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

[leftybutnotPM]

On 6/22/2019 at 5:58 AM, Jay28 said:

 

Maths is how we say it in England.  Americans use 'math' which is odd.

Interesting that you state with fact what Jack was thinking.  Another example of opinion dressed up as fact.

 

Yet you write: 

"Just to change it up a bit... I read a few comments about older people being bias towards Jack."

OT, obviously, but if you're going to throw stones.......

I find it "odd" that a British person lectures others but doesn't understand tense.

Edited June 22, 2019 by leftybutnotPM

[Vinsk]

2 hours ago, Jay28 said:

Hmm.

'Flat Earther', lol... because I laugh my ass off at people who think mathematics can tell us who was better between Jack and Tiger.

😂

Wow..you’re really confused aren’t you? You provide zero common sense to this discussion. You have this odd delusion that two athletes can’t be compared unless one can mathematically conclude the better player. Sorry, that’s just plain asinine. Saying Jack Nicklaus is a greater golfer than Kent Kluba isn’t an opinion. It’s a fact. Period. Saying Tiger is a better player than Chad Campbell is a fact. Period. Why? Stats, accomplishments in their careers as a professional golfer. It’s that simple. And when you compile all the stats of Tiger vs Jack the only better stat worth anything of real value is his 18 major wins over Tiger’s 15. And that has been discussed ad nauseam as to how winning 15 majors in a more difficult era can easily be disputed as a better accomplishment. Even if you don’t want to accept that, fine. Tiger then has dozens of other accomplishments that far exceed Jack’s. You can’t just say Jack has more majors (which Jack wanted to do as its all he has to cling on to) and that’s the end of discussion. 

I know you’re just having fun making an ass of yourself. But  instead of keeping that bit going, how about you actually read the data on their careers and come up with something other than your snarky half-assed remarks about ‘maths’. Geesh. You’re like that annoying 5 year old who wants to do his magic trick over and over for his parents friends. 

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

I know you’re just having fun making an ass of yourself.

@Vinsk, down boy. C'mon… he's new to the topic. I know it's frustrating to have the same discussion all the time, but… just relax.

[jas80s]

Winning a major by 15 shots and holding all four majors at the same time are staggering achievements, like mind blowing.  I don't think we will even see them again.

I'm not a big Tiger guy generally, but some of the stuff he did...just incredible.  How could he be so much better than his contemporaries??  The only thing even close to me might be Wayne Gretzky (totally different in many ways, I know but still, the numbers just blow your mind).

Actually, his achievements might be more accurately described as "Ruthian".

 

Now, having said that, one of the reasons I really like Brooks Koepka is that he makes me think of how a young Jack Nicklaus might be if he played in today's conditions...

1.  Bombs it off the tee

2.  Holes a sick amount of putts and often in such critical moments.

3. Tends to play really well on tough tracks and in big events.

So, I feel like we can still say this is quite close (I'm sure we agree on that).  I figure if you put Jack in Tiger's era and remove Tiger, I think Jack wins about 10-11 majors.  Now THAT is a non-math opinion.  🙂

[iacas]

Jack could only beat the weak fields he played against 18 times. He’d win less in the modern era even if he replaced Tiger.

IMO. Again.

[ChrisP]

Curious how Tiger would do if he was born the same year as Rory. Going up against Spieth, Rory, Koepka, DJ, and some of these current guys compared to Ernie, Vijay, Retief and that era? Would he have the same success or would he have less of a winning %. What would his majors total be?  I guess Phil would have been more happy in that scenario.

[ncates00]

30 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

Curious how Tiger would do if he was born the same year as Rory. Going up against Spieth, Rory, Koepka, DJ, and some of these current guys compared to Ernie, Vijay, Retief and that era? Would he have the same success or would he have less of a winning %. What would his majors total be?  I guess Phil would have been more happy in that scenario.

Well, he won 5x in 2013 and was very competitive until the back stuff, won the Tour Championship last year and was very relevant in many tournaments, and the Masters this year as an old man after a miraculous comeback.

I'd say he would've done just fine.  😁

[ChrisP]

8 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

Well, he won 5x in 2013 and was very competitive until the back stuff, won the Tour Championship last year and was very relevant in many tournaments, and the Masters this year as an old man after a miraculous comeback.

