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

[iacas]

2 hours ago, GolfSwami said:

There a zillion assumptions that always get glossed over. It matters a lot if you are looking a players total career or just when they were good.

I love the way Nicklaus fans try to denigrate Tiger.

• Tiger was #1 in the world for over 680 weeks. That's over 13 years! He was "good" for a LONG time.
• Tiger won majors 22 years apart. He was "good" for a LONG time.
• Tiger won 15 majors (yes, three shy of Jack) and 82 PGA Tour events (almost all of which had stronger fields than any tournament Jack played in), 9 more than Jack. He was "good" for a LONG time.
• If you list Tiger's best years in order, and do the same to Jack's best years, you get to about year 14 before Jack's year ties Tiger's. Tiger was "good" for a LONG time.
• Vijay Singh was the only golfer other than Woods to be ranked world No. 1 in the 2000s. In other words, Tiger was almost the #1 golfer for an entire decade. Jack was rarely the best golfer in any given year. Tiger was "good" for a LONG time.

Oh, and add "against significantly stiffer competition" to the end of "Tiger was 'good' for a LONG time" above.

2 hours ago, GolfSwami said:

The best way to calculate who is greatest would be use the JAWS framework on Baseball Reference for majors.

I don't agree.

2 hours ago, GolfSwami said:

And then make some sort adjustment for field depth.

And that's a big part of why.

2 hours ago, GolfSwami said:

Guys who had short careers or who were inconsistent like … Tiger …  will be more properly rated instead of just looking at wins.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

[klineka]

1 hour ago, GolfSwami said:

One Major, 12 major top 10s post age 32

Neither one of those facts mean he was inconsistent or had a short career....

So if he only won 1 major after the age of 32 wouldn't the fact that he won 14 majors prior to age 32 mean he was a pretty consistent player for like a decade in his 20s? Thus kinda disproving your claim that he wasn't consistent?

Someone who made the cut more than 9 out of every 10 times they teed it up and got a top 25 more than 3 out of every 4 times he played sounds like pretty damn consistent player, right? 

The guy played in over 350 tournaments as a professional in a 20+ year career. How can you honestly claim that he had a short career?

Maybe you and I have different definitions of "short" and "inconsistent".

To make sure we are on the same page can you define/explain what "short" and "inconsistent" mean to you in the context of this discussion?

[turtleback]

1 hour ago, GolfSwami said:

One Major, 12 major top 10s post age 32

 

It is astounding how narrowly you have to tailor your criteria to get an advantage for Jack where none really exists.

13 minutes ago, klineka said:

Neither one of those facts mean he was inconsistent or had a short career....

So if he only won 1 major after the age of 32 wouldn't the fact that he won 14 majors prior to age 32 mean he was a pretty consistent player for like a decade in his 20s? Thus kinda disproving your claim that he wasn't consistent?

Someone who made the cut more than 9 out of every 10 times they teed it up and got a top 25 more than 3 out of every 4 times he played sounds like pretty damn consistent player, right? 

The guy played in over 350 tournaments as a professional in a 20+ year career. How can you honestly claim that he had a short career?

Maybe you and I have different definitions of "short" and "inconsistent".

To make sure we are on the same page can you define/explain what "short" and "inconsistent" mean to you in the context of this discussion?

Good rundown.  Another consistency measure - Tiger had winning streaks of 7, 6, 5, 3 (twice).  Jack had a winning streak of 3, once.  Or, Tiger was the leading money winner 4 times in a row and 3 times Ina row.  Jack won it 3 times in a row, once.  Or, Tiger won the PGA of America Player of the Year 5 times in a row and 3 times in a row.  Jack won it 2 times in a row, twice.

And the thing that absolutely explodes any silliness about a 'short inconsistent career' is the fact that no one won more PGA tour events than he did.

And, of course, Tiger won 18 WGC events while Jack won zero. 😉

[turtleback]

10 hours ago, csh19792001 said:

Not sure if this guy "Brock Savage" is a member here- since I'm never on here- nonetheless, I thought this was an extremely insightful comment directly apropos of this ongoing debate/discussion:.

Brock Savage is on this board as @brocks and is one of the most knowledgable posters about golf history and been so since back in the days of The Golf Channel forums.  Like me he saw Jack's whole career and had Jack as his favorite, until Tiger made that an untenable position.  If you were to read this whole thread (not suggesting you do so) you would find that he is in the top 5 or so of the contributors, in knowledge and insight, if not number of posts.

[Brock]

The things that stick out to me for Jack are (obviously 18 majors) the 19 runner-ups and he went up against a number of all time greats in Watson, Player, Palmer, Trevino as examples. These guys racked up a bunch of majors themselves. Jack is a golfing icon. Admittedly I likely don’t know as much as the rest of you about his career. 
 

For me it’s Tiger. Just so damn dominate under multiple instructors. Seems like golf fans were cheated with him missing so much time out of prime years. Longevity should be part of the equation. And much of tigers time away was self inflicted. Still doesn’t change my opinion Tiger is #1 all time. The fields he played against were deeper than Jacks,  just like the fields today are deeper than 20 years ago. 
 

