Jump to content
sungho_kr

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

Greatest Golfer (GOAT)  

194 members have voted

  1. 1. Tiger or Jack: Who's the greatest golfer?

    • Tiger Woods is the man
      1634
    • Jack Nicklaus is my favorite
      815


6,761 posts / 522561 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

15 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.

Who's to say what Tiger, Rory, Phil would have done in Jack and Arnie's time? You don't know that either. But you are leaning toward the older crowd to be better. I think Tiger would have dominated in Jack's time too. So all we have is data, which has been presented ad nauseam in this thread. You won't accept that data so you keep going around in circles.

Bill Russell would say that Tiger is better BTW. He won 11 NBA titles to Jordan's 6. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Want to hide this ad? Register for free today!

10 hours ago, turtleback said:

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.

 

16 hours ago, Vinsk said:

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

 

16 hours ago, iacas said:

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

Fair enough.  I thought it was simply the natural evolution of the conversation because I think it's so clear that Tiger wins over Jack.  Nonetheless, I see the point.

 

16 hours ago, iacas said:

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

That's not true.  You know my point and you know I wasn't saying that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Just checking in to see if we've definitively put this matter to rest - it's Tiger, right? Or did we decide Jack?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, turtleback said:

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

 

My point is simple. We can't say for sure Tiger would beat Jack in a head-to-head in there prime. That's all I'm trying to say and for some reason people can't accept that. Michael Jordan, one of the most respected athletes of all-time whose word I will take a hell of a lot seriously than anyone's here, basically just said the same thing. You CAN'T compare eras.

11 hours ago, iacas said:

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.

The poll results here? Please tell me you're not using 66/33 from here? That's like going on a Lakers forum and asking "Who's the greatest of all-time" and everyone voting Lebron and fans saying "It's a fact. Lebron's better. That's what the nation believes." I'll take writers and experts opinions seriously who have seen both men's careers in their prime. And I've read a lot of their opinions and it's mixed.

 

11 hours ago, iacas said:

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"?

You say "who cares about other people's opinions" but yet you're telling me to look at a poll that shows Tiger over Jack.

Listen, I don't want to go around in circles. Like I've said, do I think Tiger would beat Jack in their primes and over his career if they were both in the same era? Yes. That's what I think, and I agree with a lot of the points here. I think MJ would beat Lebron head-to-head. I think Federer would beat Sampras head-to-head. But do I know for a fact? No. And that drives people nuts on here, obviously, but it's true and it's my view. I don't know for a fact and many other very respectable people have said the same thing, including golfers.  

Edited by ChrisP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

We can't say for sure Tiger would beat Jack in a head-to-head in there prime. That's all I'm trying to say and for some reason people can't accept that.

People aren't discussing it, and when they are, they're simply saying that all of the data points toward Tiger being able to beat Jack in their primes.

But virtually nobody is making the argument about the equipment. It's a pointless argument - they could only play the equipment they made, and if you force one or the other to play the other person's equipment, it's unpredictable. Thus, pointless to discuss, even though what little data we do have would support the idea that Tiger would fare better as he had success with "older" equipment and newer gear, while Jack never really played at all with newer equipment. And Jack himself agrees that newer equipment narrows the gap, yet Tiger has continued to win.

In other words, if you could give the old guys the newer equipment, Jack likely would have had LESS numbers. Lower than 18 majors. Less than 72 wins. Tiger, having played with newer equipment most of his career, wouldn't have had much less. And nobody was touching him in 1997… equipment or not.

43 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

Michael Jordan, one of the most respected athletes of all-time whose word I will take a hell of a lot seriously than anyone's here

That's your problem. His opinion is no more valid than anyone else's, and in fact may be less valid as he's currently being discussed along with LeBron James, and by saying "you can't compare eras" he may be protecting his own status as many think LeBron is basketball's GOAT.

But at the end of the day… it's one person's opinion, and I know far, far more about golf's history than Michael Jordan. @turtleback and @brocks also know quite a bit more about golf's history than Michael Jordan.

So not only are you a bad judge of what level of proof is required in a court case, you're a bad judge of who has valid opinions.

You leaning on Michael Jordan just sheds light on how poorly formed your own opinions are, that you feel the need to rely on Michael Jordan to provide any weight to your argument.

