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

[brocks]

1 hour ago, turtleback said:

I mentioned it already, but as late as the 80s a 3-time US Open winner, now in the HOF - Hale Irwin - only played the British Open TWICE in the whole decade.  So Jack's major record looks far more impressive to them than an objective evaluation would merit.  They do not realize with ALL of those tough guys Jack had to compete against who are always touted based on the number of majors won, their major records look far more impressive than an objective evaluation would merit. 

Exactly.  The Mark McCormack-created "Big Three" of Arnie, Jack, and Gary each won two British Opens during the years 1959-1970, with only a handful of Americans in the fields.  It probably wasn't until the 90's that most of the world's best players showed up for all four majors.

European golf was so devastated by WWII that the British Open wasn't even considered a major (except by players from the British Empire) during the 50's, before Arnie revived it and the Wide World of Sports started hyping it.  And I can prove it.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=AtlQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=O9AMAAAAIBAJ&pg=5796%2C6443962

Anybody who doesn't want to click on a blind link, I don't blame you, but you'll miss out, because there is a picture of Elvira Snodgrass at the bottom of the page.  Hubba hubba.

But briefly, it's the April 9, 1951 sports page of an Ohio newspaper containing an article about Ben Hogan's win in the Masters that weekend.  The headline is, "Masters Victory Gives Hogan All of Golf's Major Trophies."  Right, everybody knows Hogan won the pro Grand Slam.

Except that he won the British Open in 1953.  And that was the first time he played it.  He had never played it when the paper said he had won all of golf's majors.

So the headline is saying there are only three pro majors.  Sometimes headlines don't actually reflect what their article says, but this isn't one of those times.  The article says the same thing.  It says if Hogan wanted to retire right now, he could check through his collection of titles and find not one of major importance missing.

This is a small-town paper, because the big ones are behind pay walls, but it's a nationally syndicated article from the AP.  Assuming they have their top reporter cover the Masters, the article was written by arguably the most important sports reporter in the US, since there was no Sports Illustrated at the time.

And it's not like European sports were ignored in general.  Right above the Masters article that dismisses the British Open as a non-event, there's an article about the Davis Cup --- the US vs Europe in amateur tennis.  And right below it (but above the picture of Elvira Snodgrass) is an article mentioning the European featherweight champ in boxing.

It's just a fact --- the majors weren't the MAJORS until the 80's at the earliest.  As @Turtleback showed with Hale Irwin, probably not even then.

And I honestly don't understand why this is even controversial.  Nobody has any problem saying Vardon played against weaker competition than Jack.  But the exact same factors -- smaller talent pool, smaller fields, fewer international competitors, and swing theory and technology changes that helped good players more than great players --- that make it obvious that it was easier to win in Vardon's day, also apply when comparing the Jack era to the Tiger era.

 

 

 

 

[boogielicious]

11 hours ago, fishgolf said:

I think this question will largely fall along generational lines.  It makes for great debate and banter but will never be answered unequivocally. 

I'm 58. I saw them both play. I went crazy when Jack won the Masters in 86. But Tiger is just a bit better. He was just more dominant again deeper fields.

[fishgolf]

2 hours ago, boogielicious said:

I'm 58. I saw them both play. I went crazy when Jack won the Masters in 86. But Tiger is just a bit better. He was just more dominant again deeper fields.

We're the same age. I've followed both and feel Jack is a bit better.  As a kid, I rooted for Arnie and had dibs on pretending I was him during our neighborhood whiffle golf ball rounds at the local park. 

[saevel25]

8 hours ago, brocks said:

And I honestly don't understand why this is even controversial.  Nobody has any problem saying Vardon played against weaker competition than Jack.  But the exact same factors -- smaller talent pool, smaller fields, fewer international competitors, and swing theory and technology changes that helped good players more than great players --- that make it obvious that it was easier to win in Vardon's day, also apply when comparing the Jack era to the Tiger era.

Everybody who accepts 18>14 must then say that Walter Hagen is better than Ben Hogan 11>9, or Hagen is better than Tom Watson 11>8.

I bet they would try to validate that Hogan and Watson is better than Hagen with the same arguments that we use to say Tiger is better than Jack. They just want the double standard.

[klineka]

16 minutes ago, fishgolf said:

We're the same age. I've followed both and feel Jack is a bit better.

Why do you feel that Jack is a bit better?

Edited April 11, 2018 by klineka

[fishgolf]

11 minutes ago, klineka said:

Why do you feel that Jack is a bit better?

Because if we could somehow magically bring Jack into Tigers era or Tiger into Jacks era, Jack would still beat him more often than not.

[Wally Fairway]

8 hours ago, brocks said:

It's just a fact --- the majors weren't the MAJORS until the 80's at the earliest.  As @Turtleback showed with Hale Irwin, probably not even then.

 

This should likely be a completely different topic - but the majors used to be the British Open and Am, and the US Open and Am.