Technology is an interesting piece of the discussion. Advances in the game have certainly allowed guys to compete longer and remain elite  than years ago. 

Edited July 11, 2023 by Brock

[turtleback]

9 minutes ago, Brock said:

The things that stick out to me for Jack are (obviously 18 majors) the 19 runner-ups and he went up against a number of all time greats in Watson, Player, Palmer, Trevino as examples. These guys racked up a bunch of majors themselves. Jack is a golfing icon. Admittedly I likely don’t know as much as the rest of you about his career. 
 

For me it’s Tiger. Just so damn dominate under multiple instructors. Seems like golf fans were cheated with him missing so much time out of prime years. Longevity should be part of the equation. And much of tigers time away was self inflicted. Still doesn’t change my opinion Tiger is #1 all time. The fields he played against were deeper than Jacks,  just like the fields today are deeper than 20 years ago.
 

Technology is an interesting piece of the discussion. Advances in the game have certainly allowed guys to compete longer and remain elite  than years ago. 

Don't anyone confuse this poster with @brocks, who I just mentioned above.  It is someone else.  

IMO second place is meaningless.  And the technology canard has been long exploded here. And those all time greats you cite won as many majors as they did for the same reason Jack won 18.  When there are just a few big fish in a small pond those few big fish get fat.  Neither Jack nor the 4 you mentioned ever played in an event where substantially all of the best players in the world were entered.  This was due to a) qualifying rules, b) cost and time of travel, and c) the majors did not have the same cachet until after Jack convinced the golf world they were all that counted.

But congrats at coming out at the right (ie most rational) place anyway.

Edited July 11, 2023 by turtleback

[Moxley]

The more time goes by, the more I think that Tiger simply brought a new dimension to the game (the fitness), which was time limited in its impact, and he did well to get as many as 14 in that time. 

 

Yes, he's obviously a good golfer too, but I don't see him adding another in his late 40s/50s like Phil and Jack did.

[GolfSwami]

On 7/11/2023 at 12:06 AM, turtleback said:

 

IMO second place is meaningless.  

I think it matters a lot. 2nds, top 5s, top 10s total cuts made all contribute to a player's greatness. 

 

On 7/10/2023 at 11:03 PM, turtleback said:

It is astounding how narrowly you have to tailor your criteria to get an advantage for Jack where none really exists.

 

My criteria is the same criteria I use for basketball or baseball. 

I measure greatness by a combination of total output and then take the best seven years years output and average the two. Nicklaus has an estimated 270-290 strokes gained edge on Tiger in majors.  The average major win produces around 14 strokes gained. Tiger's output is the equivalent of being about 20 major wins short.  Tiger had a very compressed career.  Lot of blank space after age 32.  No adjustment for field strength gets Tiger to number 1.

On 7/10/2023 at 11:03 PM, turtleback said:

Good rundown.  Another consistency measure - Tiger had winning streaks of 7, 6, 5, 3 (twice).  Jack had a winning streak of 3, once.  Or, Tiger was the leading money winner 4 times in a row and 3 times Ina row.  Jack won it 3 times in a row, once.  Or, Tiger won the PGA of America Player of the Year 5 times in a row and 3 times in a row.  Jack won it 2 times in a row, twice.

 

Win streaks, cut streaks, leading money winner, Player of the Year are all things I don't even consider.  To the extent they contribute to total output they are part of strokes gained. Baseball has a lot of examples where voting and extraneous things that don't really matter are used to evaluate talent.  Bert Blyleven made two All Star teams and never won a Cy Young. He is a top 10 pitcher post dead ball era. 

 

Edited July 14, 2023 by GolfSwami

[iacas]

2 hours ago, GolfSwami said:

I think it matters a lot. 2nds, top 5s, top 10s total cuts made all contribute to a player's greatness.

It's much easier to finish second when you only have to beat a few other people.

Almost anyone who places value on Jack's second-place finishes is, in my experience, just unwilling to move off Jack as GOAT and so they're searching out any shred of something they can try to justify as being important.

2 hours ago, GolfSwami said:

My criteria is the same criteria I use for basketball or baseball.

Baseball and basketball don't compare. They play against one another directly: players can play offense and defense against one another. That's not true in golf.

2 hours ago, GolfSwami said:

I measure greatness by a combination of total output and then take the best seven years years output and average the two.

Tiger's total output: 15 majors (plus 3 US Ams) and 82 PGA Tour event wins (almost all of which had stronger fields than any of Jack's events).

Jack's total output: 18 majors (plus 2 US Ams) and 73 PGA Tour event wins (against as much as 70% club pro fields).

And Tiger's best 7 years blow Jack's best 7 years out of the water.

15x + 82x >> 18y + 73y.

2 hours ago, GolfSwami said:

Nicklaus has an estimated 270-290 strokes gained edge on Tiger in majors.

