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

[Vinsk]

53 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

And no one can say here for 100% fact that if Tiger and Jack squared off in their primes using the same equipment, that Tiger would come out with more majors. 

But see Chris you’re sounding like a flat earther here. Have you ever actually gone into space and viewed the earth from a real perspective to see it’s round? Or have you just gone by pictures that are all doctored by the NASA conspiracists? There is physics and logical science that proves beyond a doubt that the earth isn’t flat. But how can we be 100% certain? Although it’s more possible for you to go into space (minimally possible) than to have Tiger and Jack play in their primes (impossible) you can’t leave yourself the position of ‘can’t know 100%’ without being just plain stubborn and irrational. Not trying to insult you just making that point. 

Edited April 23, 2019 by Vinsk

[ncates00]

12 minutes ago, iacas said:

That’s bull. We have addressed it many times.

And there’s no guarantee anyone is “next.” Tiger might be the pinnacle for several generations.

This curve approaches a limit…

That curve doesn't get at the measurement at all; it only shows what we already know--being the best is only harder as competition gets better.  You have not addressed it at all.

Whether there is a guarantee someone can be the next Tiger is a dumb retort.  Of course there isn't; it doesn't negate a reasonable inquiry into having a framework for future debate.  After all, this thread has gone through the analysis between Jack and Tiger.  Why not explore next, because in my view this Jack v. Tiger thing is getting old.

[iacas]

29 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

That curve doesn't get at the measurement at all; it only shows what we already know--being the best is only harder as competition gets better.  You have not addressed it at all.

The curve addresses it. You’re wrong that it doesn’t.

Many of us have also said that Rory or Jordan or whomever might only have to get to 13/65 or so.

Both address the topic of what future players will need to achieve to be considered by many or most as GOAT.

29 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

Whether there is a guarantee someone can be the next Tiger is a dumb retort.

It’s not because you acted like it was a foregone conclusion.

29 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

After all, this thread has gone through the analysis between Jack and Tiger.  Why not explore next, because in my view this Jack v. Tiger thing is getting old.

That’s the topic here. If it’s old to you, stop posting in it.

[Vinsk]

26 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

Why not explore next, because in my view this Jack v. Tiger thing is getting old.

Because that’s not what this thread is about? And...you’re not required to post on this subject. 

[ChrisP]

1 hour ago, Vinsk said:

But see Chris you’re sounding like a flat earther here. Have you ever actually gone into space and viewed the earth from a real perspective to see it’s round? Or have you just gone by pictures that are all doctored by the NASA conspiracists? There is physics and logical science that proves beyond a doubt that the earth isn’t flat. But how can we be 100% certain? Although it’s more possible for you to go into space (minimally possible) than to have Tiger and Jack play in their primes (impossible) you can’t leave yourself the position of ‘can’t know 100%’ without being just plain stubborn and irrational. Not trying to insult you just making that point. 

I'm just saying if you give Jack today's equipment and put him against the best in the game, he may win just as much as Tiger, maybe more. Nobody truly knows. Hell, if you put Koepka, Spieth, Rory and DJ in their prime from 1997-2008, who knows if Tiger would get 15 majors. He may only get to 9. There's a lot of "What Ifs" in play. But Jordan's point is valid that you really can't compare one generation to another. You can only go by eras. I know everyone desperately wants an answer and put their opinion out there on it, but maybe there's just no answer? Just opinion.

2 hours ago, iacas said:

No, it’s beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s not 100%. It’s even less than “virtual certainty.”

The numbers lead me to conclude quite beyond a reasonable doubt that Tiger is the GOAT.

Sorry, I disagree. I don't think it's beyond a reasonable doubt, even with all the crazy curves and scientific research and stuff. But I will concede Tiger is the greatest of this generation, no doubt.

 

 

Edited April 23, 2019 by ChrisP

[klineka]

2 hours ago, ncates00 said:

agreed, so we put come up with a mathematical formula to account for it so we can compare prospectively instead of this boring retrospective Jack debate.