Then professional golf took off - say +/- 100 years ago with the PGA Championship.

But for many years the Western Open and North/South Open and the World Championship of Golf were more prestigious than regular events, much like The Players Championship is viewed today.

So when did today's majors become "The Majors" and collectively the "Grand Slam"?

Certainly the 1895 US Open with 11 entries (3 of whom withdrew before the start) cannot be viewed is the same light as a major, as is an extreme example of no depth of field. And yet in any list of major champions Horace Rawlins is included.

[turtleback]

12 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

This should likely be a completely different topic - but the majors used to be the British Open and Am, and the US Open and Am.

Then professional golf took off - say +/- 100 years ago with the PGA Championship.

But for many years the Western Open and North/South Open and the World Championship of Golf were more prestigious than regular events, much like The Players Championship is viewed today.

So when did today's majors become "The Majors" and collectively the "Grand Slam"?

Certainly the 1895 US Open with 11 entries (3 of whom withdrew before the start) cannot be viewed is the same light as a major, as is an extreme example of no depth of field. And yet in any list of major champions Horace Rawlins is included.

Sorry, but that is not remotely true.  They were elements in a wonderful accomplishment for a great amateur and that is all.  Contrary to myth, amateur golf was NEVER remotely as strong as professional golf.  Jones was the outlier - the amateur who could compete with pros.  But except for him, when Amateurs and Pros met - in the 2 Open championships, the pros virtually always won.  The very concept of a major didn't even exist.

Majors, as we now consider them, were essentially defined as such when Arnie revived the notion of a modern Grand Slam after winning the Masters and US Open and then deciding to play the British Open.  In addition to defining the majors he started the process of rehabilitating the British Open's status as an important tournament, as one of the newly defined majors - first as a matter of tradition and courtesy - and only much later as a magnet for the best players in the world.  The British Open was nothing like a major in the period between Hagen and Palmer.

It is fine to have an expansive definition of major for purposes of making lists, but when we are evaluating careers it is foolish to think Gary Players first 'major', in a British Open completely devoid of even one top American, at a time when Americans absolutely dominated golf, is equal or comparable to the one Reed just won.  Or Jack's first British Open, when half of the top ten didn't even bother to go.  It was a very different world back then compared to what we have now - where every player plays in every single major they qualify for.

Bob Sweeny, Jr.

Robert Watson

Willie Goggin

These were the only 3 Americans in the field when Player won his first 'major' at Muirfield.  None of the three made the cut.

43 minutes ago, fishgolf said:

Because if we could somehow magically bring Jack into Tigers era or Tiger into Jacks era, Jack would still beat him more often than not.

At least you are honest and attribute your choice to feeling.

[jsgolfer]

50 minutes ago, fishgolf said:

Because if we could somehow magically bring Jack into Tigers era or Tiger into Jacks era, Jack would still beat him more often than not.

And I would say you’re probably in the minority with your opinion.  But hey, that’s why they are opinions. 

[fishgolf]

11 minutes ago, turtleback said:

At least you are honest and attribute your choice to feeling.

Well, feeling and opinion is what everyone involved with this discussion/debate is offering since it can never be unequivocally answered.

[turtleback]

37 minutes ago, fishgolf said:

Well, feeling and opinion is what everyone involved with this discussion/debate is offering since it can never be unequivocally answered.

No, a lot of us use actual facts and analysis.  Thankfully you didn't try to buttress your feelings with those, as it never goes well.  You are entitled to your opinion and no one can say boo about that.  But if you want to explain or justify it, which you are under no obligation to do, then the things you use to do so will be tested by the facts.

[Fidelio]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

Everybody who accepts 18>14 must then say that Walter Hagen is better than Ben Hogan 11>9, or Hagen is better than Tom Watson 11>8.

I bet they would try to validate that Hogan and Watson is better than Hagen with the same arguments that we use to say Tiger is better than Jack. They just want the double standard.

That's a pretty terrible analogy.

I think Jack belongs ahead of Tiger. I DON'T think 18 is unequivocally better than 14.  

That said,  if someone does think 18 > 14. it does not logically follow that  Hagen's 11 is ahead of Watson.  Context matters with everything. You could very easily (and correctly) assume the jump in talent was much larger between the early 1900's and 1970-80s than the jump between the 70-80s and the 90-00s. That isn't a double standard.

[Wally Fairway]

1 hour ago, turtleback said:

Sorry, but that is not remotely true.  They were elements in a wonderful accomplishment for a great amateur and that is all.  Contrary to myth, amateur golf was NEVER remotely as strong as professional golf.  Jones was the outlier - the amateur who could compete with pros.  But except for him, when Amateurs and Pros met - in the 2 Open championships, the pros virtually always won.  The very concept of a major didn't even exist.

Again if you go back long enough the Am championships were considered majors. As noted in this article.
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/david-fay-history-of-majors

There has been an evolution of the game and in the recognition of its best accomplishments.

