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

[Zeph]

I don't see why numbers like would be compared. Players today are much better than 50 years ago. The comparison always have to be with respect to the field and level at the time they played.

[Vinsk]

1 minute ago, Zeph said:

I don't see why numbers like would be compared. Players today are much better than 50 years ago. The comparison always have to be with respect to the field and level at the time they played.

It’s a comparison to what each did in their respective fields. Tiger performed superior in his field vs Jack to his.

[Zeph]

47 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

It’s a comparison to what each did in their respective fields. Tiger performed superior in his field vs Jack to his.

The tweet didn't have any numbers that compared Jack to his field?

[iacas]

19 minutes ago, Zeph said:

The tweet didn't have any numbers that compared Jack to his field?

His wins were against his field, as Tiger's were against his.

[nehemiah]

This thread will hit 400 pages (not posts, pages) soon.  It asked one "either/or" question.  I predict the posts will dramatically slow down as Tiger gets more wins.  The only thing keeping it going are the 18/14, then 18/15 guys.  It's pretty silly that these guys are so number dependent that even probably 18/17 (and if Tiger were to have no other wins but majors during that time to get to 17, he'd be at 83 total wins).  And with 17 Majors, 83 wins, and they'd still only be about number of majors.

And overnight they'll disappear if it becomes 18/18.  Then somehow one player who wasn't the GOAT at 3pm that 18th major Sunday, is 3 hours later unquestionably the GOAT at 6pm?  The player is the same.  The question isn't "Who won more majors?".  The question is who is the greatest -- and that is in essence a question that considers ALL factors -- who they played against, whether the player they were playing against choked it away the last few holes (Isao Aoki 1980 US Open), quality of their other wins, amateur careers -- the best assessment is to take everything into account.

It's the drones who parrot 18/15 like stats and can't think with a bit more nuance (about golf and everything else in life) that make this world a worse place.

 

 

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, nehemiah said:

This thread will hit 400 pages (not posts, pages) soon.  It asked one "either/or" question.  I predict the posts will dramatically slow down as Tiger gets more wins.  The only thing keeping it going are the 18/14, then 18/15 guys.  It's pretty silly that these guys are so number dependent that even probably 18/17 (and if Tiger were to have no other wins but majors during that time to get to 17, he'd be at 83 total wins).  And with 17 Majors, 83 wins, and they'd still only be about number of majors.

And overnight they'll disappear if it becomes 18/18.  Then somehow one player who wasn't the GOAT at 3pm that 18th major Sunday, is 3 hours later unquestionably the GOAT at 6pm?  The player is the same.  The question isn't "Who won more majors?".  The question is who is the greatest -- and that is in essence a question that considers ALL factors -- who they played against, whether the player they were playing against choked it away the last few holes (Isao Aoki 1980 US Open), quality of their other wins, amateur careers -- the best assessment is to take everything into account.

It's the drones who parrot 18/15 like stats and can't think with a bit more nuance (about golf and everything else in life) that make this world a worse place.

While I agree with and like a lot of what you said… Tiger probably ain't getting to even 17. So, some of the stuff you said probably won't happen. I'd bet a fair amount of money he doesn't get to 18.

[nehemiah]

 

4 hours ago, iacas said:

While I agree with and like a lot of what you said… Tiger probably ain't getting to even 17. So, some of the stuff you said probably won't happen. I'd bet a fair amount of money he doesn't get to 18.

I agree it's unlikely.  It was more of a scenario presented for argument's sake, rather than the likelihood of it happening.  It's a funny game though, there is still a chance that he'll get into some groove that happens in golf sometimes, even at a late age.  The chances of it happening are much less -- but there is a possibility still.

[Wally Fairway]

41 minutes ago, nehemiah said:

It's a funny game though, there is still a chance that he'll get into some groove that happens in golf sometimes, even at a late age.  The chances of it happening are much less -- but there is a possibility still.

IMO - it did happen, and we were all watching and celebrating when it did.
And that is how he won his 16th major - maybe his latest knee surgery will lead to another resurgence, but I'm in the I'll have to see it (again) to believe it camp.

[Vinsk]

34 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

IMO - it did happen, and we were all watching and celebrating when it did.
And that is how he won his 16th major - maybe his latest knee surgery will lead to another resurgence, but I'm in the I'll have to see it (again) to believe it camp.

15th. 

[Wally Fairway]

42 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

15th. 

Oops - fat fingered it. Thanks.
Even though there are other points that can be made 1st & 2nd in majors, top 5's or top 10's - that doesn't make up the difference in field strength and dominance vs. stronger field.

This thread will go on year after year, with new posters, but in the end Tiger is GOAT even if he never plays another event.

