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

[Vinsk]

On 1/5/2014 at 2:08 AM, turtleback said:

And THIS is what you claim is more dominant than Tiger?

2000, won 3 major championships (and then won a fourth in a row with the Masters win in 2001).

2001 and 2002 won the Masters back to back (contrary to your assertion)

2005 and 2006, won the British Open back to back

1999/2000 and 2005/2006 won the PGA Championship back to back

2008 achieves triple career grand slam (6 years younger than Jack did it)

But how about some other measurements of dominance?  Like consecutive win streaks.

Tiger has won 7 in a row, 6 in a row, 5 in a row, and 3 in a row twice.

Jack has one winning streak of 3 in a row and nothing better.

 Since you bring up Player of the Year awards, Jack has indeed won it back to back twice and added one other for a total of 5.

Tiger OTOH, won it 5 times in a row (1999-2003), lost it in 2004 to Vijay, and then won it the next 3 years in a row - that is 8 out of 9 years.  And won it 3 other times for a total of 11 times.

Tiger also has 9 Vardon Trophies Jack has 0)

So remind me again of how Jack was more dominant that Tiger?

@james_dunder What part of this is pure speculation?

[Vinsk]

 

 

 

 

@TigerIsNumeroUNO Kinda how your arguments are going....

[james_dunder]

27 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

@james_dunder What part of this is pure speculation?

You mean this post from 4 years ago?  They are all facts, but the premise is speculation.  There is no way of knowing what either would do in different eras against different competition with different equipment.  So yes cherry picked stats that help one side of an argument is speculating that the other one would not be able to match similar production. 

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, james_dunder said:

They are all facts, but the premise is speculation.  There is no way of knowing what either would do in different eras against different competition with different equipment.

I don't care about that premise. I only care what each accomplished in their own era.

[james_dunder]

Just now, iacas said:

I don't care about that premise. I only care what each accomplished in their own era.

Others seem to care about other factors that you don't care about.  Is this a discussion that only weighs the things you care about?

[iacas]

1 minute ago, james_dunder said:

Others seem to care about other factors that you don't care about.  Is this a discussion that only weighs the things you care about?

I didn't say that.

What do you care about in determining the GOAT?

I will only add that facts are not speculation, though.

[james_dunder]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

I didn't say that.

What do you care about in determining the GOAT?

I will only add that facts are not speculation, though.

There has been a great deal of speculation.  I care about overall resume.  I do think that majors are the most important, but Tiger's overall resume of wins and dominance are more impressive so I give him the nod.

 I don't get why people get so upset when others have different opinions though as any argument for either side is based on pure speculation.

[iacas]

Just now, james_dunder said:

There has been a great deal of speculation.

I don't believe I've engaged in any. I don't care to speculate. I care only what each accomplished.

Just now, james_dunder said:

I don't get why people get so upset when others have different opinions though as any argument for either side is based on pure speculation.

Word of caution: you may be heading for a bad place if you assume that anyone here is upset.

This shit's old hat for @turtleback, @brocks, @Vinsk, and many others here. We're looooooooong past getting upset. Mildly annoyed at repeating the same arguments time and time again… occasionally, sure. Upset? No. Not at all.

[james_dunder]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

I don't believe I've engaged in any. I don't care to speculate. I care only what each accomplished.

 

 

I disagree.  Your entire premise seems to be that the fields are much better now.  There is no way of knowing that the players in the 60s would not be able to beat the current fields normalizing for equipment and technology.  You can weigh facts and try and make the connection, but there is speculation in coming to that conclusion.

[iacas]

11 minutes ago, james_dunder said:

I disagree.  Your entire premise seems to be that the fields are much better now.  There is no way of knowing that the players in the 60s would not be able to beat the current fields normalizing for equipment and technology.

That's not speculation. It's math.

Fields are deeper and stronger.

I've not speculated on what players from the 60s would do today. That is speculation, and I've not engaged in that line of discussion. I care what Jack did in his day; not what he may or may not do in modern times.

[james_dunder]

Just now, iacas said:

That's not speculation. It's math.

No, it is speculation.  There is absolutely no way to know how players from the 60s would compare to today's players or players from the 90s.  

[iacas]

1 minute ago, james_dunder said:

No, it is speculation.  There is absolutely no way to know how players from the 60s would compare to today's players or players from the 90s.  

I don't compare the players from the 60s as if they were playing today.

The field strength and depth is math.

[james_dunder]

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

Fields are deeper and stronger.

This is not a fact, but an opinion.  Hence the use of the word speculation.  You can't say for sure that the fields are stronger.  You are comparing the players from the 60s to today by saying the fields are stronger.

Edited June 21, 2019 by james_dunder

[iacas]

Just now, james_dunder said:

This is not a fact, but an opinion.  Hence the use of the word speculation.  You can't say for sure that the fields are stronger.

I can. And I have in several posts, the oldest of which is several years old by now. Just because you don't feel like going back to look at them, I'm not obligated to find them or re-write them. You repeating "it's speculation" over and over doesn't add any value to the discussion. So, enough of that.

[Phil McGleno]

@james_dunder-You are a stooge if you think that the fields are at all anywhere near the same level in the 1960s as they are now.

I played in the 60s and 70s.-I could not make the cut in a Web-Whatever it is called now-Event these days.

Complete lunacy.

The level of ignorance displayed in this discussion never ceases to astound.-It does not even take math to know this stuff.

[billchao]

23 minutes ago, james_dunder said:

This is not a fact, but an opinion.  Hence the use of the word speculation.  You can't say for sure that the fields are stronger.  You are comparing the players from the 60s to today by saying the fields are stronger.

Strength of field is discussed in this topic:

 

[Jay28]

It's not really possible to say who was best between Tiger and Jack.  Different era, different technology, different courses.  I am not even sure why it's important to know, but on a subjective basis neither are the best ever.

Probably the only way to get any objective measure of the best ever PGA Tour player is tournament wins - and even then that is pretty thin.  But, on that measure, Tiger wins over Jack.. but it's Sam Snead who is the best.

[Jay28]

9 hours ago, iacas said:

I can. And I have in several posts, the oldest of which is several years old by now. Just because you don't feel like going back to look at them, I'm not obligated to find them or re-write them. You repeating "it's speculation" over and over doesn't add any value to the discussion. So, enough of that.

I did go back and look and your strength in depth arguments are not maths.  You have not considered all the variables.

For example, it may well be that your 'strenght in depth' is actually just a weaker standard at the very top of the game, thus allowing more players to compete for wins.  There is  no way of measuring the strength of a field from the 60s'70s to one today, no matter how may golfing 'statisticians' try to convince you otherwise.