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

[iacas]

8 hours ago, JonMA1 said:

No offense, but what Jack wrote or even what Tiger states in interviews has little to do with what I think.

You said something about chasing down a goal, and how once you achieve it there's less drive to keep going or something, so Jack's shifting ideas about what constituted the "best ever" or whatever does matter in that context.

8 hours ago, JonMA1 said:

Where I might disagree with some is how much better he is than Jack was. I have no data with which to back this up, but I don't feel any of Tigers opponents were or are as good as Jack was in his prime. That might be more of a pissing contest and probably off-topic.

Absolutely nobody has said that Tiger's opponents are as good as "Jack was in his prime." Jack, by almost all accounts, is #1 or #2 in the history of the game.

I don't even know where you got that.

People have said that Jack's opponents were not as good as Tiger's opponents, and that's basically a truth, a fact. But nobody, nobody has said Tiger's opponents are as good as Jack Nicklaus himself, let alone Jack Nicklaus himself "in his prime."

6 hours ago, brocks said:

We must be using different definitions of "prime."  You seem to mean "peak."  I mean his prime playing years, which might span 20 or more years for some golfers.  Unless you can show it's a fluke, a golfer's prime would begin no later than the year he had a top 5 in a major, which for Hagen was 1913.  The fact that he won the US Open the following year showed it was no fluke.

No, I'm simply saying that your statement implied that he missed out on a substantial chunk of them during his "prime". He missed out on two or three PGA Championships. That's not many.

6 hours ago, brocks said:

Where people go wrong is looking at just one number, instead of the total record.  And even the total record can be interpreted in many different ways.

They don't "go wrong" because that implies there's one correct answer.

Who any one person feels is the GOAT is still an opinion, even if there are a lot of facts people can use to craft those opinions.

6 hours ago, brocks said:

I've always used dominance as the most important measure, and it's pretty easy to show that Tiger was more dominant than Jack.

I could create examples where dominance is "wrong." A guy comes out, plays three majors, wins each by 20 shots along with some dominant PGA Tour events (say, four?) and then gets the driver yips and never plays again.

GOAT? I doubt you'd find many casting votes in his direction. They'd all just wonder what could have been…

6 hours ago, brocks said:

Jack was one of the best golfers in the world for over 20 years, but he was THE best golfer in the world for only five, or possibly six, of those years.  Tiger was indisputably the best for nine years, and arguably the best for 12 years.

Right, so there also has to be some period of time in there, too.

Just playing devil's advocate a little.

[turtleback]

11 hours ago, JonMA1 said:

No offense, but what Jack wrote or even what Tiger states in interviews has little to do with what I think. What it comes down to for me, is that Tiger has the 2nd most tour wins and the 2nd most major wins in history. I don't have the stats in front of me, but he accomplished those with more dominant statistics and against overall stronger fields. His run at that very high level lasted over a decade.

 

Of COURSE it affects your thinking because you grew up in an era that had already caved to and accepted this misshapen version of fair.  You adopted the overwhelming consensus position - no one was articulating a different view by then.  Frankly, for 25 years before Tiger came along, most majors was essentially unquestioned as the metric.  I find it hard to imagine that you looked at all of the different factors and independently came up with most majors as your criteria.  The missing piece is that you weren't around when NO ONE ever touted most majors as the criteria.  And the only reason that most majors became the consensus criteria is because of what Jack wrote.

[turtleback]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

I could create examples where dominance is "wrong." A guy comes out, plays three majors, wins each by 20 shots along with some dominant PGA Tour events (say, four?) and then gets the driver yips and never plays again.

GOAT? I doubt you'd find many casting votes in his direction. They'd all just wonder what could have been…

Right, so there also has to be some period of time in there, too.

Just playing devil's advocate a little.

Agree.  Which is why I frame my own criteria for GOAT as degree of dominance and dominance over a sufficiently long period.  10-12 years is enough for me.  I would take longevity beyond that into account ONLY for players of comparable dominance level.  Jack was never as dominant as Tiger.  And that is true even if we completely ignore the field issue.  Which is why I argue that the gap is pretty wide.  He dominated a far stronger field, by a far greater margin than Jack ever did, for a sufficiently long period.  That is a one sentence summary of my position.

[iacas]

16 minutes ago, turtleback said:

Of COURSE it affects your thinking because you grew up in an era that had already caved to and accepted this misshapen version of fair.

I don't know about misshapen.

