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

[turtleback]

1 hour ago, ChrisP said:

To play devils advocate, some of those 24 years were washouts with injuries.

How does that play against Tiger?  Despite all of that he blew through Jack's win total, exceeded him in virtually every category except majors, and did it all in, effectively, 7 fewer years (2010, 2011, 2014-2017, all of which were substantially washed out by injury).  You penalize Tiger despite him exceeding Jack's record because he did it in fewer effective years?  

Jack's down times were because he was playing lousy, not injuries.  So that makes his career more impressive?  Have we gone off the rails?  Jack himself has admitted a certain degree of lack of dedication.  You shouldn't be effectively giving him brownie points for that.

Oh, and to get back to the post where longevity came up, I'm sure the point was not that they each played well over x years, it was that after x years, not only did Tiger essentially match Jack's final Master, he looks a lot more likely to go on to more success and maybe more majors than Jack did after 86.  He looked like an old man and Tiger looked like a guy rarin' to go.  Jack's 'longevity' advantage, to the very thin extent it currently exists, is about to evaporate.

Edited April 20, 2019 by turtleback

[ChrisP]

20 minutes ago, turtleback said:

How does that play against Tiger?  Despite all of that he blew through Jack's win total, exceeded him in virtually every category except majors, and did it all in, effectively, 7 fewer years (2010, 2011, 2014-2017, all of which were washed out by injury).  You penalize Tiger despite him exceeding Jack's record because he did it in fewer effective years?  

Jack's down times were because he was playing lousy, not injuries.  So that makes his career more impressive?  Have we gone off the rails?  Jack himself has admitted a certain degree of lack of dedication.  You shouldn't be effectively giving him brownie points for that.

Oh, and to get back to the post where longevity came up, I'm sure the point was not that they each played well over x years, it was that after x years, not only did Tiger essentially match Jack's final Master, he looks a lot more likely to go on to more success and maybe more majors than Jack did after 86.  He looked like an old man and Tiger looked like a guy rarin' to go.  Jack's 'longevity' advantage, to the very thin extent it currently exists, is about to evaporate.

Listen, I know there's not a lot of love for Jack on here, but the guy played in 154 consecutive major championships. 154! I don't care if you love Jack, hate Jack, but you have to respect the heck out of that. That is one hell of a feat. 

The biggest thing Tiger has had against him over the last 10 years has been the injuries and the surgeries. It cost him a lot of playing time. HOWEVER, he has bounced back from it and it is no doubt saved his career and has given him the chance to prove himself as the greatest ever. What he's done coming back from his back injury is absolutely incredible. And just like I respect Nicklaus for his overall career without missing majors, I also respect the heck out of Tiger for what he's done. They're without a doubt the two greatest players in the modern era and arguably ever.

 

Edited April 20, 2019 by ChrisP

[Vinsk]

33 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

Listen, I know there's not a lot of love for Jack on here, but the guy played in 154 consecutive major championships. 154! I don't care if you love Jack, hate Jack, but you have to respect the heck out of that. That is one hell of a feat. 

None of this applies to the sentiment regarding Tiger over Jack as the GOAT. I rooted like hell for Jack in ‘86. Jack was my favorite all through my younger years. He’s respected and his accomplishments are well noted. That being said Tiger is easily the GOAT regardless of what anybody ‘feels’ about Jack. 😃

[Pretzel]

3 hours ago, Vinsk said:

I’m sure once Tiger hits 19 majors Jack will say, ‘you know...senior tour wins should count .’

 

Jack would never say that.

He knows if he does his record will be broken in under 10 years, easily, because Tiger qualifies for the senior tour in 7 years and would wipe the floor with every player on it.

[boogielicious]

6 hours ago, ChrisP said:

Listen, I know there's not a lot of love for Jack on here, but the guy played in 154 consecutive major championships. 154! I don't care if you love Jack, hate Jack, but you have to respect the heck out of that. That is one hell of a feat. 

The biggest thing Tiger has had against him over the last 10 years has been the injuries and the surgeries. It cost him a lot of playing time. HOWEVER, he has bounced back from it and it is no doubt saved his career and has given him the chance to prove himself as the greatest ever. What he's done coming back from his back injury is absolutely incredible. And just like I respect Nicklaus for his overall career without missing majors, I also respect the heck out of Tiger for what he's done. They're without a doubt the two greatest players in the modern era and arguably ever.

 

I think you are misinterpreting the objective feeling that folks have that Tiger has surpassed Jack with hate. I don’t see that at all from the posters in this thread. Many of them are in fact huge Jack fans. I certainly was/am. We are just being objective that Tiger’s accomplishments have surpassed Jack’s. Tiger won more amateur national championships, many more PGA and professional tournaments in less time. His winning percentage in unbelievable. 

Both players brought fans to the sport. Both players have tremendous respect for each other too. The folks who post in this thread echo that.

[saevel25]

6 hours ago, ChrisP said:

Listen, I know there's not a lot of love for Jack on here, but the guy played in 154 consecutive major championships. 154! I don't care if you love Jack, hate Jack, but you have to respect the heck out of that. That is one hell of a feat. 

It can't be 154 consecutive majors. He played in all 4 majors for 36 years, that's 144. He only played in two out of the four at the book end of that stretch. So 4 more majors. 

I believe its much easier back then to get into Majors due to the exemption rules versus now. 

[Vinsk]

6 hours ago, Pretzel said:

Jack would never say that

Once Tiger won three Ams he claimed Ams aren’t counted.

Once he realized he can’t beat Snead he claimed total wins isn’t the key..it’s major wins.

