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

[Fidelio]

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

The opposite is more true.

 

Sorry I stopped reading your post after the very first thing you said.

Your post is the equivalent when people said Joe Montana is better because he is 4-0 in Super Bowls  and Tom Brady was 4-2. It is nonsensical.  Actually finishing second in major is not the same as finishing 20th.

The fields were not so weak that a 3rd place finish would be out of the top 10 in the modern era. There is no analytic you can show otherwise. So third in Jack's is better than 10th in Tiger's era.

Edited April 8, 2018 by Fidelio

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

Sorry I stopped reading your post after the very first thing you said.

Your post is the equivalent when people said Joe Montana is better because he is 4-0 in Super Bowls  and Tom Brady was 4-2. It is nonsensical.  Actually finishing second in major is not the same as finishing 20th.

You said "That settles the depth of field argument in Jack's favor."

It does not. It demonstrates that the fields were weaker in Jack's day.

---

Look, the topic is 324 pages long. Countless people have made the same arguments time and time again. So yes, you're going to get shorter replies, because many of these things have already been discussed or posted 20+ times already by the same people.

It's fine that you want to call Jack your GOAT. Cool. You get to have your own opinion. You aren't entitled, however, to your own facts. Fact is the strength of field is stronger/deeper in Tiger's era than in Jack's.

And that - along with Tiger's other accomplishments - is why many others (the majority in the poll) likely voted for Tiger as the GOAT, because 14x > 18y and because 79 > 72 and because "Tiger's Other Accomplishments > Jack's Other Accomplishments". In their opinions.

[Fidelio]

Just now, iacas said:

You said "That settles the depth of field argument in Jack's favor."

It does not. It demonstrates that the fields were weaker in Jack's day.

Ummmm... Right. Fields were weaker in Jack's era. That post implies I believe that and my subsequent posts explicitly state that.

Maybe try one more re-read. 

 

[iacas]

Just now, Fidelio said:

Ummmm... Right. Fields were weaker in Jack's era. That post implies I believe that and my subsequent posts explicitly state that.

I don't need to re-read it. You were ambiguous in saying it "favors Jack." That's vague, because I feel most will take that to mean Jack played against stiffer competition (that argument is frequent among "Jack-is-GOAT" voters).

You meant that it favored Jack finishing higher against weaker competition, and I think that definition is not the way most would take what you wrote.

So re-read it? No thanks. I get that you meant the second thing now. But that's not how I think most would take that.

Anyway, pity you didn't read further. Or any of the previous pages, it seems. You might have seen that @sheepdog is talking out of his hind end.

[Fidelio]

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

---

You aren't entitled, however, to your own facts. Fact is the strength of field is stronger/deeper in Tiger's era than in Jack's.

Name one fact that I listed that wasn't true. Please do.

You keep bringing up this strength of field thing. Literally, the very first sentence I posted after I created an account implies I believe the fields are deeper and tougher today. THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE addresses that argument.

Edited April 8, 2018 by Fidelio

[iacas]

Just now, Fidelio said:

You keep bringing up this strength of field thing. Literally, the very first sentence I posted after I created an account implies I believe the fields are deeper and tougher today. THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE addresses that argument.

Again, read the post just above yours.

Jack supporters through the years have pitched the idea that the fields are WEAKER now than when Jack played. It was reasonable to take your first post where you said it "favors Jack" as stating that.

You didn't mean it that way. I get that now. But it was reasonable to assume that's what you meant, given the arguments we've heard over the years, and I addressed that in my post right there above yours.

And some of us don't give a crap about seconds and thirds, as finishing second and third back then was much easier than finishing even top five is these days.

[sheepdog]

You see Fidelio, I'm talking out of my hind end. When it comes to Tiger vs. Jack, other opinions, pro Jack, are viewed as talking out of your ***.

To be honest the rest of the place isn't bad. This thread is good entertainment. The guy that said Jack was an average putter at best was good for some laughs. Yeah you win six Masters being an average putter at best. Bwhahahahaha.

 

[iacas]

1 minute ago, sheepdog said:

You see Fidelio, I'm talking out of my hind end. When it comes to Tiger vs. Jack, other opinions, pro Jack, are viewed as talking out of your ***.

I still don't recall you ever even presenting much of an argument, but you've dismissed everyone else who disagrees with you by name-calling ("fanboys").

1 minute ago, sheepdog said:

To be honest the rest of the place isn't bad. This thread is good entertainment. The guy that said Jack was an average putter at best was good for some laughs. Yeah you win six Masters being an average putter at best. Bwhahahahaha.

Once again, that was ONE guy, who I don't even think is a huge Tiger fan. His singular opinion is not representative of everyone else - the majority - who voted for Tiger, or even those who continue to post in favor of Tiger as GOAT.

