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

[Vinsk]

Great post @brocks. Unfortunately there is a difference between not understanding facts/statistics and not accepting them. One can learn, the other just needs to be ignored. Folks like @GrandStranded have a tough time admitting they’re  wrong when they don’t like the truth. Their only resolution is sarcasm and petty insults. It’s like when a child accuses his friend of taking his juice box only to find it sitting behind him and then remarks ‘oh yeah ...well your shirt is ugly.’ He’s probably a good guy just has a hard time letting go of Jack’s reign. I’m not sure if there’s anything left for the ‘Jack side’ to offer. But maybe he’ll have something. I’d certainly like to see it. I think it can be a great discussion. 

Edited August 13, 2018 by Vinsk

[RussUK]

I cant believe this thread is still going with the level of ferocity it has .

I think when it comes down to topics like this, if it involves someones favourite sports person, they will often choose that person regardless of facts. I'm sure we all do it to some extent. In my case it's F1. Schumacher has more titles and wins then any other current driver, however i still think Senna is the greatest driver. I just think he was the better driver. Sometimes being a fan of the person makes you ignore the facts, rose tinted glasses and all that.

 In golf for me, Tiger is the greatest not only for what he has done on the course but for what he has done off it and how he has brought the game to a much wider audience (with the EA games etc.). I think being the greatest sportsperson is more than just what they do in their sport but what do out of it in order to promote their sport. Just my 2p.

[GrandStranded]

I've posted many times in this thread, and from the very beginning, my position has been Tiger was better then Jack. Not by a lot, but better. We'll never know for sure however. Honestly, posts like the one @brocks just left have converted me on the strength of field depth argument. My only disagreement with the prevailing view is the opinion by some that the best of Jack's contemporaries, Watson, Trevino, Casper, Palmer, and many others, were inferior to the players of the late 90's-2000's Tiger competed against. I've heard the better equipment and the next generation is better arguments. I just don't agree the players of that era (97-'07) were that far evolved from those great players. Todays players however, are a different story. The guys out there today grew up watching Tiger, and seem to relish the chance to play against him. This is a tribute to Tiger. He is now facing the result of his legacy, which is players who are vastly superior to those of both Jack and Tiger's prime. They train hard, have tech advantages, and have seen a real leap in equipment, especially in the ball. They seem to play without fear (probably a bad description of this "new" game), and just seem to take turns impressing the hell out of us. Finally, kudos to Tiger. He showed yesterday he can hang with these guys, and it should be fun to watch the next few years as he goes up against them. 

Edited August 13, 2018 by GrandStranded

[Jack is best]

Woods can't beat these young guys like he beat older past their prime guys in the 2000s

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, Jack is best said:

Woods can't beat these young guys like he beat older past their prime guys in the 2000s

:sigh:

For others, this was merged from a topic @Jack is best titled something like "Tiger is washed up, Jack is the GOAT."

Totally not worth getting into it. Glad you have your opinion, man. Good for you.

[klineka]

15 minutes ago, Jack is best said:

Woods can't beat these young guys like he beat older past their prime guys in the 2000s

He just beat every young guy except one this past weekend so0o0o0o0o0o ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, klineka said:

He just beat every young guy except one this past weekend so0o0o0o0o0o ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Never mind that Tiger could have retired four years ago and people might still see him as the GOAT. This stuff is just gravy.

[Vinsk]

57 minutes ago, Jack is best said:

Woods can't beat these young guys like he beat older past their prime guys in the 2000s

Your intro to this thread:

 

[ScouseJohnny]

1 hour ago, klineka said:

He just beat every young guy except one this past weekend so0o0o0o0o0o ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And that young guy is intriguing.