 

[Dr. Manhattan]

4 hours ago, saevel25 said:

It can't be 154 consecutive majors. He played in all 4 majors for 36 years, that's 144. He only played in two out of the four at the book end of that stretch. So 4 more majors. 

I believe its much easier back then to get into Majors due to the exemption rules versus now. 

I think he meant staying healthy enough to play them. Tiger didn’t even make it to age 33 without missing multiple majors in a row due to injury.

[ChrisP]

4 hours ago, saevel25 said:

It can't be 154 consecutive majors. He played in all 4 majors for 36 years, that's 144. He only played in two out of the four at the book end of that stretch. So 4 more majors. 

I believe its much easier back then to get into Majors due to the exemption rules versus now. 

Misread the site. It said "154 consecutive in which he was eligible in". I counted up 146 consecutive which is mighty impressive. Jack was like Federer in the fact he just never got hurt. Tiger is more like Nadal or Djokovic in that the last 10 years have been like the game operation. In the end, the injury plagued guy may still end up with more majors in both cases.

Still, in Jack's case, 146 straight majors played is one incredible accomplishment. Not saying it makes him "better than Tiger", just saying that feat in itself is worthy of a lot of praise.

[turtleback]

19 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

Misread the site. It said "154 consecutive in which he was eligible in". I counted up 146 consecutive which is mighty impressive. Jack was like Federer in the fact he just never got hurt. Tiger is more like Nadal or Djokovic in that the last 10 years have been like the game operation. In the end, the injury plagued guy may still end up with more majors in both cases.

Still, in Jack's case, 146 straight majors played is one incredible accomplishment. Not saying it makes him "better than Tiger", just saying that feat in itself is worthy of a lot of praise.

Well that is nice, but we are doing who is the greatest, not who did something deserving of praise.  A lot of guys do things worthy of praise but that isn't relevant to this conversation either.  Maybe you should start a thread about praiseworthy feats in golf.  

But even so, I think Jack would trade that '146 majors in a row' for Tigers slam in a NY minute.

[ChrisP]

1 minute ago, turtleback said:

Well that is nice, but we are doing who is the greatest, not who did something deserving of praise.  A lot of guys do things worthy of praise but that isn't relevant to this conversation either.  Maybe you should start a thread about praiseworthy feats in golf.  

But even so, I think Jack would trade that '146 majors in a row' for Tigers slam in a NY minute.

I get that, but it was in reaction to a post of someone who stated Tiger had almost as many full seasons played as Jack and also someone said Jack missed seasons due to injury. Jack never missed seasons or extensive time due to injury. So now that that point is cleared, we can carry on....

[Vinsk]

@iacas stated Jack had ‘down years too.’ He didn’t say it was from injuries.

13 hours ago, iacas said:

And Jack had down years too.

 

4 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

I get that, but it was in reaction to a post of someone who stated Tiger had almost as many full seasons played as Jack and also someone said Jack missed seasons due to injury. Jack never missed seasons or extensive time due to injury. So now that that point is cleared, we can carry on....

 

[ChrisP]

6 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

@iacas stated Jack had ‘down years too.’ He didn’t say it was from injuries.

 

 

Gotcha. I took down years to mean injuries.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, ChrisP said:

Still, in Jack's case, 146 straight majors played is one incredible accomplishment.

How? What is "incredible" about it, within the context of, say, anyone within ten miles of Jack Nicklaus?

146 is 36.5 years. Jack was NOT "competitive" for a large chunk of those years, so were it not for the exemptions and the lifetime nature of the Masters and British Open, he relied on a lot of special exemptions and things to keep the stretch going.

In 1991 Nicklaus played only eight events, and was 122nd on the money list.

You're reaching for things to put in Jack's category, even though as others have pointed out, the "longevity" argument can work against him.

2 hours ago, ChrisP said:

also someone said Jack missed seasons due to injury.

Nope.

1 hour ago, ChrisP said:

Gotcha. I took down years to mean injuries.

You took it wrong.

Jack didn't have major injuries and still wasn't able to rack up as many PGA Tour wins as Tiger Woods, for example.

In other words, Tiger won 15/18/81 in about 19 years actively playing, while Jack won 18/20/72 in about 25 years actively playing.

So long as the duration is long enough (i.e. not quite a Brooks Koepka 3/5 in three years), winning more in a bit less time is more impressive than more slowly racking up the wins.

15/19 (0.79 majors per year) is more impressive than 18/25 (0.72).

Jack's "longevity" works against him, IMO. Not strongly, but I don't think it works "for" him at all, particularly when Tiger is winning majors 22 years apart.

(And seriously, had Tiger exactly equaled Jack's accomplishments in 10 years and retired, you'd still give the GOAT title to Jack because of "longevity"?)

[Vinsk]

Jack’s GOAT team:

[saevel25]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Jack's "longevity" works against him, IMO. Not strongly, but I don't think it works "for" him at all, particularly when Tiger is winning majors 22 years apart.

I never understood how giving someone more attempts makes it that they did something more impressive. 

[turtleback]

3 hours ago, ChrisP said:

I get that, but it was in reaction to a post of someone who stated Tiger had almost as many full seasons played as Jack and also someone said Jack missed seasons due to injury. Jack never missed seasons or extensive time due to injury. So now that that point is cleared, we can carry on....

No one said Tiger played the same number of full seasons as Jack.  No one said Jack missed time due to injury.  You need to read better and learn some vocabulary.  Longevity is how long you last, and Tiger has lasted as long as Jack.  It has nothing to do with how much you played every year.  Longevity <> durability.  

[ChrisP]

22 minutes ago, turtleback said:

You need to read better and learn some vocabulary.  

No need for insults. I’ve got a Masters Degree from one of the best colleges in the country. I think I read fine.