P.S. Your last comment implies that you have to be a great putter to win at Augusta. Like virtually every other course, ballstriking matters much more than putting, and particularly at Augusta, approach shots and lately driving matter the most. I think Jack was a very good putter. Likely most everyone else here - save ONE guy - does as well.

[Fidelio]

53 minutes ago, iacas said:

And some of us don't give a crap about seconds and thirds, as finishing second and third back then was much easier than finishing even top five is these days.

Right.   I used top 10 as the metric to be on safe ground. Simple fact  Jack: 37 top 2s. Tiger: 38 top 10s.

Lot of margin of safety in that stat to say Jack had the best career.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Fidelio said:

Right.   I used top 10 as the metric to be on safe ground. Simple fact  Jack: 37 top 2s. Tiger: 38 top 10s.

Lot of margin of safety in that stat to say Jack had the best career.

Debatable.

But your argument is almost a variant of the same old "18 > 14" argument. You only care about the majors.

79 > 72. That's also true. And there's a TON of margin of error to use that to suggest that Tiger the best career.

Tiger won by bigger margins. Tiger won more Player of the Year awards. More Vardon trophies. A much higher percentage (even if you exclude Jack's mostly ceremonial starts).

Again, all types of stuff which has been posted 20+ times already, so pardon the brevity or the lack of interest in repeating it for the umpteenth time.

I again suggest you go back and read posts by @turtleback, @brocks, @Dr. Manhattan, @Phil McGleno, and others who can speak to the strength/depth of field in the majors, since that's all you seem to care about. (Which is fine, but others care about other things.)

[sheepdog]

Chill out iacas! You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. Ball striking in that you got to know where to put it on the greens, yeah OK. but being a great putter is right up there with that at Augusta. Crenshaw, great putter, just above average in many other aspects of his game, won two, You don't win at Augusta without being a great putter.

Ask Scott Hoch.

[Fidelio]

22 minutes ago, iacas said:

 Like virtually every other course, ballstriking matters much more than putting, and particularly at Augusta, approach shots and lately driving matter the most. 

Jack was a superior ball striker, which is why he had more consistent record than Tiger.  (Does anyone disagree with that?)

You could maybe say Tiger and Jack were similar with iron play (though Jack was statistically superior in GIR). But even Tiger's best driving years when he won the Grand Slam were not as good as 40 year old Jack in 1980 when that was first measured. Tee to green Jack is the clear favorite. On and around the greens Tiger is clearly better.  Ball striking is a more consistent stat than putting. 

Edited April 8, 2018 by Fidelio

[Dr. Manhattan]

2 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

Chill out iacas! You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. Ball striking in that you got to know where to put it on the greens, yeah OK. but being a great putter is right up there with that at Augusta. Crenshaw, great putter, just above average in many other aspects of his game, won two, You don't win at Augusta without being a great putter.

Ask Scott Hoch.

 

Ask Vijay Singh, Bubba Watson, Adam Scott, and Sergio Garcia. They didn't putt terribly when they won. I don't think you can ever win ANY pro tournament with outright bad putting. But for the most part those 4 guys I listed won The Masters because of their ballstriking. 

[iacas]

13 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

Chill out iacas!

My blood pressure and heart rate has increased exactly zero today from this topic. Actually it's probably gone down, as I've been able to sit down and relax and type rather than running around prepping for the Masters party today.

You made a bad assumption there.

13 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine.

I've never said otherwise.

13 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

Ball striking in that you got to know where to put it on the greens, yeah OK. but being a great putter is right up there with that at Augusta.

No. It's off topic here, so I'm not going to get into it, but you can be an average putter and win at Augusta. Just like every other week. Ben Crenshaw was, particularly when he was on, a tremendous ballstriker. He was hailed out of college with very, very high expectations. Not because of his putting. The Masters, more than anything, was known for years as a ball striker's course, because if you can put the ball in the proper section of the green, you can make putts. And in putting, there's very little separation between the best and the worst. Much less than in ballstriking. And no, these aren't really opinions. They are off topic.

13 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

You don't win at Augusta without being a great putter.

Ask Scott Hoch.

I'll ask Sergio Garcia.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/this-is-how-you-master-the-masters/

10 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

Jack was a superior ball striker… Does anyone disagree with that?

Than Tiger? Yes, I disagree.

10 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

You could maybe say Tiger and Jack were similar with iron play (though Jack was statistically superior in GIR). But even Tiger's best driving years when he won the Grand Slam were not as good as 40 year old Jack in 1980 when that was first measured. Tee to green Jack is the clear favorite.

I disagree, and know plenty of stats guys who would disagree as well.

Tiger averaged placing 2.2 over ten years in approach shots.

Throwing out two bad driving years, he averaged top 9 driving.