43 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

The poll results here? Please tell me you're not using 66/33 from here? That's like going on a Lakers forum and asking "Who's the greatest of all-time" and everyone voting Lebron and fans saying "It's a fact. Lebron's better. That's what the nation believes."

Bullshit.

This isn't a Tiger forum. It's a golf forum, and we have plenty of older members who watched Jack and recognize what Jack does.

Furthermore, like your reliance on Michael Jordan's opinion, statements like that incorrectly belittle the opinions of anyone who votes Tiger as fanboys or something. This isn't a "Lakers forum."

In the real world, because you're not getting many people who know about Jack, you'd be much closer to 10-2 or so. Your 6-6 guess was laughable.

43 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

I'll take writers and experts opinions seriously who have seen both men's careers in their prime. And I've read a lot of their opinions and it's mixed.

Experts at what? The authors of the articles you cited above didn't see both men's careers in their prime. And… I'm an expert. Often more so than a general writer who, every once in awhile, writes an article on the careers of some older guys. I've studied golf history more than a lot of the writers you cited. And we've all studied it quite a bit more than Michael Jordan.

43 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

You say "who cares about other people's opinions" but yet you're telling me to look at a poll that shows Tiger over Jack.

That was to refute your laughable 6-6 estimate. Nothing more. And it's not just ONE opinion, it's a summation of a statistically significant number of opinions.

43 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

Listen, I don't want to go around in circles.

You're going to, because your opinion is incredibly thin, and based on what you "feel" is right, facts be damned.

43 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

Listen, I don't want to go around in circles. Like I've said, do I think Tiger would beat Jack in their primes and over his career if they were both in the same era? Yes. That's what I think, and I agree with a lot of the points here. I think MJ would beat Lebron head-to-head. I think Federer would beat Sampras head-to-head. But do I know for a fact?

You're basically the only one who is:

  • really talking about them playing head to head.
  • applying the standard of "know for a fact" or "100% certainty."
43 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

And that drives people nuts on here

No, it just makes your opinion weak, and yet you keep posting it.

Stop. You've got nothing to offer. It's based on what you "feel" while at the same time requiring 100% certainty. It's not gonna happen. Stipulated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

On 4/23/2019 at 10:28 AM, ChrisP said:

Saw an interview with Michael Jordan who was actually asked about whether his friend Tiger was greater than Nicklaus and he said “You can’t answer that. They’re both great.” He went on to say you can’t compare eras because they are all different. He basically said Tiger is the greatest of his era and Jack the greatest of his era and that’s all you can do is be the best of your era. There’s no such thing as being the greatest ever. You can’t compare other eras in sports in any sport because you just don’t know how that person would adjust and do in that specific era no matter how many numbers and stats you throw out there.

 

I thought it was a good point made by a guy I was always considered the greatest athlete I ever watched play sports.

Michael Jordan has serious incentive to say bullshit like this. He wants to pretend like he'll always be the GOAT for basketball and others, such as LeBron or Curry, can't be compared to him because they're "from a different era".

The truth of the matter is it's pretty damn easy to compare players of the same sport across different eras. You (and Michael Jordan) are just salty because the numbers might not turn out the way you want them to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Well said @brocks as usual. Unfortunately you’re presenting logic, reason, common sense, data and facts. None of those are acceptable in this debate. The Jackers only focus on fantasy hypotheticals, opinions, melancholy and ill-informed opinions from athletes of late. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 hour ago, brocks said:

For some reason, you have missed hundreds of posts that do accept that.  I've often said I can't even prove that Tiger would beat Vardon head to head, although I'd bet on him.

What I CAN prove is that Tiger was more dominant than Jack, for more years, against stronger fields. 

It is 100% certain that Tiger had twice as many years (10 to 5) as the undisputed best golfer in the world as Jack did.  See my data in this post if you want to debate that.

https://thesandtrap.com/forums/topic/2203-jack-vs-tiger-whos-the-greatest-golfer/?do=findComment&comment=1434179

It is 100% certain that, using the Official World Golf Ranking formula to determine field strength, several World Golf Championships had stronger fields than some of the majors held the same year.  It is 100% certain that they had stronger fields than any of the majors Jack won before 1975. And it is 100% certain that during his prime (1996-2009), Tiger won 13 of the 20 WGC stroke play events he entered, a .650 batting average in a sport where a .100 average is Hall of Fame material (no other golfer won more than one stroke play WGC during those years).  His worst finish was ninth, and he got top fives in all but two of them.

