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

[saevel25]

Listen, you are going to spin what ever you want to fit your opinion. Facts are facts. In the end, Tiger's career is 28 years and counting. In that career, he had more dominant years than Jack. More wins than Jack. More weeks at #1 (DOMINANCE). More money list victories. Longest streak of cuts made. That is with a handful of seasons lost to injury. Which makes it even more impressive. Lower scoring average. 

Here are some absurd stats. Sorry, I do not think Jack was doing this sort of stuff. 

This.. Maybe Tom Watson is better than Jack?

This...

[GolfSwami]

49 minutes ago, iacas said:

In addition to what Matt just shared, again I will point out that it is pretty silly to credit a player that built a less impressive career over a longer time span.

Jack's total output is way ahead.  Jack third and 1st in strokes gained at age 43 and 44.  If this were debated like baseball no one would think Tiger is the GOAT. 

When I looked up Jack's 83 and 84 strokes gained,  he had 14 top 10s in 28 events in just those two years he was "non-existent". (And he had 15 the two years before that and won two majors three years before)  I was curious to see how many top 10s Tiger has had since 2014.  He has had 13 top 10s in a decade. 

 

[iacas]

35 minutes ago, GolfSwami said:

I am killing brain cells by thinking about this and responding but I looked up the data out of curiosity.

Dude, for the umpteenth time now… Someone achieving less in more time is not a good argument.

35 minutes ago, GolfSwami said:

Tiger was ranked like 1400th in the world in his mid 30s.

When he wasn't playing golf? Yeah, wow, what a statement! FFS, man.

1 minute ago, GolfSwami said:

Jack's total output is way ahead.

No, it isn't. Tiger won more PGA Tour events, each of which had stronger and deeper fields than any of the major victories Jack had.

Jack played against (slightly exaggerating) ten year olds. Cool for him, easy way to rack up top tens, top threes, and wins.

1 minute ago, GolfSwami said:

Jack third and 1st in strokes gained at age 43 and 44.

I don't care about that. Tiger set more strokes gained and scoring average records than Jack ever did, even over a LONGER period of time (if you want to keep pushing that, which is dumb).

1 minute ago, GolfSwami said:

If this were debated like baseball no one would think Tiger is the GOAT. 

Ha, bull.

[GolfSwami]

7 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

 

Here are some absurd stats. Sorry, I do not think Jack was doing this sort of stuff. 

This.. Maybe Tom Watson is better than Jack?

This...

Tom Watson's peak ability possibilty surpasses Jack. He won 6 PGA Tour 

 

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

even over a LONGER period of time (if you want to keep pushing that, which is dumb).

 

No he did not. That is factually false. Just on the face, what you just wrote should immediately seem absurd to you. You are golf pro. Have you not followed golf the last 15 years at all?

 

[iacas]

1 minute ago, GolfSwami said:

Tom Watson's peak ability possibilty surpasses Jack. He won 6 PGA Tour 

Who freaking cares about Tom Watson here? Why do you keep talking about ONE other dude, who overlapped Jack less than you seem to realize?

1 minute ago, GolfSwami said:

No he did not. That is factually false. Just on the face, what you just wrote should immediately seem absurd to you. You are golf pro. Have you not followed golf the last 15 years at all?

We've been over this: Tiger's 82 PGA Tour wins were against significantly stronger fields than any of Jack's major (or regular) PGA Tour victories. That's what I call "accomplishing more." I don't care if Tiger (or Jack) finished T9 at something.

What I wrote is not absurd, because I value Tiger's victories as more difficult than Jack's. Just as I would if, say, Scottie Scheffler gets to 11 or 12 majors in his career.

You've now earned your timeout. I'm not a fan of repeating myself or discussing things with the intellectually dishonest.

[turtleback]

3 hours ago, GolfSwami said:

Tom Watson's peak ability possibilty surpasses Jack. He won 6 PGA Tour 

 

No he did not. That is factually false. Just on the face, what you just wrote should immediately seem absurd to you. You are golf pro. Have you not followed golf the last 15 years at all?

 

You were peddling this same poop a year ago and got completely shot down.  Why are you doing it again?  Unlike my colleagues here I'm not going to waste my time re-making the same substantive points that you couldn't refute a year ago.  At this point I can only conclude you are trolling.

[The Flush]

Jack is clearly the best!

[Kc -scott88]

Tiger is the greatest golfer I've seen but I think Jack due to technology and what he's done for the sport....

 

 

[Vinsk]

59 minutes ago, Kc -scott88 said:

Tiger is the greatest golfer I've seen but I think Jack due to technology and what he's done for the sport....

 

 

Technology just helped to narrow the gap between the greatest players and the not so great. Even Jack stated this. 

[snapfade]

Since this thread has started, Tiger has won 6 majors.

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Technology just helped to narrow the gap between the greatest players and the not so great. Even Jack stated this. 

Another factor that is often overlooked by Jack supporters.

Equipment improvement made it more difficult for Tiger to separate himself and win.

[Ty_Webb]

I think a lot of the argument here stems from the whole "Jack had more all-time greats around him". You can view that in one of two ways. The first way is to recognize that it's much harder to win lots of majors when there are lots more people capable of winning them, so it makes perfect sense that the number of multiple major winners has dropped as the game has grown. The second way is to ignore that and just assume that more majors means better regardless of field strength. 

