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

[Dr. Manhattan]

9 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

More Majors as the criteria of GOAT was Jack’s idea. He decided that once he knew he wasn’t gonna top Snead in total wins.

Jack also said ‘Not winning means nothing. Nobody remembers who finished second.’

 

 

The top 3 finishes show incredible consistency over a long period of time. But Jack is right, nobody remembers the "first loser" as Tiger calls it.

Phil Mickelson has finished second place on 6 occasions at the U.S. Open. He has put himself in the mix during the final round many times. Unfortunately those second place finishes do not add up to a win for him, so he still short of the career Grand Slam just like Arnold and others. 

[iacas]

32 minutes ago, 3jacker said:

Saying it is quantifiable doesn't make it so.

It’s quantifiable because you can literally count them and come up with a number.

[3jacker]

22 minutes ago, iacas said:

It’s quantifiable because you can literally count them and come up with a number.

I know that it means "countable." In the post above, what's not quantifiable is the value of 2nd place finishes, the dept of field (though one can try) in different times and different fields, etc.  

 

[iacas]

1 minute ago, 3jacker said:

I know that it means "countable." In the post above, what's not quantifiable is the value of 2nd place finishes, the dept of field (though one can try) in different times and different fields, etc.  

That’s not what you said.

[3jacker]

Yeah it is. 

 

"Saying it is quantifiable doesn't make it so.  Saying that more players/deeper fields means definitively that you "played better" does not mean it is so."

 

I made it clear that I was talking about field depth in that instance. Depth of field is not quantifiable. 

[klineka]

1 hour ago, 3jacker said:

Saying it is quantifiable doesn't make it so.  Saying that more players/deeper fields means definitively that you "played better" does not mean it is so.  Either of them only had to beat a handful of players in any given event.  It doesn't matter how many remained in the field that could not contend.  That's just one assumption of many. 

That's a very astute and fair comment.  

I think winning 3 more would take the biggest point of contention out of the argument - "Jack has more majors, period, thus he's the GOAT."  Of course then the number of 2nd-to-top-10 finishes would come into play, etc. etc. 

So it wouldn't really end the argument, but a lot of folks would jump ship from the "Jack" camp.

 

FTR I think TW is the GOAT.  

Yep.

You didnt answer my question. 

You said this argument is just conjecture regardless of how much data is presented, so that must mean you feel that there are incomplete pieces of information that are not allowing you to make a decision. 

What pieces of information about their careers are incomplete?

 

5 minutes ago, 3jacker said:

I made it clear that I was talking about field depth in that instance. Depth of field is not quantifiable. 

But number of wins, winning percentage, consecutive cuts made, and average wins per season are all quantifiable and point to Tiger, which is enough, IMO to show Tiger had a better career and is the greatest golfer.

Edited April 18, 2019 by klineka

[3jacker]

It's not about completeness.  That's why it's not quantifiable.  Completeness is easy.

Valuation is hard, subjective, and forever thus unquantifiable.

[klineka]

12 minutes ago, 3jacker said:

It's not about completeness.  That's why it's not quantifiable.  Completeness is easy.

Valuation is hard, subjective, and forever thus unquantifiable.

You said this argument is based on conjecture.

Conjecture is a conclusion based on incomplete information.

Now you just said it's not about completeness. 

The argument can't be both conjecture and not about completeness. 

[3jacker]

You are really reaching now.  That "not about completeness" was a response specific towards the use of the term quantifiable in a prior sentence. 

Not the argument as a whole. 
I think you know this are just trying to play at "internet debate."

[iacas]

52 minutes ago, 3jacker said:

I made it clear that I was talking about field depth in that instance. Depth of field is not quantifiable. 

You made nothing clear. You quoted an entire block of text and then responded with a sentence or two.

The wins are quantifiable. It’s a count. The fact that the fields are stronger/deeper could also be pretty accurately quantified.

[NJpatbee]

On 4/16/2019 at 8:48 PM, billchao said:

Just curious, what are you basing this on?

Majors, wins, longevity, total dominance for an extended period of time.  Tiger had the most dominant 10 year period and is IMO the most talented golfer of all time, but his career still has a few more years to go.  It is likely Tiger will break Snead's record for number of wins and if he gets another major he would then get my vote for greatest career.  

[klineka]

34 minutes ago, 3jacker said:

That "not about completeness" was a response specific towards the use of the term quantifiable in a prior sentence. 

Then you should have quoted that response you were referring to.

Especially when I had just asked in the most recent post prior to yours "what pieces of information are incomplete"

I'm not arguing just to argue, I'm just asking you to back up your claims. You claimed the argument is based on conjecture but have yet to share anything that would make it conjecture. 

My opinion, along with many others here, is based on complete facts.  Facts that are quantifiable and not subjective.

[billchao]

15 minutes ago, NJpatbee said:

Majors, wins, longevity, total dominance for an extended period of time.  Tiger had the most dominant 10 year period and is IMO the most talented golfer of all time, but his career still has a few more years to go.

Majors and longevity are really the only things Jack has on Tiger as of now, and longevity actually works against Jack because Tiger has matched or surpassed most of Jack's achievements in far less time.

If Tiger retired tomorrow, his career would be better than Jack's IMO. It was better before the 2019 Masters.

18 minutes ago, NJpatbee said:

It is likely Tiger will break Snead's record for number of wins and if he gets another major he would then get my vote for greatest career.  

Tiger is one win away from tying Snead, so one win and one major win would surpass Snead and in your eyes pass Jack as GOAT? Tiger is already eight wins ahead of Jack.