And to your point Jones being the outlier - there are 4 other amateur champions of the US Open, the last of which was Johnny Goodman in 1933. Which is after Jones won his last US Open. Now competition is much different today. The Open Championship has amateur winners, Jones being the last; and the PGA Championship is the only one of the current majors that is open only to professional golfers (unless an amateur were win a PGA event).

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, Fidelio said:

That's a pretty terrible analogy.

I think Jack belongs ahead of Tiger. I DON'T think 18 is unequivocally better than 14.  

Not really, it is pretty comparable if you are talking to those who only consider 18>14 and nothing else.

Again, by your first statement you are on the side of 18 isn't necessarily greater than 14 due to other factors. My comment was to those who see nothing but 18>14. If they don't accept that Hagen is better than Watson then their core opinion falls apart.

You are arguing on my side of things here. I agree with you, there is a lot of things to consider. There are a good number of people who can't see past 18 greater than 14.

[Fidelio]

5 hours ago, boogielicious said:

I'm 58. I saw them both play. I went crazy when Jack won the Masters in 86. But Tiger is just a bit better. He was just more dominant again deeper fields.

Tiger was better. Vegas would have prime Tiger as a prohibitive favorite vs prime Jack.

That has little to nothing do with with who the greatest golfer. A fund manager doesn't get to throw out their bad years. Tiger has 6 winless years vs 2 for Jack at this point. Tiger missed twice as many cuts in majors and would have missed more had he not sat out so many tournaments. Tiger's last major was at age 32. Jack won 10 majors after age 30. Jack also had 8 senior majors.

Here are the TKO stats.  Tiger faced tougher fields. So what? Tougher and deeper fields would matter if their accomplishments were close. They aren't. Jack  almost has as many top 3's as Tiger has top 25s. 

Jack top 3s- 46    Tiger - 24

Jack top 5's- 56    Tiger- 31

Jack Top 10's-73   Tiger -38

Jack Top 25's -95  Tiger- 55

2 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Not really, it is pretty comparable if you are talking to those who only consider 18>14 and nothing else.

Again, by your first statement you are on the side of 18 isn't necessarily greater than 14 due to other factors. My comment was to those who see nothing but 18>14. If they don't accept that Hagen is better than Watson then their core opinion falls apart.

You are arguing on my side of things here. I agree with you, there is a lot of things to consider. There are a good number of people who can't see past 18 greater than 14.

It is conceivable to believe 18 >14  and 11< 9 or 8 based on the gap in field strength from the early the early 1900s to the 70's being so much larger than the gap in the field strength from the 70's to 90's. The magnitude of the gap is what matters not that there is a gap.

[saevel25]

20 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

It is conceivable to believe 18 >14  and 11< 9 or 8 based on the gap in field strength from the early the early 1900s to the 70's being so much larger than the gap in the field strength from the 70's to 90's. The magnitude of the gap is what matters not that there is a gap.

Maybe, but the people who only live by the 18>14 don't care about strength of field. They will do what ever they can to validate their 18>14. Yet, I bet they would easily say that Hagen is not better than Watson.

[Fidelio]

16 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Maybe, but the people who only live by the 18>14 don't care about strength of field. They will do what ever they can to validate their 18>14. Yet, I bet they would easily say that Hagen is not better than Watson.

Sure. There are a lot of bad arguments made in favor of Jack. I see people saying Bill Casper and Arnold and Johnny Miller were better than Tiger's competition. I don't agree. I would take Phil, Ernie, and Vijay every day of the week plus the fields are deeper. (I would take the Tom Watson Jack played against over Phil, Ernie, and Vijay though).

But these bad arguments cut both ways.  When I post Jack has almost as many Top 3s as Tiger has top 25s, that is devastating.  That is a tough   argument to overcome. Instead of acknowledging that it is a great argument, even if you think Tiger is best and want to point out the arguments for Tiger, I noticed there is no response other than some variation of sports talk radio barker "You ain't first ur last" or just repeating the irrelevant tougher field argument. There isn't even an acknowledgement that it is reasonable to say Jack belongs ahead of Tiger based on his major record.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Fidelio

[klineka]

48 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

When I post Jack has almost as many Top 3s as Tiger has top 25s, that is devastating.  That is a tough   argument to overcome. Instead of acknowledging that it is a great argument, even if you think Tiger is best and want to point out the arguments for Tiger, I noticed there is no response other than some variation of sports talk radio barker "You ain't first ur last" or just repeating the irrelevant tougher field argument. There isn't even an acknowledgement that it is reasonable to say Jack belongs ahead of Tiger based on his major record.

How is that an irrelevant argument? 

Lets simplify this. Which is more impressive, a top 3 finish out of the top 50 golfers in your club tournament, or a 10th place finish out of the top 50 golfers in your tri-state region?