The rate at which "the field" gets better isn't a constant, it's not linear, and can't be measured so a mathematical formula doesn't make sense.

5 years from now the fields might be 1.05 times as strong as they are now, and in 25 years they might be 1.20 times as strong as they are right now (made up numbers).

Like others have stated, the rate at which the strength of field increases isn't linear, and does have a hypothetical limit (albeit one we will likely never reach) so it's not like you can say the strength of field increases .01 every year compared to the previous year so in 40 years a win is worth 1.4x what a win is worth today.

Without a way to accurately calculate how much stronger the field is YoY, a "one size fits all" mathematical formula doesn't make sense IMO.

3 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

I'm just saying if you give Jack today's equipment and put him against the best in the game, he may win just as much as Tiger, maybe more. Nobody truly knows.

Dude. Again. Nobody is claiming to know that!

What people are claiming to know (and backing it up with statistics) is that Tiger won more tournaments and dominated stronger and deeper fields for longer stretches of time than Jack did. That is what people are claiming to know. 

Edited April 23, 2019 by klineka

[ChrisP]

5 minutes ago, klineka said:

What people are claiming to know (and backing it up with statistics) is that Tiger won more tournaments and dominated stronger and deeper fields for longer stretches of time than Jack did. That is what people are claiming to know. 

I'll go with deeper. Won't necessarily say stronger at the top. Who is to say Jack, Arnie, Watson, Player and Trevino wouldn't come in to the pro scene in, say, 2003 and given today's equipment, wipe the floor with guys like Ernie, Vijay, Phil, Retief and Tiger? You don't know that. I don't know that. You can't compare players of one era to the next when trying to determine the GOAT. I think that's a valid and fair point, in my opinion, and even one of the greatest athletes in our lifetime is saying that.

[brocks]

38 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

I'll go with deeper. Won't necessarily say stronger at the top. Who is to say Jack, Arnie, Watson, Player and Trevino wouldn't come in to the pro scene in, say, 2003 and given today's equipment, wipe the floor with guys like Ernie, Vijay, Phil, Retief and Tiger? You don't know that. I don't know that. You can't compare players of one era to the next when trying to determine the GOAT.  I think that's a valid and fair point, in my opinion, and even one of the greatest athletes in our lifetime is saying that.

Well, another one of the greatest athletes in our lifetime, namely Jack Nicklaus, said that the ONLY FAIR way to compare him against Hagen, Hogan, Snead, and the other GOAT candidates, who had far fewer majors to play in their primes, was by their record in the majors, which makes me "100% certain" that great athletes are not necessarily great thinkers.

[DeadMan]

1 hour ago, ChrisP said:

I'll go with deeper. Won't necessarily say stronger at the top. Who is to say Jack, Arnie, Watson, Player and Trevino wouldn't come in to the pro scene in, say, 2003 and given today's equipment, wipe the floor with guys like Ernie, Vijay, Phil, Retief and Tiger? You don't know that. I don't know that. You can't compare players of one era to the next when trying to determine the GOAT. I think that's a valid and fair point, in my opinion, and even one of the greatest athletes in our lifetime is saying that.

I don't think they would, personally. You have to remember that the PGA Tour before 1983 only had ~60 exempt players. Everybody else who wanted to play had to Monday qualify. And the tour paid a lot less then. Today, the 61st ranked player is a millionaire. Back then, he wasn't making it on tour. When you only have 60 touring pros, it makes it much easier for guys to win a bunch of majors and events.

A corollary of this question is, how many majors would Vijay, Ernie, Phil, or Tiger have if the PGA Tour only had 60 exempt players the entire time they played?

[ChrisP]

9 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

I don't think they would, personally. You have to remember that the PGA Tour before 1983 only had ~60 exempt players. Everybody else who wanted to play had to Monday qualify. And the tour paid a lot less then. Today, the 61st ranked player is a millionaire. Back then, he wasn't making it on tour. When you only have 60 touring pros, it makes it much easier for guys to win a bunch of majors and events.