I'd say he would've done just fine.  😁

I feel like he would dominate the regular Tour tournaments just as much. He'd have a lot of head-to-heads with DJ. Not sure how he'd do with majors given how good of a run Rory, Spieth and Koepka had since 2014. It would be fun to watch, though.

[ncates00]

Just now, ChrisP said:

DJ

In regular Tour events, yes.  Majors, no.

 

1 minute ago, ChrisP said:

Rory, Spieth and Koepka had since 2014. It would be fun to watch, though.

Agreed, but I still think Tiger does very well. 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, ChrisP said:

Curious how Tiger would do if he was born the same year as Rory. Going up against Spieth, Rory, Koepka, DJ, and some of these current guys compared to Ernie, Vijay, Retief and that era? Would he have the same success or would he have less of a winning %. What would his majors total be?  I guess Phil would have been more happy in that scenario.

Speculation and borderline OT.

[iacas]

@TigerIsNumeroUNO was banned, as he is @Fidelio.

[Vinsk]

28 minutes ago, iacas said:

@TigerIsNumeroUNO was banned, as he is @Fidelio.

You were right.

[porc]

14 hours ago, iacas said:

Jack could only beat the weak fields he played against 18 times. He’d win less in the modern era even if he replaced Tiger.

IMO. Again.

The Tiger vs Jack debate reminds me of a similar one in Tennis: Federer vs Nadal/Djokovic. A lot of people are convinced that Federer is the greatest of all time, however you have to consider the fact that Nadal/Djokovic competed in a much tougher environment when they won their slams (i.e. two all time greats were competing with them). Federer got about 13 (+?) of his slams when both Nadal and Djokovic were still maturing/much weaker/ a non factor. 

I think both Djokovic and Nadal are better than Federer. Due to tougher competition I think Tigers achievements are much more impressive than Jacks. Of course Nadal, Djokovic, Federer and Tiger are still competing, so we will have to wait and see. If Tiger equals Nicklaus in number of Grand Slams nobody will question his GOAT status :). 

Edited June 24, 2019 by porc

[saevel25]

21 minutes ago, porc said:

The Tiger vs Jack debate reminds me of a similar one in Tennis: Federer vs Nadal/Djokovic.

Single elimination tournaments are way different than PGA Tour tournaments. You can have a guy get hot for two days and win a tournament. You need to be on point way more in Tennis. Golf is hard to compare against other sports. 

[porc]

3 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Single elimination tournaments are way different than PGA Tour tournaments. You can have a guy get hot for two days and win a tournament. You need to be on point way more in Tennis. Golf is hard to compare against other sports. 

Yes but the debate re whose titles are worth more due to tougher/weaker competition is similar. 

Edited June 24, 2019 by porc

[saevel25]

Just now, porc said:

Yes but the debate re whos titles are worth more due to tougher/weaker competition is similar. 

All it takes is one hot game and the best competition is out. In golf a great golfer can have one bad round and still compete. Not apples to apples. 

There are arguments for tougher/weaker fields, but they are only examples that people should consider it in a more high level concept. 

 

[porc]

15 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

All it takes is one hot game and the best competition is out. In golf a great golfer can have one bad round and still compete. Not apples to apples. 

I would say in tennis a "hot streak" from a lesser known player is less likely than in golf. In tennis basically all the grand slams of the last 11 years have been won by nadal, federer, djokovic, murray and wawrinka. Can the same be said for golf? And 49 out of the last 57 by just nadal federer and djokovic. They also won the last 10: 

https://www.marca.com/en/more-sports/2019/06/09/5cfd3eb3e2704e319f8b45cf.html

And not only that: Very often in the finals they played against each other. Tennis is less random than golf in this regard. 

But even if you consider the higher likelyhood of outsiders having hot streaks in golf, obviously strength of the best player competing against Jack/Tiger matters a lot in any case. Hot streaks from lesser knowns dont negate the fact that competition is on average higher for Tiger than it was for Jack

Edited June 24, 2019 by porc

[iacas]

I think the relevance works. But it’s not golf or Jack or Tiger.