[ChrisP]

2 hours ago, Vinsk said:

More Majors as the criteria of GOAT was Jack’s idea. He decided that once he knew he wasn’t gonna top Snead in total wins.

Jack also said ‘Not winning means nothing. Nobody remembers who finished second.’

 

It's the same in tennis, though. We go by majors to determine who the best is. No one really cares about the smaller events for the most part. Federer is considered the greatest ever because of his 20 majors, but people are trying to say Nadal would be the greatest if he can get to 21, even if 3/4 of those came at one major on one surface. But golf and tennis work the same where the majors are how people judge you, not so much the regular tournaments.

I think everyone here has their own personal opinion and own factor and I don't think you can knock people for that. I personally have said all along I weigh majors about 90%. I know I tried to play devil's advocate a lot here yesterday and this morning, but deep down in my heart, I do think Tiger is "probably" the best ever. That's just my own personal opinion, not my "on the surface" opinion. I would like to see him get to 18 just to make it official. I've told my friends at bars that if he gets to 16 majors, that would make him the greatest ever in my mind. I still think it's unfair to Jack, though, to say that he definitely would not win more majors than Tiger would if they used the same equipment in today's day and age. Do I think he would? No. But no one knows that for a fact. No one really knows for a true fact who would be the greatest if they went head to head. We assume, we guess, we speculate based on a lot of factors, but we don't truly know. And that's why 18>15 still carries the merit. But 81+>73 does carry enough to where I think if Tiger gets one more, he has it in my mind. If he ends up with 16 majors but wins at least 10+ more tourneys than Jack, that'll do it in my mind.

 

 

Edited April 18, 2019 by ChrisP

[turtleback]

1 hour ago, 3jacker said:

Right but a lot of people don't say that.  And it does mean you beat the rest of the field and were therefore better. It says a lot about your consistency and performance over time.  He is no more the arbiter of the "rules" for determining who's the greatest.  In fact, he's disqualified completely due to conflict of interest.  He counted the Amateur but since TW came along I can't recall him saying much about throwing that in.  

That is a key point.  Jack shouldn't get to decide what the criteria for GOAT is, yet he did.  Several times.  With changing definitions, tailored to what he could achieve or thought he could achieve.  From winning a 'Bobby Jones' type slam as a career amateur, to winning a professional grand slam (which Tiger arguably has done, with the only argument on the meaning of grand), to beating Snead's PGA victory career total (which Tiger is about to do but which, with any set of consistent criteria on what counts and what doesn't was surpassed long ago).  He couldn't do any of them.  So except for that quixotic notion of being a career amateur, Tiger has actually met Jack's first couple of drafts of GOAT criteria a lot better than Jack ever did.

And then someone pointed out his number of majors was closing in on Jones' total (of different majors) and virtually out of the blue, majors became the sine qua non for judging greatness.  Before the early 70s majors were significant events, but nothing like what the have become.  Now it is unheard of for a healthy player to skip any major he is eligible for.  Not so for the 60s and before.  In fact, no player before Jack was ever considered the GOAT based on number of majors.

But it led to one of the most intellectually dishonest self-serving statements of all time, when Jack said the since money, equipment, and playing conditions change so much, the fairest way of comparing players of different eras was number of majors won.  Totally ignoring the fact that when he said it he knew that he had WAY more opportunities to *play* in majors than anyone before him.  When he said it his competition for GOAT would have been maybe Arnie, except Arnie had already stopped winning so Jack had him covered.  The other guys, Hogan, Snead, maybe Hagen, were all covered because none of them had anywhere near the number of opportunities as Jack.  Fairest way, indeed.

But as Brocks has pointed out, Tiger did NONE of this kind of conniving to puff his record.  The accepted standard was majors, and although he is a smart enough guy to understand what a bad standard that is, never tried to change it.  Jack's 'fairest way' statement is why I said, in one of these threads, that if Tiger behaved like Jack he could have made the same statement about number of premium world class events - majjors, WGCs, and Players.  At first blush we would all look at a statement like that as ludicrous.  But that is exactly how we got that lame majors standard in the first place.

And lest you think I'm spinning tales, this has all been verified upthread, down to citations and direct quotes.  It was put together years ago by Brocks.  These wars are old, and Brocks and I, among others, are seasoned campaigners, LOL.

[mdl]

 

 

 

 

[iacas]

23 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

It's the same in tennis, though. We go by majors to determine who the best is.

I don’t.

Your 90% weighted average strikes me as awfully short sighted. Majors are almost a small sample size. Winning or losing two has a HUGE effect.

And most of Tiger’s regular victories were against stiffer competition than Jack faced in his majors.

[ChrisP]

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

I don’t.

Your 90% weighted average strikes me as awfully short sighted. Majors are almost a small sample size. Winning or losing two has a HUGE effect.

And most of Tiger’s regular victories were against stiffer competition than Jack faced in his majors.

Well most do and you need to respect that. If you listen to many writers and talking heads out there, it’s majors, majors, majors. That’s all it is. The regular sports fan out there doesn’t really care who wins the Wells Fargo Championship, but they do care about the US Open and Masters.

And it’s the way I ViEW it. Everyone has their OWN weight. Some weigh majors 100%. Some weight it 50%. Everyone is different. I weigh it a lot, but not completely. That’s just the way I am. You obviously don’t agree. So be it. This is America. We all have different views.

Edited April 18, 2019 by ChrisP