A corollary of this question is, how many majors would Vijay, Ernie, Phil, or Tiger have if the PGA Tour only had 60 exempt players the entire time they played?

That's a good point. Phil would probably have his U.S. Open haha. 

Off the record, I try to play devil's advocate and make the case for Jack, and I do think there's that "you never know" factor if him and Tiger were in the same field in their prime. That's why I never will say "Tiger would definitely have more majors and wins than Jack if they were in the same day and age" because it's different eras and you just can't compare eras with different equipment and different styles of the game. You just don't know for sure. We all have our opinion. I personally think Tiger would have more, but that's just my opinion. I don't know know that for a fact. And I don't want to be unfair to Jack and say he definitely would not have more majors and wins than Tiger. You just don't know for sure. 

However, on the record, I do think that winning a major today is a lot more difficult than it was in 1970 and even 2000. I don't know if Tiger could win even 10 majors if the field of today was around from 1997-2008. I don't think Jack could, either, with this crop of young talent. Rory, Koepka, DJ, Spieth (when was at his best) and a lot of these other international guys just seem so much better than the crop from 2000. 

Edited April 23, 2019 by ChrisP

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, ChrisP said:

and a lot of these other international guys just seem so much better than the crop from 2000. 

Right. And imagine how much better they ‘seem’ than the club pros Jack had to beat in the 60’s.😏

[Dr. Manhattan]

2 hours ago, ChrisP said:

I'll go with deeper. Won't necessarily say stronger at the top. Who is to say Jack, Arnie, Watson, Player and Trevino wouldn't come in to the pro scene in, say, 2003 and given today's equipment, wipe the floor with guys like Ernie, Vijay, Phil, Retief and Tiger? You don't know that. I don't know that. You can't compare players of one era to the next when trying to determine the GOAT. I think that's a valid and fair point, in my opinion, and even one of the greatest athletes in our lifetime is saying that.

 

I am pretty confident they would not wipe the floor with Tiger. Or maybe you forgot the 3 to 15 year old version of him was using the old ass equipment and shot amazing scores as a small child with it. He has said he wishes the guys in his generation and later were forced to use persimmon/balata because it separates the men from the boys. That was an advantage for the elite players in the old days compared to their peers. 

[Vinsk]

I think this ‘comparing eras’ is bs. Tiger dominated his era better than Jack dominated his. Tiger’s era had a deeper field and harder to win tournaments including Majors. The Model T is not the greatest automobile ever made. Mary Decker isn’t the greatest long distance runner ever. Margaret Court isn’t the greatest female tennis player of all time. Tiger is the GOAT. Jack is second and that’s that. 

[iacas]

3 hours ago, ChrisP said:

Sorry, I disagree. I don't think it's beyond a reasonable doubt, even with all the crazy curves and scientific research and stuff. But I will concede Tiger is the greatest of this generation, no doubt.

You said the court standard required 100% certainty. You're wrong about that - it simply requires "beyond a reasonable doubt."

This is how that exchange went:

6 hours ago, ChrisP said:

Oh no doubt it’s easier to make the Tiger argument. But I always use the court analogy. It’s like the innocent vs proven guilty. You know a person is likely guilty, but unless you are 100% absolutely sure, they’re still innocent. And no one can say here for 100% fact that if Tiger and Jack squared off in their primes using the same equipment, that Tiger would come out with more majors. 

No, it’s beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s not 100%. It’s even less than “virtual certainty.”

How you feel about whether it's "beyond a reasonable doubt" is basically just your opinion. The facts of the matter have long since convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the jury was required to be unanimous, we'd be deadlocked… though with at least about a vote of 8-4 in favor of Tiger (many of the "Tiger" votes are from before Tiger had even 14 majors… back in 2006).