- It is 100% certain that Arnie, Jack, and Gary became the "Big Three" in part by winning six British Opens (two each) from 1959 to 1970.  But there were a dozen or less Americans in the fields of the British Opens of the 60's, and that includes amateurs, seniors, and club pros.  Take those out, and there were zero to three Americans to beat in some of those "majors."

- It is 100% certain that some of the PGA Championship fields of the 1960's were two-thirds club pros, a situation Jack himself called "absurd and unfortunate."

https://www.si.com/vault/1968/09/16/614249/rebuttal-to-a-searing-attack

It is 100% certain that of all the top European money winners (i.e., those who won the Order of Merit and its predecessor) between 1955 and 1974, all but one of them never played in the US Open or PGA Championship in their lives.  The one exception, Peter Oosterhuis, never did it before 1975.

Peter Alliss was one of the best players in Europe for nearly 20 years.  He won the Order of Merit twice, and beat the biggest American stars like Palmer, Venturi, and Casper in his Ryder Cup matches, but he turned down over half of his Masters invitations.  Too far to travel, he said.

His Ryder Cup partner, Christy O'Connor, also won the OOM twice.  He never played an American major in his entire career.

It is 100% certain that before the world rankings were established in 1986, the only sure way for a non-PGA member to get into a US major was to win the British Open.

In summary, it is 100% certain that there were only a handful of international players in the field of US majors, and only a handful of American players in the field of the British Open, before 1975, and that it wasn't until the 1990's that almost all the world's best players played all four majors each year.

So how do we know that made a difference?

It is 100% certain that the Ryder Cup was the US against the British Isles until 1979.  Once continental European players were allowed to participate, the record has been 11-8-1 in favor of Europe over the US, indicating that even one on one, Europeans are as good as Americans.  It is not mere speculation to say that only half of the world's best players were in the majors of the Jack era, especially when you consider what the Ryder Cup record might be if the opposing Ryder Cup teams had included players from Australia, South Africa, Fiji, etc.

It is 100% certain that from 1926 to 1978, there were only three non-Americans who won majors in the US.  It is 100% certain that since 1988, there have been only two years when a non-American did NOT win a major in the US.  In the two years that didn't happen, an Aussie and an Italian won the British Open, so a non-native has won a major every year, even when Tiger was winning one to three majors a year.  Non-Americans won all four majors in 1994, and have won three out of four in several years since then.

Even four of the last six US AMATEUR championships were won by foreigners.

The conclusion is obvious to anyone with an open mind.  The field kicks everybody's ass.  It beat Tiger 70% of the time in his prime, and it beat Jack 80% of the time in his prime.  The stronger the fields, the harder it is to win.  And half of the world's best players were not in the field for the majors played before the mid-70's, at least. 

Tiger was more dominant than Jack, for more years, against stronger fields.   That is what we claim, and can prove. 

 

 

 

Excellent post. What do you think of the regular tour wins back in the old days? Weren't a lot of them similar to the PGA Championship where a huge chunk of the field was local club pros? Nothing close to the modern tour where every guy who tees it up is dedicated to being a tour pro. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

 

Excellent post. What do you think of the regular tour wins back in the old days? Weren't a lot of them similar to the PGA Championship where a huge chunk of the field was local club pros? Nothing close to the modern tour where every guy who tees it up is dedicated to being a tour pro. 

Check out this post from someone who was there:

https://thesandtrap.com/forums/topic/96838-tournament-golf-history-offshoot-of-tigerjack-goat-discussion/?do=findComment&comment=1367927

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, brocks said:

For some reason, you have missed hundreds of posts that do accept that.  I've often said I can't even prove that Tiger would beat Vardon head to head, although I'd bet on him.

What I CAN prove is that Tiger was more dominant than Jack, for more years, against stronger fields. 

