability. 

[JoeInPI]

1 hour ago, JoeInPI said:

I couldn't compare Jack and Tiger.  Different era obviously, WAY different ball AND club technology, so many variables it's kind of pointless to compare. (for me at least) For the competition argument, I'd bet a lot of Nicklaus' competition would have been a lot better playing the clubs and balls of the 90's than the stuff they played in the 60's.  I think they both hold their own place in their own era, just my opinion... :)

 

19 minutes ago, turtleback said:

 

Huh?  Sure Nicklaus might have hit better shots with better clubs.  But so would the guys he was playing against.  And according to Jack, technology helps the lesser players more than the better players.  And there wasn't much difference between the clubs Jack played with and the clubs Tiger played while growing up, winning 6 USGA Amateurs, and setting the margin of victory record in the '97 Masters.

Nope.  We have facts and analysis for that.  But you have to be willing to dig a little and interact with the facts if you want to be taken seriously.

So I just wanted to update your info with the contents of my post that you implied was idiotic. Which matches your reply.  Maybe read it again.  Jeezus.  I forgot how important arguing on the internet was! 

Edited March 17, 2018 by JoeInPI

[ScouseJohnny]

It's wryly amusing to see how highly regarded Vijay becomes when he's a useful prop in the Tiger = GOAT owing to the quality of his opposition in Tiger's prime argument.

Dig deep enough in old Sand Trap threads and you'll find opinions that Vijay was nothing all that special, or, worse still, a suspected cheat and, possibly, a jolly bad egg.

[Vinsk]

4 hours ago, ScouseJohnny said:

It's wryly amusing to see how highly regarded Vijay becomes when he's a useful prop in the Tiger = GOAT owing to the quality of his opposition in Tiger's prime argument.

Dig deep enough in old Sand Trap threads and you'll find opinions that Vijay was nothing all that special, or, worse still, a suspected cheat and, possibly, a jolly bad egg.

No. When discussing Vijay in regards to comparison to Tiger (GOAT) he’s nothing special. In regards to his career he’s done very well. In regards to his character he’s a douche. 

[mvmac]

7 hours ago, iacas said:

Tell me, in a field of 150 very good to great players, how many wins will the 50 great players average? How about in a field with 4 great players, 20 very good players, and 124 scrubs?

Thoughts @GrandStranded?

6 hours ago, JoeInPI said:

How many more majors and titles would Hogan have won?

It's been brought up a few times but the new technology helps narrow the gap between the great and average players. The old tech give the better, more skilled players an advantage.

[turtleback]

12 hours ago, JoeInPI said:

 

So I just wanted to update your info with the contents of my post that you implied was idiotic. Which matches your reply.  Maybe read it again.  Jeezus.  I forgot how important arguing on the internet was! 

You're absolutely right.  Your sentence got me thinking in a particular direction (which we have seen time after time, not that that is a defense) and I read what I expected to see, not what you actually wrote.  So you are also right that I was the idiot here.  You have my sincere apology.

12 hours ago, ScouseJohnny said:

It's wryly amusing to see how highly regarded Vijay becomes when he's a useful prop in the Tiger = GOAT owing to the quality of his opposition in Tiger's prime argument.

Dig deep enough in old Sand Trap threads and you'll find opinions that Vijay was nothing all that special, or, worse still, a suspected cheat and, possibly, a jolly bad egg.

I don't think you would find that it is the same people at all.  I can't recall (although we just saw that I am far from perfect) any of the strong tiger guys here bashing Vijay.  He definitely has been bashed here.  

[GrandStranded]

54 minutes ago, turtleback said:

You're absolutely right.  Your sentence got me thinking in a particular direction (which we have seen time after time, not that that is a defense) and I read what I expected to see, not what you actually wrote.  So you are also right that I was the idiot here.  You have my sincere apology.

I don't think you would find that it is the same people at all.  I can't recall (although we just saw that I am far from perfect) any of the strong tiger guys here bashing Vijay.  He definitely has been bashed here.  

Oh really? The worst thing I said was he was a very good player, whose putting held him back. I can't seem to find this bashing you're talking about here. I even checked in the API thread to see if someone mistakenly put a comment about Vijay in there. Didn't see anything, but I did get to read your missive about sun light and its effect on grass. Good stuff! 

[sheepdog]

15 hours ago, turtleback said:

Actually, put Vijay in the 60's and 70s and between his complexion and his origin he would never have gotten within sniffing distance of a PGA tour event.

Lee Trevino, Roberto De Vicenzo, Lee Elder, Charlie Sifford, Chi Chi Rodriguez, Pete Brown, Homero Blancas all played the tour in the 60s. The Caucasian Only clause was revoked in 1961.

[Lihu]

15 hours ago, JoeInPI said:

I couldn't compare Jack and Tiger.  Different era obviously, WAY different ball AND club technology, so many variables it's kind of pointless to compare. (for me at least) For the competition argument, I'd bet a lot of Nicklaus' competition would have been a lot better playing the clubs and balls of the 90's than the stuff they played in the 60's.  I think they both hold their own place in their own era, just my opinion... :)

Tiger used the same steel shafted clubs to beat everyone in the beginning...

[turtleback]

1 hour ago, GrandStranded said:

Oh really? The worst thing I said was he was a very good player, whose putting held him back. I can't seem to find this bashing you're talking about here. I even checked in the API thread to see if someone mistakenly put a comment about Vijay in there. Didn't see anything, but I did get to read your missive about sun light and its effect on grass. Good stuff! 

No one was talking about you.  @ScouseJohnny specifically said, and I was specifically addressing:

"Dig deep enough in old Sand Trap threads and you'll find opinions that Vijay was nothing all that special, or, worse still, a suspected cheat and, possibly, a jolly bad egg."

See, old threads.  So I guess I am glad I am not the only one to misread a post.  

41 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

Lee Trevino, Roberto De Vicenzo, Lee Elder, Charlie Sifford, Chi Chi Rodriguez, Pete Brown, Homero Blancas all played the tour in the 60s. The Caucasian Only clause was revoked in 1961.

Which is why I said complexion AND his origin.  I can't remember many players from exotic locales like Fiji playing on tour.  The pathway he took to the tour didn't even exist in the 50s, 60s, or 70s. 

And while the clause was eliminated, the effects endured for a long time.  Neither people of color nor foreign players were looked on too approvingly by the tour and it's players, even when they had to accept both.

[brocks]

14 hours ago, ScouseJohnny said:

Dig deep enough in old Sand Trap threads and you'll find opinions that Vijay was nothing all that special, or, worse still, a suspected cheat and, possibly, a jolly bad egg.

Well, you can find people who like or dislike just about every golfer.  But I used to get into a lot of arguments about Vijay, because I maintained that it was Vijay, and not Phil, who was the second best golfer of the Tiger era --- even as late as 2010, when Phil had more wins and more majors than Vijay. 

The reason is that even though he's an all-time great, Phil has an amazingly bare resume.  No money titles, no Vardon Trophies, no Player of the Year awards, and never world #1.  The only year-end distinction he has after 25 years on tour is that he had the most wins (4) in 1996.

Yes, it was kind of hard to beat Tiger out for those awards, but Vijay had three money titles, one "most wins," a Vardon, a POTY, and was world #1. 

Now that Phil has added about ten wins and a couple of majors, I've changed my opinion on who has the best total career.  Besides, I've always liked Phil better, and my respect for him really zoomed when he rescued Hunter Mahan during a very painful post-Ryder Cup press conference.  But in my book, Vijay is still an all-time great, and I still consider him the second best golfer during Tiger's prime (1996-2009).