It may be the perfect shape (for some), but just because it wasn't one of the "original" determinants, doesn't mean it's the wrong one.

Majors won is, in the minds of probably almost everyone, a major factor (no pun intended) in their own personal determination of GOAT. For some it's ALL that matters (i.e. 18 > 14), but for you and me, it's still a factor: if Tiger had only 6 and even if he'd won those six by 10 shots each, I don't know that you'd call him the GOAT either.

"Major count" was not the first, and IMO should not be the only determinant, but I don't know that it's "misshapen."

I can see why you'd use those words, though, as you're considering playing opportunities for Hogan, Hagen, Sarazen, etc. Me, I don't consider them top two, so I don't really care about what happened back then. So since Jack and Tiger are on equal footing, I don't consider majors "misshapen."

[turtleback]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

I don't know about misshapen.

It may be the perfect shape (for some), but just because it wasn't one of the "original" determinants, doesn't mean it's the wrong one.

Majors won is, in the minds of probably almost everyone, a major factor (no pun intended) in their own personal determination of GOAT. For some it's ALL that matters (i.e. 18 > 14), but for you and me, it's still a factor: if Tiger had only 6 and even if he'd won those six by 10 shots each, I don't know that you'd call him the GOAT either.

"Major count" was not the first, and IMO should not be the only determinant, but I don't know that it's "misshapen."

I can see why you'd use those words, though, as you're considering playing opportunities for Hogan, Hagen, Sarazen, etc. Me, I don't consider them top two, so I don't really care about what happened back then. So since Jack and Tiger are on equal footing, I don't consider majors "misshapen."

Misshapen version of fair at the time it was proposed.  

[iacas]

1 minute ago, turtleback said:

Misshapen version of fair at the time it was proposed.  

I can go with that. That's what I tried to convey in my last paragraph.

[freshmanUTA]

This is my opinion, so do with it what you please: I think Tiger is the better golfer, by a long way.

A lot of people have been comparing wins, scores, etc. People saying Jack is better often use the “The technology made the game easier” argument. But Tiger played blades irons and used a steel shafted driver until his club manufacturer basically forced him to. I remember reading something where he said he’d never switch away from a steel shaft driver. But he did. Even then,  Tiger didn’t miraculously jump to a 100% fairways hit statistic. Tiger has many videos of miraculous recovery shots from the woods or behind trees, etc. Outside of the driver and woods, Tiger played, and I believe still plays, blades. There’s no extra forgiveness there. On top of all that tiger was playing against a much stronger field and even now is playing against the strongest field the PGA Tour has seen and still finished top-10. That’s impressive. 

Also, just like golf equipment has gotten better, greenskeepers equipment has gotten better. On average a PGA Tour course is probably light years harder than it was in Jacks era just based on their ability to keep conditions exactly as they want them.

Maybe I’m just talking out of my ass though.

[MuniGrit]

How many posters actually saw Jack play other than highlights? Its the same as the guys arguing for Jones and Hagen. TIGER is the GOAT in my opinion and I also have seen his whole career which may skew my viewpoint.

[saevel25]

22 minutes ago, MuniGrit said:

How many posters actually saw Jack play other than highlights? Its the same as the guys arguing for Jones and Hagen. TIGER is the GOAT in my opinion and I also have seen his whole career which may skew my viewpoint.

Not really. There are plenty of people who have seen both play and hey will say Jack is the greatest. It isn't simple as that. People romanticize the past, and are overly critical of the present. That is just human nature.

[turtleback]

31 minutes ago, freshmanUTA said:

This is my opinion, so do with it what you please: I think Tiger is the better golfer, by a long way.

A lot of people have been comparing wins, scores, etc. People saying Jack is better often use the “The technology made the game easier” argument. But Tiger played blades irons and used a steel shafted driver until his club manufacturer basically forced him to. I remember reading something where he said he’d never switch away from a steel shaft driver. But he did. Even then,  Tiger didn’t miraculously jump to a 100% fairways hit statistic. Tiger has many videos of miraculous recovery shots from the woods or behind trees, etc. Outside of the driver and woods, Tiger played, and I believe still plays, blades. There’s no extra forgiveness there. On top of all that tiger was playing against a much stronger field and even now is playing against the strongest field the PGA Tour has seen and still finished top-10. That’s impressive. 

Also, just like golf equipment has gotten better, greenskeepers equipment has gotten better. On average a PGA Tour course is probably light years harder than it was in Jacks era just based on their ability to keep conditions exactly as they want them.