It is 100% certain that Tiger had twice as many years (10 to 5) as the undisputed best golfer in the world as Jack did.  See my data in this post if you want to debate that.

https://thesandtrap.com/forums/topic/2203-jack-vs-tiger-whos-the-greatest-golfer/?do=findComment&comment=1434179

It is 100% certain that, using the Official World Golf Ranking formula to determine field strength, several World Golf Championships had stronger fields than some of the majors held the same year.  It is 100% certain that they had stronger fields than any of the majors Jack won before 1975. And it is 100% certain that during his prime (1996-2009), Tiger won 13 of the 20 WGC stroke play events he entered, a .650 batting average in a sport where a .100 average is Hall of Fame material (no other golfer won more than one stroke play WGC during those years).  His worst finish was ninth, and he got top fives in all but two of them.

- It is 100% certain that Arnie, Jack, and Gary became the "Big Three" in part by winning six British Opens (two each) from 1959 to 1970.  But there were a dozen or less Americans in the fields of the British Opens of the 60's, and that includes amateurs, seniors, and club pros.  Take those out, and there were zero to three Americans to beat in some of those "majors."

- It is 100% certain that some of the PGA Championship fields of the 1960's were two-thirds club pros, a situation Jack himself called "absurd and unfortunate."

https://www.si.com/vault/1968/09/16/614249/rebuttal-to-a-searing-attack

It is 100% certain that of all the top European money winners (i.e., those who won the Order of Merit and its predecessor) between 1955 and 1974, all but one of them never played in the US Open or PGA Championship in their lives.  The one exception, Peter Oosterhuis, never did it before 1975.

Peter Alliss was one of the best players in Europe for nearly 20 years.  He won the Order of Merit twice, and beat the biggest American stars like Palmer, Venturi, and Casper in his Ryder Cup matches, but he turned down over half of his Masters invitations.  Too far to travel, he said.

His Ryder Cup partner, Christy O'Connor, also won the OOM twice.  He never played an American major in his entire career.

It is 100% certain that before the world rankings were established in 1986, the only sure way for a non-PGA member to get into a US major was to win the British Open.

In summary, it is 100% certain that there were only a handful of international players in the field of US majors, and only a handful of American players in the field of the British Open, before 1975, and that it wasn't until the 1990's that almost all the world's best players played all four majors each year.

So how do we know that made a difference?

It is 100% certain that the Ryder Cup was the US against the British Isles until 1979.  Once continental European players were allowed to participate, the record has been 11-8-1 in favor of Europe over the US, indicating that even one on one, Europeans are as good as Americans.  It is not mere speculation to say that only half of the world's best players were in the majors of the Jack era, especially when you consider what the Ryder Cup record might be if the opposing Ryder Cup teams had included players from Australia, South Africa, Fiji, etc.

It is 100% certain that from 1926 to 1978, there were only three non-Americans who won majors in the US.  It is 100% certain that since 1988, there have been only two years when a non-American did NOT win a major in the US.  In the two years that didn't happen, an Aussie and an Italian won the British Open, so a non-native has won a major every year, even when Tiger was winning one to three majors a year.  Non-Americans won all four majors in 1994, and have won three out of four in several years since then.

Even four of the last six US AMATEUR championships were won by foreigners.

The conclusion is obvious to anyone with an open mind.  The field kicks everybody's ass.  It beat Tiger 70% of the time in his prime, and it beat Jack 80% of the time in his prime.  The stronger the fields, the harder it is to win.  And half of the world's best players were not in the field for the majors played before the mid-70's, at least. 

Tiger was more dominant than Jack, for more years, against stronger fields.   That is what we claim, and can prove. 

 

 

Are you talking about 2018 and 2002?

The strength of field argument is a better one than the whole scoring, Tiger-proofing, technology argument. IMHO Tiger would have kicked the shit out of everyone in his prime, if everyone was required to use wooden woods and balata golf balls. Or even if he would've happened to stick to persimmon woods longer. There goes the technology argument. Tiger-proofing is Technology Proofing, null, Scoring, nice take, no, scoring hasn't changed that much.

The greens were a helluva a lot slower is Nicklaus's prime, and I mean turf-management was trash back in the late 1960s and early '70s. Augusta always looked great because in a lot of ways they were ahead of the curve. But that isn't even the point.