One of the interesting attributes to the "strength of field" discussion is that the quality of the field has improved so much over the decades, that outliers - remarkable players operating far, far above the rest of the field, like Tiger - are going to be extremely unusual. Of the seemingly most-talked about major winners post-2008, Rory is, as some kindly call it, "streaky." At present, he seems to be playing well, but just can't get back to where he was earlier this decade. Spieth has an interesting quantity of vulnerability which we never saw in Tiger or Jack - Mr. Willett can thank this for odd situation for his annual trip to Augusta for the rest of his career. Mickelson is like a '90s golfer who managed to have an incredibly long career and picked up his majors over a long period of time, so he's almost excluded from this analysis - he never dominated like an outlier, just kept on plugging away and doing well - besides which, this is about young guys, not ones almost ready for the Champions' Tour. Bubba can turn it on at the Master's every so often, but he'll never win a different major and I suspect he'll never win another Master's, either.

DJ and Day are arguably far behind the number of majors that many expected of them, at this point in their careers. The likes of Rickie have yet to get one. Sergio got his and I wonder if that's the last we'll really see of him.

And then there's this rather strange young man, Koepka, who's a fascinating study in sports psychology. Never showed any hint of choking yesterday in an environment where 99% of the people at the course were desperate for a 1986 moment for Tiger. Unassuming, sufficiently sanguine about his moment in the sun that he couldn't care less if the final putt of the competition was hit by the guy who came in third.

It's like he's won three majors without anyone really noticing. Of all the possible outliers for this generation, I find him the most fascinating.

Edited August 13, 2018 by ScouseJohnny

[rehmwa]

14 minutes ago, ScouseJohnny said:

It's like he's won three majors without anyone really noticing. Of all the possible outliers for this generation, I find him the most fascinating.

He will continue to be ignored until the pot-belly, anti-fitness, "too much muscle for golf" crowd dies off from heart disease.  #1, #2, #3 in tourney - all fitness advocates.  With #2 probably the greatest advocate since Player.

Your winner notes in interviews that his role models in the sport were both Tiger and Adam.....that's pretty cool - Another example why the GOAT continues to earn the title.

Edited August 13, 2018 by rehmwa

[Jack is best]

Twelve years later the.answer is obviously Jack..tiger isn't even second all time Bobby Jones is

[saevel25]

Just now, Jack is best said:

Twelve years later the.answer is obviously Jack..tiger isn't even second all time Bobby Jones is

Trolls are going to troll.

[Jack is best]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

:sigh:

For others, this was merged from a topic @Jack is best titled something like "Tiger is washed up, Jack is the GOAT."

Totally not worth getting into it. Glad you have your opinion, man. Good for you.

Jack's 18 majors and 37top 2s in majors vs hall of Fame competition clearly makes him the GOAT

[saevel25]

2 minutes ago, Jack is best said:

Jack's 18 majors and 37top 2s in majors vs hall of Fame competition clearly makes him the GOAT

Welcome, you've join the small exclusive club of all the other people who spout the same nonsense. Go read the 341 pages of this thread. All the counter arguments are there. I doubt you will, you are just trolling. Until you do, please remove your self from this conversation. It has been had many times before you decided to post.

[Wally Fairway]

48 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Welcome, you've join the small exclusive club of all the other people who spout the same nonsense. Go read the 341 pages of this thread. All the counter arguments are there. I doubt you will, you are just trolling. Until you do, please remove your self from this conversation. It has been had many times before you decided to post.

Is Golf DIgest trolling too?
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/the-one-major-championship-stat-tiger-woods-has-no-chance-of-matching?mbid=nl_081318_daily_hitlist&CNDID=25661097&spMailingID=14054489&spUserID=MTMyNjM1ODMxMDQ3S0&spJobID=1461187002&spReportId=MTQ2MTE4NzAwMgS2

Here is the summary of the article - talking about Jack having 46 top 3 finishes in majors to Tigers 25
 

Quote

Granted, there's only one figure discussed when it comes to this conversation, and it's "18." And if Woods gets to that, many will consider the GOAT argument open-and-shut. But these numbers do show, as great as Woods has been at majors throughout his career, Nicklaus was exponentially better.

I'm just doing my part to keep this thread alive

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

Is Golf DIgest trolling too?

"Golf Digest" is not capable of reading a few pages of a discussion and realizing that the points they want to make have already been debated a few thousand times already.

