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

[iacas 9,470]

11 hours ago, StuM said:

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.

I'll second what @turtleback said and add only this: those stats and many others are why some people — not you, obviously — CAN and DO make actual determinations for themselves who they think is the GOAT. And the majority tends to favor Tiger… and this topic is pretty old, and has always been in favor of Tiger, since… 2006 when it started.

 

[Double Mocha Man 655]

13 minutes ago, iacas said:

I'll second what @turtleback said and add only this: those stats and many others are why some people — not you, obviously — CAN and DO make actual determinations for themselves who they think is the GOAT. And the majority tends to favor Tiger… and this topic is pretty old, and has always been in favor of Tiger, since… 2006 when it started.

 

How about a 1A and a 1B?  For different reasons they both qualify as GOATs...

[Vinsk 1,779]

26 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

How about a 1A and a 1B?  For different reasons they both qualify as GOATs...

They don’t. Tiger is clearly the GOAT. What’s arguable is whether Jack is actually second.😉

[Double Mocha Man 655]

8 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

They don’t. Tiger is clearly the GOAT. What’s arguable is whether Jack is actually second.😉

IDK.  How can one overlook 18 majors?  Do you have Hogan in 2nd place?  😃

[ScouseJohnny 141]

11 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

IDK.  How can one overlook 18 majors?  Do you have Hogan in 2nd place?  😃

Brace yourself, old chap. I sense terse reminders that the British Open in the late '60s and early '70s had slightly weaker fields than a Sunday medal at the Salina Kansas Country Club, may soon be headed your way.

 

...And yes, Tiger is the GOAT. And Jack is sort of the smaller, older, back-up GOAT. Or 2nd place GOAT. Reserve GOAT. Call it what you will.

Edited September 23 by ScouseJohnny

[StuM 39]

4 hours ago, turtleback said:.  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.

I will work on putting this together.  I will not be able to focus on it for a few days but will send you a message.

4 hours ago, turtleback said:  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.

Something happened is recent quote do re- posting.

it will take me a few days to put the list together and will message you.

[turtleback 709]

Here is a list of links to a lot of the numbers that pretty clearly establish that Tiger has far exceeded Jack in every relevant metric with the sole exception of what, back then was 18>14, and is now 18>15.  


https://thesandtrap.com/forums/topic/2203-jack-vs-tiger-whos-the-greatest-golfer/?do=findComment&comment=1366814

 

3 hours ago, Vinsk said:

They don’t. Tiger is clearly the GOAT. What’s arguable is whether Jack is actually second.😉

The people who are in the worst position are the ones that dismiss strength of field arguments, because the only defense of Jack as #2 over Hogan at #3 beyond pure longevity is that Jack's fields were tougher than Ben's.

2 hours ago, StuM said:

I will work on putting this together.  I will not be able to focus on it for a few days but will send you a message.

Something happened is recent quote do re- posting.

it will take me a few days to put the list together and will message you.

BTW, it is nice to have someone enter the thread in good faith with an open mind.  That hasn't been all that typical in this thread.

[klineka 808]

23 hours ago, StuM said:

Decisive victory in a major (IMO Tiger at The Masters). 

Assuming you are talking about the '97 Masters, I don't even agree with your opinion on that let alone the Tiger v Jack Debate.

In the 2000 U.S. Open Tiger was leading after 54 holes by 10 strokes and ended up winning by 15 strokes, which is the largest margin of victory in a major ever. He played the final round bogey free, and was the only player to break par for the week and became the first player in 106 years of the U.S. Open to finish at double-digits under par.

In the 1997 Masters, he had a 9 shot lead after 54 holes, won by 12, had 2 bogeys in the final round, and 10+ people finished under par.

So what about Tiger's win at The Masters makes it more decisive than his win at the 2000 U.S. Open?

[StuM 39]

38 minutes ago, klineka said:

Assuming you are talking about the '97 Masters, I don't even agree with your opinion on that let alone the Tiger v Jack Debate.

In the 2000 U.S. Open Tiger was leading after 54 holes by 10 strokes and ended up winning by 15 strokes, which is the largest margin of victory in a major ever. He played the final round bogey free, and was the only player to break par for the week and became the first player in 106 years of the U.S. Open to finish at double-digits under par.

In the 1997 Masters, he had a 9 shot lead after 54 holes, won by 12, had 2 bogeys in the final round, and 10+ people finished under par.

So what about Tiger's win at The Masters makes it more decisive than his win at the 2000 U.S. Open?

Both were great wins.  In addition to score/lead I was also considering that the '97 Masters was his 1st major win.  I should not have called it the dominant win.

Edited September 23 by StuM
typo

[turtleback 709]

5 hours ago, StuM said:

Both were great wins.  In addition to score/lead I was also considering that the '97 Masters was his 1st major win.  I should not have called it the dominant win.

 

Well, it was certainly A dominant win.  And consider that few players have had one dominant wins in majors, while off the top of my head I can think of 3 for Tiger - 97 Masters (12), 2000 US Open (15), and the 2000 British Open (8).

[StuM 39]

 

Good morning.  It is time for me to eat crow and adjust my opinions stated previously.  First, I had stated, often, that choosing a GOAT across era's was not possible, or at least extremely difficult, but after much research I feel I can make a choice.  I have been silent on this topic for the past 8 days as I took a deeper look.

I would like to thank @turtleback for sharing various pieces of information.  To me, one of his most relevant suggestions was to look at "Gifted Majors".  In digging deeper I learned that Jack had 2 major victories that I concluded were "Gifts".  In the 1966 Masters Gary Brewer 3-Putted #18 costing him the outright lead.  Jack also won the 1970 Open Championship in a playoff but Doug Sanders took 4 shots to hole-out from 74 yards and missed a short putt that would have given Sanders the victory in regulation.  I understand "A Win is a Win" but if we are giving Majors higher value than non-Majors then we should consider these gifts as being not as significant as other major victories. Tiger had some playoffs victories in Majors but in looking I could not categorize them as "Gifts".  If anything the 2000 PGA was Tiger fending off a surging Bob May and the 2005 Masters was Tiger fending off a great round by DiMarco.  The 2008 US Open was Tiger getting Birdie on 18 to force playoff then winning a tough battle against Rocco in the playoff.  This, to me, brings less value to "18>15" argument.

I also looked over various prior comments in this topic, as was suggested by many.  When considering Tiger's long-term dominance, overall more tour & worldwide victories along with the above I am able to make a choice.

So today, I cast my vote for Tiger.

Thanks for pushing me to look deeper into this.

[turtleback 709]

Good man.  A rare open mind in this discussion.

[Vinsk 1,779]

Gifted Majors.....Faldo probably the leader in this. Profoundly lucky. Norman blowing a six shot lead, collapsing and Hoch choking a 2’ putt. Faldo totally gifted there.

[Beastie 41]

On 10/2/2020 at 9:39 PM, Vinsk said:

Gifted Majors.....Faldo probably the leader in this. Profoundly lucky. Norman blowing a six shot lead, collapsing and Hoch choking a 2’ putt. Faldo totally gifted there.

Faldo was lucky that Hoch choked,( he shot a 65 to get to the playoff BTW) but he was stone cold against Norman at the Masters. He shot the low round of the day, won by 5. Not blowing it when the pressure is on is a   major skill set and Faldo was very good under pressure 

[Vinsk 1,779]

4 hours ago, Beastie said:

but he was stone cold against Norman at the Masters.

Norman shot a 78. Faldo didn’t have to be too stone cold to win that one. Norman only had to shoot even par to win. Faldo played great. But it wasn’t an astronomically good round as much as Norman’s was astronomically bad.