Maybe I’m just talking out of my ass though.

I don't think you are.  While I was watching that video of the last round of the '97 Masters I heard one of the announcers say that Jack had told him that the Augusta that Tiger was tearing up was much more difficult than the one he and Raymond Floyd had set the scoring record on.  And that was BEFORE the Tiger-proofing.

19 minutes ago, MuniGrit said:

How many posters actually saw Jack play other than highlights? Its the same as the guys arguing for Jones and Hagen. TIGER is the GOAT in my opinion and I also have seen his whole career which may skew my viewpoint.

I saw virtually all of Jack's career play out.  Such as I could, because a lot less was on TV back then.  By the time Tiger won his Tiger slam I would venture to guess that more of his shots had been televised than all of Jack's televised shots up to and including the '86 Masters.  Folks forget that in a lot of Jack's era all we saw on TV was the last 4 holes, or so.

[MuniGrit]

2 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Not really. There are plenty of people who have seen both play and hey will say Jack is the greatest. It isn't simple as that. People romanticize the past, and are overly critical of the present. That is just human nature.

People all the time will watched a few highlights of Jack and say they saw him play. Very little of Jack's playing is available these days where you can see pretty much all of Tigers career. It gets even worse when we talk about Hogan, Hagan, Jones and even Tom Morris.

[rehmwa]

43 minutes ago, freshmanUTA said:

Also, just like golf equipment has gotten better, greenskeepers equipment has gotten better. On average a PGA Tour course is probably light years harder than it was in Jacks era just based on their ability to keep conditions exactly as they want them.

Not counting putting.  A better green is easier (albeit faster).  Some of those putts from a few decades ago looked like Plinko

[JonMA1]

3 hours ago, turtleback said:

Of COURSE it affects your thinking because you grew up in an era that had already caved to and accepted this misshapen version of fair.  You adopted the overwhelming consensus position - no one was articulating a different view by then.  Frankly, for 25 years before Tiger came along, most majors was essentially unquestioned as the metric.  I find it hard to imagine that you looked at all of the different factors and independently came up with most majors as your criteria.  The missing piece is that you weren't around when NO ONE ever touted most majors as the criteria.  And the only reason that most majors became the consensus criteria is because of what Jack wrote.

I never read any of Jack's books so I really didn't know any of the history that's been shared here. I did assume Jack was chasing a few different things and naturally majors would have been one of those. Why would that be so bizarre to come up with on my own? Is that not correct based on his book? I also assume he would have been chasing total tour wins as well. None of my assumptions can have anything to do with his book because I've never read it.

My point was that regardless of how Jack or Tiger or anyone else rank majors, it's not my opinion that majors are the only thing. They're really, really important (IMO) and winning 18 is very impressive, but they are not the only thing in determining GOAT. Are you understanding my position on this?

Honestly, I'm sorry but I'm missing your point Rich. Also, please understand that I never really followed golf until about 2010.

[turtleback]

6 hours ago, JonMA1 said:

I never read any of Jack's books so I really didn't know any of the history that's been shared here. I did assume Jack was chasing a few different things and naturally majors would have been one of those. Why would that be so bizarre to come up with on my own? Is that not correct based on his book? I also assume he would have been chasing total tour wins as well. None of my assumptions can have anything to do with his book because I've never read it.

My point was that regardless of how Jack or Tiger or anyone else rank majors, it's not my opinion that majors are the only thing. They're really, really important (IMO) and winning 18 is very impressive, but they are not the only thing in determining GOAT. Are you understanding my position on this?

Honestly, I'm sorry but I'm missing your point Rich. Also, please understand that I never really followed golf until about 2010.

By the time you started following golf the number of majors criteria was solidly in place and was almost unquestioned.  You weren't influenced by Jack's words directly, but it would be strange if you weren't influenced by the existing consensus.  Which was based on Jack's words - that were spoken 30 years before you started following golf.  

But I think the history is important.  Majors, as majors, had nowhere near the cachet they have now prior to Arnie redefining and reinvigorating the notion of the Modern Grand Slam in 1960, which is what really defined what a modern major is.  Just as people look at Jones' Grand Slam as defining those events as majors for that time.  "Slams" either achieved or hypothetical define majors, majors don't define slams.