Jack didn't even really have "elite" level competition until the late '70s. I mean seriously you might as well call his win at the '71 PGA, the Who Are You Championship, the first "real major" I think Jack had a decent field in was the 1975 Masters, and even that was that was 20 decent players and 25 or 30 mid-level to lower-level pros who made the cut. Tiger won his first Masters over basically has-beens and who's this guy (if you look at the top-ten) Tom Kite finished 2nd and everyone else I'd never even heard of on TV before the '97 Masters. Hell, all four majors of the Tiger Slam, had better fields than all 18 of Jack's majors combined. 

Yes, the OWGR didn't make it's debut until 1986 so it is hard to say what the fields were like with statistical evidence, unless well we can try to do it retroactively, but I don't know how we'd be able to do that. Needless to say.

Let x= Average Strength Of Field of Jack Nicklaus's major championships

Let y= Average Strength Of Field of Tiger's major championships

15y > 18x everyday of the week.

If 15y > 18x, then 15/81 > 18/73

Tiger is the GOAT... based on the facts given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 hour ago, brocks said:

It is 100% certain that from 1926 to 1978, there were only three non-Americans who won majors in the US.  It is 100% certain that since 1988, there have been only two years when a non-American did NOT win a major in the US.  In the two years that didn't happen, an Aussie and an Italian won the British Open, so a non-native has won a major every year, even when Tiger was winning one to three majors a year.  Non-Americans won all four majors in 1994, and have won three out of four in several years since then.

Gary Player 3 Masters, 1 U.S. Open, and 2 PGAs

Tony Jacklin 1970 U.S. Open

Tommy Armour 1927 U.S. Open?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

50 minutes ago, brocks said:

 

Phil's comments really put into perspective Tiger's 80+ wins against modern fields. I don't think Jack was wrong in 1996 about the changes to the Tour and strength of field that occurred from Jack's rookie year to the 1990's. It's just that Tiger is maybe a once in 200 year type of player and has made all of this look much easier than it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, onthehunt526 said:

Gary Player 3 Masters, 1 U.S. Open, and 2 PGAs

Tony Jacklin 1970 U.S. Open

Tommy Armour 1927 U.S. Open?

I fouled up Jim Ferrier 1947 PGA, Jacklin 1970 U.S. Open, And Gary Player's 6 majors over here... The internationals winning U.S. Majors started with David Graham at the '79 PGA. Then from like '80 to now they've won a shitload. Seve twice at the Masters, Nick Price won 2 PGAs, David Graham won a U.S. Open, Wayne Grady won a PGA, Vijay won a Masters and 2 PGAs ('second was in '04), Elk won the PGA in 1995, Els won 2 U.S. Opens. Olazabal won 2 Masters, Woosnam won a Masters, Langer won 2 Masters, Sandy Lyle won a Masters, Faldo won 3 Masters,, Charl Schwarzel won a Masters Goosen 2 U.S. Opens, Michael frikking Campbell won a U.S. Open, Angel Cabrera won 2 majors in U.S., Geoff Oglivy U.S. Open, Rory has won 3 majors State side, Trevor Immelman won a Masters, Adam Scott won a Masters, Jason Day a PGA, Danny Willett won a Masters, Sergio won a Masters.... That is at least 37 of 118 majors contested in the U.S. won by international players since 1980. Americans haven't swept the majors since 1982. Facts.

How does this relate to the Tiger or Jack debate? In Jack's first 18 years as a pro, exactly 2 men from outside the U.S. had won majors in the U.S. In Tiger's first 18 years as a pro, several more internationals have won majors, 

He has 15 majors now, I know he has not played in 100 as a pro yet. He may not even have 100 total. I think he has like 80 total that's an average of one major every year and change it is not 1 in 5 but damn close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

5 hours ago, onthehunt526 said:

How does this relate to the Tiger or Jack debate? In Jack's first 18 years as a pro, exactly 2 men from outside the U.S. had won majors in the U.S. In Tiger's first 18 years as a pro, several more internationals have won majors, 

I think they’re we’re like 20 something internationals who won majors in Tiger’s first 18 years. Two won during Jack’s. That’s more than ‘several’. So aren’t we saying in regards to Jack’s competition there was a significantly weak international component compared to Tiger’s?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

10 hours ago, brocks said:

For some reason, you have missed hundreds of posts that do accept that.  I've often said I can't even prove that Tiger would beat Vardon head to head, although I'd bet on him.

