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

[iacas]

18 minutes ago, StuM said:

My view is comparing generations is too complex. Just think if Jack had the training resources of today, (high speed video, launch monitors, etc.) he may have accomplished even more, or maybe not.  That is the difficulty in trying to identify GOAT.

Jack's competitors didn't have those things, either.

You're making it more complicated than it needs to be. Jack amassed a roughly equivalent record (more majors, fewer Tour wins, fewer dominant years, etc.) as Tiger against much weaker competition.

[cipher]

I can't wait to see the back in forth still going on in this thread 40 years from now when I am in the retirement home with nothing else to do.  Also Tiger is the GOAT.  😂

[turtleback]

13 hours ago, StuM said:

I never said Jack was GOAT, just best of his time.

My view is comparing generations is too complex. Just think if Jack had the training resources of today, (high speed video, launch monitors, etc.) he may have accomplished even more, or maybe not.  That is the difficulty in trying to identify GOAT.

My point is both are great talents. Neither detracts from the other.

 

Yet the whole golf world had no problem calling Jack the GOAT for decades when, if you read back, Hogan had a very colorable claim.  No one was saying you can't compare players across generations then.  That only became an issue after Tiger had passed Jack in every measurable relevant category but one.  

Oh, and Jack disagrees with you, because one of his shifting criteria for determining the GOAT (and the very fact that Jack HAD criteria for GOAT shows he disagrees with your thesis) was that to be GOAT you needed to pass Snead's record of 82 tour wins.  It wasn't until it became clear he wasn't going to make it that he shifted to most majors, one of the most dishonest things he ever did.  But the point is that Jack believes you CAN compare players across eras, even if his criteria for doing so is self-serving and dishonest.

I always hope that despite the hundreds at pages of this thread thrashing these issues out someone would come here with some new argument, but not so.

[campbellj21]

14 hours ago, Wally Fairway said:

I love to see this thread bumped, mainly with retread discussions.
I think it will continue to be bumped, until it is replaced by the Tiger vs BDC (or Wolff, or Cole Hammer, or some kid who is turning 6 this year)
I mean Jack is 80, Tiger is 44, so if generational golfers come around every 40'ish years then maybe it is a kid; unless golf somehow slips to relative obscurity like boxing

Yeah, Tiger had 34 wins with 8 majors by the time he was 27 (Bryson's current age), BDC has 7 wins with 1 major.  I don't think we'll ever have to worry about a legitimate BDC vs Tiger career conversation.  Maybe I'll end up eating those words, but I wouldn't put money on it.  I don't think BDC will even make it to Phil territory (44 wins with 5 majors).

[StuM]

53 minutes ago, turtleback said:

.......
Oh, and Jack disagrees with you, because one of his shifting criteria for determining the GOAT (and the very fact that Jack HAD criteria for GOAT shows he disagrees with your thesis) was that to be GOAT you needed to pass Snead's record of 82 tour wins.  It wasn't until it became clear he wasn't going to make it that he shifted to most majors, one of the most dishonest things he ever did.  But the point is that Jack believes you CAN compare players across eras, even if his criteria for doing so is self-serving and dishonest.......

And before he won his 15th Major Tiger said Jack was GOAT.

Tiger Woods says Jack Nicklaus the best of all time | Golf Channel

---

Tiger Woods has given a lot of people reason to believe he is the best golfer of all time. The 14-time major winner, however, said Friday he is second on the list.

 

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, StuM said:

And before he won his 15th Major Tiger said Jack was GOAT.

Nah. Tiger passed Jack around major 13 or 14.

Look at the poll results and look at the age of the topic.

Way to ignore everything @turtlebacksaid, too.

[Vinsk]

2 hours ago, StuM said:

And before he won his 15th Major Tiger said Jack was GOAT.

I mean...what do you expect him to say? That’s just simple respect is all. 

[turtleback]

3 hours ago, StuM said:

And before he won his 15th Major Tiger said Jack was GOAT.