[Fidelio]

9 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

Tiger won by bigger margins. Tiger won more Player of the Year awards. More Vardon trophies. A much higher percentage (even if you exclude Jack's mostly ceremonial starts).

 

Tiger was a more dominant player and certainly a superior player in his prime.  Nobody disagrees.  That Player of the Year award is not a good a measure though. Jack didn't win a Player of the Year award until his sixth year on tour even though he  could have won it every year up to that point. Jack won two majors in 1963 and wasn't player of the year. He won the money title in 64 and 65 but no player of the year.

Jack was a more consistently good player in majors. There have been people who have done analytics on this. 

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Fidelio said:

That Player of the Year award is not a good a measure though.

Sez you. I don't think finishing second or fourth in a major matters. Sez me.

1 minute ago, Fidelio said:

Jack was a more consistently good player in majors. There have been people who have done analytics on this.

Against weaker/shallower fields.

I don't care about a fourth-place finish in a major. It isn't a factor in the opinion at which I arrive.

• 14x > 18y
• 79x >>> 72y
• Everything Else* Tiger >> Everything Else Jack
• Tiger's Dominance > Jack's Dominance

If I had to sum up my criteria, that right there would probably be it.

* POY, Vardon, "complete game," etc.

[Fidelio]

13 minutes ago, iacas said:

My blood pressure and heart rate has increased exactly zero today from this topic. Actually it's probably gone down, as I've been able to sit down and relax and type rather than running around prepping for the Masters party today.

You made a bad assumption there.

I've never said otherwise.

No. It's off topic here, so I'm not going to get into it, but you can be an average putter and win at Augusta. Just like every other week. Ben Crenshaw was, particularly when he was on, a tremendous ballstriker. He was hailed out of college with very, very high expectations. Not because of his putting. The Masters, more than anything, was known for years as a ball striker's course, because if you can put the ball in the proper section of the green, you can make putts. And in putting, there's very little separation between the best and the worst. Much less than in ballstriking. And no, these aren't really opinions. They are off topic.

I'll ask Sergio Garcia.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/this-is-how-you-master-the-masters/

Than Tiger? Yes, I disagree.

I disagree, and know plenty of stats guys who would disagree as well.

Tiger averaged placing 2.2 over ten years in approach shots.

Throwing out two bad driving years, he averaged top 9 driving.

I don't see anything you posted that addresses Jack.

I don't know why you would throw out years. Tiger was a good driver in his best years. But never to close Jack. They only kept ball striking stats once in the prime of Jack's career and it was Jack's worst year in his career up to that point. Jack lead in driving distance and he lead in GIR by a huge margin. When they started keeping stats in 1980, Jack was near the top in distance and accuracy at age 40 and lead in total driving with a number no one has ever come close to.

8 minutes ago, iacas said:

Sez you. I don't think finishing second or fourth in a major matters. Sez me.

 

 And I gave a very specific reason for that.

The best example is 1963. Jack won the Masters and PGA and finished 3rd in the British.  Julius Boros was POY that year. He only had 1 major. Boros only won three tournaments that year.

Edited April 8, 2018 by Fidelio

[iacas]

Just now, Fidelio said:

I don't see anything you posted that addresses Jack.

In what context? We don't have strokes gained stats for Jack, so how can I "address" Jack? I posted some awfully impressive Tiger stats. If you think Jack would have eclipsed those, I can think you're crazy, but neither of us can prove it… so why pretend we can? I don't see the point.

Just now, Fidelio said:

I don't know why you would throw out years. Tiger was a good driver in his best years. But never to close Jack.

He was close to Jack. He was likely better than Jack in some years.

And in his approach game, if you ranked their seasons 1-20, Tiger was probably ahead of Jack in the vast majority.

Just now, Fidelio said:

Jack lead in driving distance and he lead in GIR by a huge margin. When they started keeping stats in 1980, Jack was near the top in distance and accuracy at age 40 and lead in total driving with a number no one has ever come close to.

Very simple: I don't think Jack would have averaged as highly as Tiger in his approach shots as Jack did, and again, strength and depth of field plays a role here. Again, it was significantly easier for Jack to rank high in stats than it has been for Tiger, particularly given the importance of ballstriking in playing well on the PGA Tour/majors.

I don't think Jack sniffs averaging 2.2 place over 10 years in strokes gained approach shots if they had that stat back then.

Jack was a very good player who racked up a lot of wins by being very good for a long time. Tiger was a great player who racked up wins at a much faster rate. Jack was fortunate to stay healthy, while Tiger Woods has been hampered with injuries since 2007. And yet still won 79x > 72y, and 14x > 18y majors, etc.

Tiger's driving and approach shot game is a huge part of why I think Tiger at his best > Jack at his best. Even Jack agrees with that.