What I CAN prove is that Tiger was more dominant than Jack, for more years, against stronger fields. 

It is 100% certain that Tiger had twice as many years (10 to 5) as the undisputed best golfer in the world as Jack did.  See my data in this post if you want to debate that.

https://thesandtrap.com/forums/topic/2203-jack-vs-tiger-whos-the-greatest-golfer/?do=findComment&comment=1434179

It is 100% certain that, using the Official World Golf Ranking formula to determine field strength, several World Golf Championships had stronger fields than some of the majors held the same year.  It is 100% certain that they had stronger fields than any of the majors Jack won before 1975. And it is 100% certain that during his prime (1996-2009), Tiger won 13 of the 20 WGC stroke play events he entered, a .650 batting average in a sport where a .100 average is Hall of Fame material (no other golfer won more than one stroke play WGC during those years).  His worst finish was ninth, and he got top fives in all but two of them.

- It is 100% certain that Arnie, Jack, and Gary became the "Big Three" in part by winning six British Opens (two each) from 1959 to 1970.  But there were a dozen or less Americans in the fields of the British Opens of the 60's, and that includes amateurs, seniors, and club pros.  Take those out, and there were zero to three Americans to beat in some of those "majors."

- It is 100% certain that some of the PGA Championship fields of the 1960's were two-thirds club pros, a situation Jack himself called "absurd and unfortunate."

https://www.si.com/vault/1968/09/16/614249/rebuttal-to-a-searing-attack

It is 100% certain that of all the top European money winners (i.e., those who won the Order of Merit and its predecessor) between 1955 and 1974, all but one of them never played in the US Open or PGA Championship in their lives.  The one exception, Peter Oosterhuis, never did it before 1975.

Peter Alliss was one of the best players in Europe for nearly 20 years.  He won the Order of Merit twice, and beat the biggest American stars like Palmer, Venturi, and Casper in his Ryder Cup matches, but he turned down over half of his Masters invitations.  Too far to travel, he said.

His Ryder Cup partner, Christy O'Connor, also won the OOM twice.  He never played an American major in his entire career.

It is 100% certain that before the world rankings were established in 1986, the only sure way for a non-PGA member to get into a US major was to win the British Open.

In summary, it is 100% certain that there were only a handful of international players in the field of US majors, and only a handful of American players in the field of the British Open, before 1975, and that it wasn't until the 1990's that almost all the world's best players played all four majors each year.

So how do we know that made a difference?

It is 100% certain that the Ryder Cup was the US against the British Isles until 1979.  Once continental European players were allowed to participate, the record has been 11-8-1 in favor of Europe over the US, indicating that even one on one, Europeans are as good as Americans.  It is not mere speculation to say that only half of the world's best players were in the majors of the Jack era, especially when you consider what the Ryder Cup record might be if the opposing Ryder Cup teams had included players from Australia, South Africa, Fiji, etc.

It is 100% certain that from 1926 to 1978, there were only three non-Americans who won majors in the US.  It is 100% certain that since 1988, there have been only two years when a non-American did NOT win a major in the US.  In the two years that didn't happen, an Aussie and an Italian won the British Open, so a non-native has won a major every year, even when Tiger was winning one to three majors a year.  Non-Americans won all four majors in 1994, and have won three out of four in several years since then.

Even four of the last six US AMATEUR championships were won by foreigners.

The conclusion is obvious to anyone with an open mind.  The field kicks everybody's ass.  It beat Tiger 70% of the time in his prime, and it beat Jack 80% of the time in his prime.  The stronger the fields, the harder it is to win.  And half of the world's best players were not in the field for the majors played before the mid-70's, at least. 

Tiger was more dominant than Jack, for more years, against stronger fields.   That is what we claim, and can prove. 

I appreciate the effort you put into this. I haven't gotten a chance to read all 350+ pages of this post. Half of it was probably done while I was ghost on here and deployed overseas. But you make a lot of great points and I do appreciate that. 