Tiger Woods says Jack Nicklaus the best of all time | Golf Channel

---

Tiger Woods has given a lot of people reason to believe he is the best golfer of all time. The 14-time major winner, however, said Friday he is second on the list.

 

I'm not sure what your point is.  YOU are the one who claimed there was no GOAT, just best of their era.  Yet arguably the 2 best of all time seem to think there is such a thing as GOAT.  Your 'evidence' doesn't support your point, it cuts against it.

Now as to WHO the GOAT is?  Unlike Jack, Tiger has been too classy to tailor the criteria for determining GOAT to his own accomplishments.  But while Tiger has a classy opinion, we don't have to agree.  But the fact is that by every measure but one, # of majors, Tiger has far surpassed Jack in virtually every other metric. Against MUCH tougher competition.

No one would blame you for not reading 400 pages of this long-running discussion, but if you want to participate in a meaningful way you should maybe read the last 20 pages.  Because so far every point you've raised has been pretty conclusively been dealt with.

[StuM]

3 hours ago, turtleback said:

I'm not sure what your point is.  YOU are the one who claimed there was no GOAT, just best of their era.  Yet arguably the 2 best of all time seem to think there is such a thing as GOAT.  Your 'evidence' doesn't support your point, it cuts against it.

Now as to WHO the GOAT is?  Unlike Jack, Tiger has been too classy to tailor the criteria for determining GOAT to his own accomplishments.  But while Tiger has a classy opinion, we don't have to agree.  But the fact is that by every measure but one, # of majors, Tiger has far surpassed Jack in virtually every other metric. Against MUCH tougher competition.

No one would blame you for not reading 400 pages of this long-running discussion, but if you want to participate in a meaningful way you should maybe read the last 20 pages.  Because so far every point you've raised has been pretty conclusively been dealt with.

Thx for cutting me some slack on not reading the prior 400 pages.

In my initial post I should not implied no one could answer the question nor should I have said “We need to accept.....”

I should have just spoken for myself. To rephrase: I cannot reconcile all of the variables to make my choice and I feel both were best of their time and that is enough for me.

 

 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, StuM said:

Thx for cutting me some slack on not reading the prior 400 pages.

In my initial post I should not implied no one could answer the question nor should I have said “We need to accept.....”

I should have just spoken for myself. To rephrase: I cannot reconcile all of the variables to make my choice and I feel both were best of their time and that is enough for me.

Then why the "Tiger says Jack is the GOAT" post, and the others?

Why post in this topic if you can't decide for yourself?

[StuM]

37 minutes ago, iacas said:

Then why the "Tiger says Jack is the GOAT" post, and the others?

Why post in this topic if you can't decide for yourself?

That was to show an example of why I feel there is no clear answer.  Many are stating it is proven Tiger is the GOAT based on criteria other than Majors but Tiger stated it is Majors that differentiate.  Another post in a different thread valued a major as being worth 3.75 (or 3.5?) regular wins.  Apply that to Jack’s record and the total win gap narrows.  To me it is not an easy clear cut choice.   

I posted just to voice my opinion that I can appreciate both without the need to choose  one over the other.  

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, StuM said:

I posted just to voice my opinion that I can appreciate both without the need to choose  one over the other.  

The entire topic is choosing one over the other.

And your post about Tiger was about how Tiger can "choose" one over the other.

[Vinsk]

Lol! If I’m ever in court I’ll take Erik in my corner....

[boogielicious]

23 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Lol! If I’m ever in court I’ll take Erik in my corner....

I’d still go with Vinnie.

[StuM]

9 hours ago, iacas said:

The entire topic is choosing one over the other.

And your post about Tiger was about how Tiger can "choose" one over the other.

Sorry if I posted my opinion that, to me, it is too close to call in the wrong thread.

As for the Tiger post, it shows the subjectivity in how to choose.  Some are using records to make objective decisions and in that case 18 majors vs 15 Majors = Jack, if looking at overall US Tour wins, 82 vs 73 = Tiger, there are other records such as world-wide wins (Tiger), percentages of cuts made at majors (I've not fully researched this but I know Jack made 39 of 40 cuts in majors in the 1970s), weeks at #1 in WGR (did not start until 1986 so not great for comparison), most runner-ups in majors (Jack), most top 5 finishes in majors (Jack), Decisive victory in a major (IMO Tiger at The Masters).  The issue is subjectivity in choosing which record/stat to consider and which carries more weight.  If you are trying to give different weight to majors, which I agree majors are worth more, again subjectivity enters the equation as to how much weight to give them.