But in neither case was that a result of examining all the events and picking out the most challenging.  Calling the 1930 British Amateur a major is a joke and, sadly so is calling the 1960 British Open a major.  And the reason this matters is that some of the guys who are always mentioned as the great players of the time have their resumes padded with some of these non-major majors.  Like Gary Player, one of my favorites of all time because my first clubs were hand me down signature clubs he endorsed, won a British Open in which only 3 Americans, none of much note, were in the field in about 1958.  So when Gary, who was undoubtedly an all-time great, is credited with 9 majors, that might be true in some kind of retroactive traditional way, but not on the basis of any kind of objective assessment of some of the events.

All of which is a very roundabout way of saying that beyond the general arguments about strengthening of the fields, there is this other factor that majors did not even necessarily draw the best players at the time.  You'll probably find it hard to believe, but until about 5 years before you started following golf it was not very common that an event would have substantially all of the best players in the world.  Now we have 8 or 9 a year  and in his heyday Tiger absolutely dominated those events.

The fact is, for a lot of golf history prior to 1970 or so  and even more so prior to 1960, majors just weren't the big deal they are now.

Please understand, nothing above is intended as arguing against your position.  It is more intended as exposition of the history to provide context, with the essential message being, not all majors are equal.

Edited March 23, 2018 by turtleback

[iacas]

I'd just like to point out (@turtleback will appreciate this) that ESPN The Magazine just named Tiger Woods THE most dominant athlete or team - in any sport across the globe - over the last 20 years.

They normalize performance by seeing how many standard deviations the player is from the other top four players/teams each given year, and then arrive at a final number and thus ranking.

LeBron James was second. Annika Sorenstam was sixth.

http://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/22813370/tiger-woods-tops-our-list-most-dominant-athletes-20-years

[flopster]

I do believe Tiger is the GOAT and if he were to become the #1 player again in his 40's I think it would be undeniable to more. Major victories are certainly important and I still think Tiger Woods is capable of still winning more and could tie or break Jacks mark in the coming years as long as his health holds up. As to the game of golf I wonder what sort of impact a Tiger comeback will do for the golf world.

[JonMA1]

17 hours ago, turtleback said:

Majors, as majors, had nowhere near the cachet they have now prior to Arnie redefining and reinvigorating the notion of the Modern Grand Slam in 1960, which is what really defined what a modern major is. 

Now I understand. (I need to work on my reading comprehension skills).

Ok, this does change things a bit. If they were no where near as challenging or sought after as they became in later decades, I can't put the same weight on them as I can say Super Bowls, World Series, and NCAA Basketball Championships as examples.

I honestly believed that Majors held more prestige, or offered higher earnings, or something in the way of them being out of the ordinary. In my mind, I compared them to Tennis' Grand Slam which is a sport I have followed from a much younger age. For all I know, even those became more popular as television coverage became more common or players like Connors and Ashe, and Evert brought more attention to that sport.

I had gone back and read a couple of your previous posts (#5438 and one or two others) at someones suggestion, but I thought your only point was that Jack just pushed the idea of them being the standard of measuring a career (which it sounds like he did). Hence the reason for my reply that I wasn't influenced by his book. I just didn't realize they were not thought of by the players in earlier generations in the same way they are now.

Thanks for taking the time to explain (again).

[turtleback]

13 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

Now I understand. (I need to work on my reading comprehension skills).

Ok, this does change things a bit. If they were no where near as challenging or sought after as they became in later decades, I can't put the same weight on them as I can say Super Bowls, World Series, and NCAA Basketball Championships as examples.

I honestly believed that Majors held more prestige, or offered higher earnings, or something in the way of them being out of the ordinary. In my mind, I compared them to Tennis' Grand Slam which is a sport I have followed from a much younger age. For all I know, even those became more popular as television coverage became more common or players like Connors and Ashe, and Evert brought more attention to that sport.

I had gone back and read a couple of your previous posts (#5438 and one or two others) at someones suggestion, but I thought your only point was that Jack just pushed the idea of them being the standard of measuring a career (which it sounds like he did). Hence the reason for my reply that I wasn't influenced by his book. I just didn't realize they were not thought of by the players in earlier generations in the same way they are now.

Thanks for taking the time to explain (again).

Hey I enjoyed having an occasion to talk about this stuff.  As to your reading comprehension, I'm probably at least as much at fault.  Sometimes I forget that other people have not been following this stuff as long as I have and jump over 2 steps at once.  Like the 'Jack's words' thing.

Fun stuff.

I also really appreciated you listening with an open mind.  So often in the past I have laid out a detailed case only to be met with the equivalent of 'oh yeah?  18>14'.