I think a lot of people are overreacting to some of my points. I'm not a "Jack" nor a "Tiger" person. I've actually said quite often on this forum that I think Tiger would beat Jack to head-to-head in their prime and that Tiger, in his prime, is the best player ever. All-time career is where there's debate and whether that equates to being the GOAT. I do try and support Jack only because I feel like he has no support here so I'll try and help him out because I like Jack, but I also like Tiger, at least the player Tiger. (Was never a real fan of "personal life" Tiger but I think he's done a lot to change that image.) But I've just never been a fan of comparing players of different eras. I think it's a big what-if game, and while it's fun for debate and fun to throw out all these stats to show this player is better than the other, I don't think you ever get a true answer. You get a "likely" answer, but never a definitive answer. And that's just my stance.

Sorry if people get so disturbed by my whole "100%" thing. But when you're talking about GOAT, that's a big, big deal, and if someone is going to be given that title, you bet your ass he better be 100% the GOAT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

But I've just never been a fan of comparing players of different eras. I

You’ve made quite an effort to prove otherwise. If there was never a Tiger Woods I feel you would most certainly say Nicklaus Ia the GOAT. And in fact you’d probably use the same arguments to support that that have been stated ad nauseam for Tiger. Again, this has nothing to do with ‘liking’ one player over the other. We’re sports people, golf in particular. You’ve made a discussion on the GOAT like it’s some strange philosophical concept floating out in an ethereal universe. It’s a game. They play 18 holes. Many on the same courses throughout time just longer (for Tiger). We have stats, scores, numbers and mathematics to compare. And when all is complied Tiger Woods is clearly the GOAT. Nobody cares about who’s the nicer guy or who pulled your heart strings. You act like claiming a GOAT is a dive into an forbidden pit of darkness. Let it go. Any logical, rational and open minded person can see that Tiger has already out performed Nicklaus. Period. If you refuse to go by stats and mathematics then you’re no different than the flat earth people. So I’m not sure why you’re bothering to continue. If you can’t accept what @brocks @turtleback @iacas have presented then you simply have to say you don’t believe it’s a possible claim. Ever. Impossible. And then just forget about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I'm not going to spend much time on this right now, but I could. I just wanted to tag @turtleback and @brocks and have you both listen to Brandel Chamblee's podcast starting at 10:00 in to this one:

GCLogo.png

Tiger or Jack? Who's the greatest of all time? Brandel Chamblee and Jaime Diaz weigh in on the inaugural episode of their monthly podcast.

You can play it right in your browser.

Now, in this podcast, Chamblee:

  • Says Tiger played the greatest golf ever from 1998-2002, with 2000 and even 2007 being very nearly the best golf ever in a single year.
  • Says Jack's "dominance" over a long period of time is what puts him ahead of Tiger as the GOAT. (Though Brandel has previously said Tiger is the GOAT).
  • Says re: dominance that "you have to look at the other tournaments when players weren't just winning but finishing fourth, or 15th, or whatever" to assess how "dominant" they were, too.
  • Says that Jack finished outside the top ten something like 5 times in the first whatever majors and says Tiger finished outside the top five 13 and 16 times during some runs.
  • Says that the Felber book "The Hole Truth" (https://thesandtrap.com/forums/topic/99594-the-hole-truth-by-bill-felber/) shows how "dominant" Jack was over Tiger.

Now, the problems I have with this whole thing are summarized in two points:

  • The Felber book doesn't account, AT ALL, for field strength/depth. We just saw a guy named Max Homa, ranked 400th in the world, pull off a big victory. That stuff happens all the time these days. Fields are DEEP and STRONG. Jack had to beat about six people… so of course his odds of finishing in the top ten were pretty good.
  • Jack wasn't anywhere near as "dominant" using the classic definition as Brandel seems to think. I think that match play thing about Tiger's ranked/sorted best years versus Jack's getting to year 11 or 12 before Jack wins a single "hole" carries a lot of weight here. Jack wasn't the best player for the year in more than about, what is the count, five years of his career, @turtleback/@brocks??

I'm tempted to turn the responses you guys might both have into a long series of tweets (giving you credit) to Brandel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...