[saevel25]

1 hour ago, Wally Fairway said:

Is Golf DIgest trolling too?
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/the-one-major-championship-stat-tiger-woods-has-no-chance-of-matching?mbid=nl_081318_daily_hitlist&CNDID=25661097&spMailingID=14054489&spUserID=MTMyNjM1ODMxMDQ3S0&spJobID=1461187002&spReportId=MTQ2MTE4NzAwMgS2

Here is the summary of the article - talking about Jack having 46 top 3 finishes in majors to Tigers 25

Golf Digest isn’t posting here like a troll. 

If they made the point that it’s easier to finish 2nd due to weaker competition then it might be worth reading. 

[brocks]

9 hours ago, GrandStranded said:

My only disagreement with the prevailing view is the opinion by some that the best of Jack's contemporaries, Watson, Trevino, Casper, Palmer, and many others, were inferior to the players of the late 90's-2000's Tiger competed against.

You won't hear me saying that.  You won't even hear me say Tiger could beat Vardon or Hagen under equitable conditions.  When you're talking about the very best players of different eras, there's no way to accurately compare them, although it stands to reason that the farther back you go, the less chance there is that the best player of that era is the best of all time.  However, that is an argument based on probability, rather than empirical fact.  Sometimes, the best receiver at Mississippi Valley State really is better than any of the receivers in the FBS.

But when you compare field strength, where hundreds of players (over the course of a few years) are involved, then things become more certain.  Never 100% certain, but even diehard Jack-for-GOATers concede that the fields overall are stronger today.  What they dispute is whether that matters.

Some say that once you get past the top dozen or so, the rest of the field isn't important.  Some are more liberal, and say the top 20.  A few say the top 30.  I don't think I've ever heard a Jack advocate go much higher.

But the fact is that tons of PGA events, even majors, are frequently won by players ranked outside the top 50, even the top 100.  In 2011, there were two in a row -- Darren Clarke won the Open when ranked 111, and the next month Keegan Bradley won the PGA when ranked 108.  And we all remember the only time didn't win a major when leading after the third round.  He was beaten by YE Yang, who was ranked 110.  Head to head.

And one of my favorite stats -- during his prime of 1996-2009, Tiger played in 20 WGC stroke play events, and won 13 of them -- 65%.  During the same period, he played in 159 regular PGA events (i.e., PGA events other than majors and WGCs), and won 41 of them --- 25.8%.

The WGCs typically had the top 75 or so players in the world in the field.  No amateurs, no club pros, no legacy champs who had won a major 30 years ago.  The cream of the cream.  And Tiger won them twice as often as he did events with far fewer players ranked in the top 100, and far more outside the top 100.  It's true that he played mostly very strong PGA events, but other than the Players, none of them were as strong as the WGCs.

You might think it was because the courses, like Firestone, were perfect for him, but no.  As @iacas said, " Narrow fairways. Thick rough. Gotta hit a lot of drivers. "

How about the WGC Amex as it was then called, where Tiger won six times?  Actually, those six wins came on six different courses, in four different countries -- Spain, Ireland, England, and the US.

No, the only thing that explains why Tiger's winning percentage at WGCs was more than twice his already phenomenal rate at regular tour events was the field size.  Most of the regular PGA events had full fields of 140-150.  Even though every single extra player was ranked below, often far below, the players at the WGCs, they made the difference.  The chance of any one of them winning in a given week might be one in two hundred, but the collective chance of all 80 of them was more like one in three (see the Birthday Paradox).

So I don't really care if Watson was better than Phil (I think he was), or Casper was better than Ernie (I'm not sure).  It's impossible to know.  Maybe the top 6 players of Jack's day were as good or better than the top 6 of Tiger's (although it's important to remember that Arnie, Billy, Lee, and Tom all peaked at different times, so Jack never had to face any two of them at their best).  But it doesn't matter, because it's all but certain that the top 20 of Jack's day weren't as good as the top 20 of Tiger's, and once you go into the top 50, let alone the top 100 or 200, it's not even close.  And players outside the top 50, even outside the top 100, make it much harder for even the best player of his time to win.