Erik is likely correct that I am making this more complicated then it needs to be, but that is part of my nature.  Trust me, I challenge myself on this as much as you are challenging me.  That is part of my learning process.

A little off topic, when my wife says that I am just like my father she is usually referring to my stubbornness and she is not intending to pay me a compliment.  That usually ends any discussion in her favor.

[Vinsk]

7 minutes ago, StuM said:

Sorry if I posted my opinion that, to me, it is too close to call in the wrong thread.

As for the Tiger post, it shows the subjectivity in how to choose.  Some are using records to make objective decisions and in that case 18 majors vs 15 Majors = Jack, if looking at overall US Tour wins, 82 vs 73 = Tiger, there are other records such as world-wide wins (Tiger), percentages of cuts made at majors (I've not fully researched this but I know Jack made 39 of 40 cuts in majors in the 1970s), weeks at #1 in WGR (did not start until 1986 so not great for comparison), most runner-ups in majors (Jack), most top 5 finishes in majors (Jack), Decisive victory in a major (IMO Tiger at The Masters).  The issue is subjectivity in choosing which record/stat to consider and which carries more weight.  If you are trying to give different weight to majors, which I agree majors are worth more, again subjectivity enters the equation as to how much weight to give them.

Erik is likely correct that I am making this more complicated then it needs to be, but that is part of my nature.  Trust me, I challenge myself on this as much as you are challenging me.  That is part of my learning process.

A little off topic, when my wife says that I am just like my father she is usually referring to my stubbornness and she is not intending to pay me a compliment.  That usually ends any discussion in her favor.

It may actually benefit you to read through all the stats. You mention a few which of course Jack achieved through a considerable weaker field. Even disregarding that Tiger has so many more stats of domination than Jack. It’s just like the bs Sam Snead 82. Really? If you give Tiger the same criteria Snead was given he far surpasses Snead in wins. Likewise if you apply the criteria to Snead his wins greatly diminish. Does that make any sense that wins counted for Snead don’t count for Tiger? 

[RFKFREAK]

On 9/21/2020 at 2:47 PM, Vinsk said:

I mean...what do you expect him to say? That’s just simple respect is all. 

Not to pile on but, agreed, Tiger's not about ruffling feathers on this. 

[turtleback]

19 hours ago, StuM said:

That was to show an example of why I feel there is no clear answer.  Many are stating it is proven Tiger is the GOAT based on criteria other than Majors but Tiger stated it is Majors that differentiate.  Another post in a different thread valued a major as being worth 3.75 (or 3.5?) regular wins.  Apply that to Jack’s record and the total win gap narrows.  To me it is not an easy clear cut choice.   

I posted just to voice my opinion that I can appreciate both without the need to choose  one over the other.  

Perhaps if you did read back a few pages you would realize how statistically dominant Tiger has been in virtually every other category.  I think if you looked at all of the data you might find that the answer is much clearer than you were aware of.  If I have some time I'll dig out one of the posts that cover a fair number of them, as I know seeking them out in this thread can be a daunting prospect. 

But I WILL leave you with one thought - until the latter stages of his career Jack virtually never played in an event in which included substantially all of the best players in the world.  And Tiger played in 7-8 events every single year in which substantially all of the best players played.  The 4 majors, 3 WGC and the Players.

Unlike you (and it is to your credit), a lot of newbys come into this thread adamant that it is clearly Jack.  I always offer them a challenge.  Take the years of Jack's career and line them up from best to worst.  I'll do the same with Tiger's carrer.  And then we'll play matchplay, going down the line, comparing years.  They never take me up on it, but I've done it myself and the match ends 10 & 8.

Edited September 22, 2020 by turtleback