[Vinsk]

25 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

Oops - fat fingered it. Thanks.
Even though there are other points that can be made 1st & 2nd in majors, top 5's or top 10's - that doesn't make up the difference in field strength and dominance vs. stronger field.

This thread will go on year after year, with new posters, but in the end Tiger is GOAT even if he never plays another event.

Yeah I agree. And really anyone who appreciates the totality of stats and the significance of SOF knows Tiger is the GOAT to date. The Jack folks are really just nostalgically stubborn or uninformed, intentionally or not.

[iacas]

"Especially in the '60s, you'd see a lot of majors where at the end there would be only five or six guys within 10 strokes," says Rodgers. "Maybe three or four guys would have a chance to win on the weekend. Today at a major, you see 20 guys finish within 10 strokes. One of the reasons Jack was able to finish second and third so often is he didn't have to contend with that kind of depth."

Phil Rodgers, https://www.golfdigest.com/story/diaz_tigervsjack_gd0211.

Tiger Woods vs. Jack Nicklaus - Golf Digest

---

Who is the greatest player of all time? There has never been a better time to compare.

[turtleback]

Given the long stretch of time it has been running, I think the original poll numbers have really lost some relevance.  Maybe we should start a new poll, and specify that the new poll thread is only for voting but that comments should still be posted in this thread, for continuity.

Waddaya think?

[iacas]

1 hour ago, turtleback said:

Given the long stretch of time it has been running, I think the original poll numbers have really lost some relevance.  Maybe we should start a new poll, and specify that the new poll thread is only for voting but that comments should still be posted in this thread, for continuity.

Waddaya think?

I think without comments it would quickly fall off the front page and nobody would see it.

[turtleback]

5 hours ago, iacas said:

I think without comments it would quickly fall off the front page and nobody would see it.

That is a good point I hadn't considered.  It just seems like the original poll has lost a lot of meaning since it covers such a long time over which there were many ups and downs and twists and turns.  

[iacas]

36 minutes ago, turtleback said:

That is a good point I hadn't considered.  It just seems like the original poll has lost a lot of meaning since it covers such a long time over which there were many ups and downs and twists and turns.  

I get that. But at the same time, most of the votes were from before major #15. Hell, a healthy chunk of them are before majors 14, 13, 12… and even #11. 

[turtleback]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I get that. But at the same time, most of the votes were from before major #15. Hell, a healthy chunk of them are before majors 14, 13, 12… and even #11. 

Yeah, but that is kind of the point.  As time goes by and achievmments change it seems like some people may look at it differently now.  And while one can change his vote, I doubt many do it, and it is likely that a lot of voters are long gone.

But it was just a thought, no big deal.

[iacas]

82

---

82

A good post by a former member here (I believe):

15 can be bigger than 18. 15 hundred dollar bills is much more than 18 twenty dollar bills.

Wherever we land on this, I think it's reasonable to say that Tiger's 82 tour wins is mind boggling. It's more than DJ (20), Rory (18), Day (12), Spieth (11), Thomas (11) and Koepka (7) combined.

Looking at the all-time tournament wins list, Tiger and Phil are the only guys in the top ten who are younger than Jack (who will be 80 in a couple of months I think). Among players born since 1950, there are 2 in the top 10, 3 in the top 29 and you have to get down to 34th to find someone younger than Tiger (DJ with 20). The top 50 has 12 people born since 1950. Those are:

Tiger, Phil, Vijay, Davis Love III, DJ, Greg Norman, Crenshaw, Ernie, Rory, Nick Price, Jim Furyk and Curtis Strange.

Sliding back to 1940, you can add Jack, Tom Watson, Johnny Miller, Ray Floyd, Lanny Wadkins, Hale Irwin, Hubert Green and Tom Kite.

So 20 of the top 50 were born in 1940 or later. The remaining 30 were all born before that. Seems to me like winning lots of tournaments was easier back in the past. Counts by decade of birth in the same list (top 50)

1980s - 2
1970s - 3
1960s - 3
1950s - 4
1940s - 8
1930s - 5
1920s - 4
1910s - 8
1900s - 8
1890s - 7
1880s - 1

There are 53 here because 4 people are tied for 50th on the list (17 wins apiece). The 1880s and before didn't really have much to play for and the 1980s are potentially not yet done getting onto this list (Adam Scott has the most of those in the 1980s, but not in the top 50 with 13 wins, so he needs 4 more to break into the top 50). 1970s are potentially not done too. Zach Johnson and Bubba Watson have 12 wins apiece, so 5 more to break into the top 50. From the 1990s, Jordan Spieth and Justin Thomas are highest with 11 each. 

Allowing for all this, there certainly does appear to be a pretty solid trend. Tournament wins have been getting harder and harder to come by as time has gone by and the game has grown in popularity and global reach. Where else have we seen this? Oh right yes - with majors too.