Nice math there, buddy.

2 hours ago, GolfSwami said:

No adjustment for field strength gets Tiger to number 1.

Sez you.

2 hours ago, GolfSwami said:

Win streaks, cut streaks, leading money winner, Player of the Year are all things I don't even consider.

Because they don't support Jack.

2 hours ago, GolfSwami said:

To the extent they contribute to total output they are part of strokes gained.

If I shoot the same scores as I do now against PGA Tour players, I'd be negative strokes gained. Swap every Tour player with an 8-year-old girl and I guarantee I'd be way, way positive in strokes gained. Field strength and depth matter to strokes gained.

[turtleback]

21 hours ago, GolfSwami said:

 

My criteria is the same criteria I use for basketball or baseball. 

 

The fact that you are using the same criteria for an individual sport as for a team sport is just another indication that you are talking out of your a$$.

18 hours ago, iacas said:

If I shoot the same scores as I do now against PGA Tour players, I'd be negative strokes gained. Swap every Tour player with an 8-year-old girl and I guarantee I'd be way, way positive in strokes gained. Field strength and depth matter to strokes gained.

Do we even HAVE strokes gained stats for Jack's era?

Edited July 15, 2023 by turtleback

[iacas]

52 minutes ago, turtleback said:

Do we even HAVE strokes gained stats for Jack's era?

Not for the individual categories but you can figure it out based on the scoring averages.

But I don’t think he accounts for anything for field strength or depth.

[Vinsk]

Things that Nostalgic Nicklaus fans have to rely on for their argument:

1. Total Wins doesn’t matter. ( Criteria that Jack dismissed once he realized he couldn’t pass Sam Snead.)

2. Major wins is the main criteria ( again stated by Jack for above reasons)

3. Finishing second is huge!

4. Strength of Field must be ignored ( Jack himself stated how weak they were in his day.)

5. All other stats are to be minimized as they don’t support Jack’s argument.

 

The incessant argument of Jack having to compete against Player, Palmer, Watson, Trevino, Casper…..but they ignore the huge drop off of talent after those names. So many tournaments ( including Majors) Jack played in, there were only a handful of players who had a reasonable chance of winning. Tiger’s tournaments had dozens of players who had a very good chance of winning. This fact was stated by Jack himself too @GolfSwami

[turtleback]

1 hour ago, Vinsk said:

Things that Nostalgic Nicklaus fans have to rely on for their argument:

1. Total Wins doesn’t matter. ( Criteria that Jack dismissed once he realized he couldn’t pass Sam Snead.)

2. Major wins is the main criteria ( again stated by Jack for above reasons)

3. Finishing second is huge!

4. Strength of Field must be ignored ( Jack himself stated how weak they were in his day.)

5. All other stats are to be minimized as they don’t support Jack’s argument.

 

The incessant argument of Jack having to compete against Player, Palmer, Watson, Trevino, Casper…..but they ignore the huge drop off of talent after those names. So many tournaments ( including Majors) Jack played in, there were only a handful of players who had a reasonable chance of winning. Tiger’s tournaments had dozens of players who had a very good chance of winning. This fact was stated by Jack himself too @GolfSwami

I've said it before but it still bears repeating.  Even if we concede for the sake of argument that the level of golfers was globally the same during Jack's era and Tiger's era (something that is extremely unlikely) the fact is that Jack virtually never played played in an event that contained substantially all of the top, say, 75 players in the world.  While every major, WGC event (other than the 64 man field of the matchplay), and Players that Tiger played in did have virtually all of the top 75.  Specifically narrowing it down to the majors, in Jack's era many top American golfers did not play the British Open, and very few of the top international players played the Masters, US Open, or PGA.

[3jacker]

Man, y'all are et up!

 

Of course it was Jack. The stats/performance can be debated for eternity.  So let's call that a wash.  Next, consider moral behavior.  Jack all the way! lol

[klineka]

2 minutes ago, 3jacker said:

Next, consider moral behavior. 

That's not what the point of this topic is though. The point of this topic is who is the greatest golfer. 

[StuM]

14 minutes ago, 3jacker said:

Next, consider moral behavior.

That has no relevance to the question.  Let's say I am the most moral person ever in the universe (just hypothosizing here).  Does that make me the best golfer of all time?  

[turtleback]

34 minutes ago, 3jacker said:

Man, y'all are et up!

 

Of course it was Jack. The stats/performance can be debated for eternity.  So let's call that a wash.  Next, consider moral behavior.  Jack all the way! lol

Jack is very fortunate that social media did not exist in 1994 when he made some unfortunate and ignorant racial comments.

[3jacker]

1 hour ago, StuM said:

That has no relevance to the question.  Let's say I am the most moral person ever in the universe (just hypothosizing here).  Does that make me the best golfer of all time?  

You are both taking my words out of context.  There was a sentence that came before it. The whole response matters.  Read it again.  Also, lighten up.  It was done in jest.

Edited July 20, 2023 by 3jacker