[turtleback]

10 hours ago, Lionel20 said:

I didn’t at first, but I now happen to think that scoring is the best measure. The courses that Woods and his contemporaries play on are much more difficult than the ones Nicklaus played. I believe that largely offsets the advancement in golf technology. 

Combining two things that to some extent imperfectly cancel each other out seems like a very weak reed to hang an argument on.

 

 

[turtleback]

7 hours ago, ChrisP said:

Oh no doubt it’s easier to make the Tiger argument. But I always use the court analogy. It’s like the innocent vs proven guilty. You know a person is likely guilty, but unless you are 100% absolutely sure, they’re still innocent. And no one can say here for 100% fact that if Tiger and Jack squared off in their primes using the same equipment, that Tiger would come out with more majors. 

Stop with the 'prove' and 100%.  This isn't mathematics, and in no other discipline is there 'proof' or 100% certainty about ANYTHING.

7 hours ago, chazza said:

The fields Woods was (is) beating were deeper, there's no doubt about that. But when Tiger burst onto the scene with his tournament record in the 1997 Masters he was playing pretty much the same course (pre Tiger-proofing) on which Nicklaus had set the previous record, just one shot more, more than thirty years earlier with vastly inferior equipment.

 

The equipment that Tiger obliterated the '97 field with was still old technology.  So no, Jack did not play with vastly inferior equipment at the start of his major career.  And Jack himself said that the equipment improvements make it harder for the superior players to separate themselves from the lesser.  

7 hours ago, phillyk said:

We could go back to those long posts of numbers and create a goal post, but I don't see the point of that until someone else gets close.

It is called deflection.  A way to have unserious arguments seem serious.

 

6 hours ago, ncates00 said:

That curve doesn't get at the measurement at all; it only shows what we already know--being the best is only harder as competition gets better.  You have not addressed it at all.

Whether there is a guarantee someone can be the next Tiger is a dumb retort.  Of course there isn't; it doesn't negate a reasonable inquiry into having a framework for future debate.  After all, this thread has gone through the analysis between Jack and Tiger.  Why not explore next, because in my view this Jack v. Tiger thing is getting old.

Start a new thread about that if that is what you want to discuss.  That isn't what this thread is about and no one forces you to read or post in this thread.

3 hours ago, ChrisP said:

That's a good point. Phil would probably have his U.S. Open haha. 

 

Actually it is a terrible point, as US Open qualifying has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the top 60 or, now, top 125.

[ChrisP]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

If the jury was required to be unanimous, we'd be deadlocked… though with at least about a vote of 8-4 in favor of Tiger (many of the "Tiger" votes are from before Tiger had even 14 majors… back in 2006).

I think it'd be more like 6-6, but we'll differ there. Anyways, here's a take from some experts and writers. Some pro Jack, some pro Tiger. USA Today says it's Jack and it's not even close, but that was written before the Masters.

Who is the greatest golfer ever: Tiger or Jack? | For The Win

---

What would it take for a changing of the guard?

15 Greatest golfers of all time

---

Putting together a list of the 15 greatest male golfers of all time is sure to spark a healthy debate. Who do you think should or shouldn't be on our list?

20 Greatest Golfers of All Time (Updated)

---

Tiger Woods 2019 Masters win was such a cultural touchstone that both the current U.S. President and his immediate predecessor celebrated the......

 

Edited April 24, 2019 by ChrisP

[iacas]

17 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

I think it'd be more like 6-6,

Dude, look at the freaking poll results. It's 66/33. That's 8-4, and as I pointed out, that's from BEFORE Tiger had won even 14 of his majors.

Hell, in May 2006 Tiger had only won 10.

19 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

Anyways, here's a take from some experts and writers.

Who cares about other people's opinions - they're not posting here on this topic? And on this topic I'm as much of an expert as they are, as is turtle, brocks, and possibly you if you'd pull your head out of your rear and stop saying things like the "100%, just like in a court of law" or whatever. And "Chris Chase" is who exactly? "Rob Doster"?