I liken it to if you had two towns near each other. Both have one golf club. Each golf club has 4 big events a year and a bunch of smaller ones. Town A has 1000 people in it. 50 of them are golfers. One of them has won 18 of the big events and another 54 smaller ones over the past 20 years. One of them has won 9 big ones, one won 8 big ones and a few others won 7, 6, 5 etc. Town B has 100,000 people in it. 5,000 of them are golfers. You have to be of a certain standard to even play in the big events. One guy in this town has won 15 of the big events and 67 of the smaller ones. Beyond him, no one else has won more than 5 of the big events. Is the 18 winner in Town A better than the 15 winner in Town B? There's no way to be certain, but it's highly likely that the better player is in Town B (there is a 1%-ish chance that the best player is in the smaller town). 

Also, Jack finished 2nd more than he finished 1st, so he must not have been a very good finisher. 🙂

[ChetlovesMer]

36 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

I liken it to if you had two towns near each other. Both have one golf club. Each golf club has 4 big events a year and a bunch of smaller ones. Town A has 1000 people in it. 50 of them are golfers. One of them has won 18 of the big events and another 54 smaller ones over the past 20 years. One of them has won 9 big ones, one won 8 big ones and a few others won 7, 6, 5 etc. Town B has 100,000 people in it. 5,000 of them are golfers. You have to be of a certain standard to even play in the big events. One guy in this town has won 15 of the big events and 67 of the smaller ones. Beyond him, no one else has won more than 5 of the big events. Is the 18 winner in Town A better than the 15 winner in Town B? There's no way to be certain, but it's highly likely that the better player is in Town B (there is a 1%-ish chance that the best player is in the smaller town). 

3 hours ago, iacas said:

Another factor that is often overlooked by Jack supporters.

Equipment improvement made it more difficult for Tiger to separate himself and win.

Here's something I heard. I'm not sure if its true. When Tiger first switched from Titleist to Nike Golf. For a year or two his equipment was actually inferior to the rest of the field. I remember when this happened there were a lot of talking heads saying it would take Nike at least 3 years to catch up to the rest of the manufacturers. 

I don't know if that's true or just an example of the Mandela Effect.

 

[saevel25]

35 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

liken it to if you had two towns near each other. Both have one golf club. Each golf club has 4 big events a year and a bunch of smaller ones. Town A has 1000 people in it. 50 of them are golfers. One of them has won 18 of the big events and another 54 smaller ones over the past 20 years. One of them has won 9 big ones, one won 8 big ones and a few others won 7, 6, 5 etc. Town B has 100,000 people in it. 5,000 of them are golfers. You have to be of a certain standard to even play in the big events. One guy in this town has won 15 of the big events and 67 of the smaller ones. Beyond him, no one else has won more than 5 of the big events. Is the 18 winner in Town A better than the 15 winner in Town B? There's no way to be certain, but it's highly likely that the better player is in Town B (there is a 1%-ish chance that the best player is in the smaller town). 

It is easily seen in high school football. You have some kid from the middle of nowhere, and the kid doesn't get an offer from a big school. There might be 1000 better players down in Texas, California, Florida, Georgia, etc. 

36 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

I think a lot of the argument here stems from the whole "Jack had more all-time greats around him". You can view that in one of two ways. The first way is to recognize that it's much harder to win lots of majors when there are lots more people capable of winning them, so it makes perfect sense that the number of multiple major winners has dropped as the game has grown. The second way is to ignore that and just assume that more majors means better regardless of field strength. 

I was listening to a podcast where they read an article about the 1974 PGA championship. The intro to the podcast, they played an advertisement from the era. They were advertising the best in the game going up against the Club Pro's. Like, they were using that a selling point. 

I am of the opinion that Jack probably would have had half as many majors if he played during Tiger's era. I would say he would have 10 majors. 

[iacas]

@Ty_Webb you could’ve saved yourself five minutes and just linked to one of the hundreds of times I have made that point. I did so in 2021 with the graphics.

🤣

[Ty_Webb]

11 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I am of the opinion that Jack probably would have had half as many majors if he played during Tiger's era. I would say he would have 10 majors. 

I really don't know. I don't think anyone can. If Jack grew up at the same time as Tiger, he'd probably have been better than he was. More access to training and better swing coaching available and so on, so it's really impossible to say what would have happened.

On a separate note, I really hate these conversations, because Jack was a ****ing great golfer and so was Tiger, there's no doubt about that. But both sides wind up undermining the achievements that each player had to try to bolster their argument. I don't want to talk about how actually Jack wasn't THAT great, because he beat a bunch of nobodies and a handful of other good players. All you can ever do is beat the people around you and Jack did that in majors better than anyone else. Tiger did it better than anyone else (I'm devaluing a handful of Snead's wins for being team events and what not that Tiger's doesn't count) in all events. Tiger also burned faster and brighter than anyone else, in majors and in "regular" events. A lot of Tiger's wins were also WGC events (18 of them?), which brought the best players in the world all together at once. To win that many events against the best in the world is insane.

[snapfade]

15 minutes ago, ChetlovesMer said:

Here's something I heard. I'm not sure if its true. When Tiger first switched from Titleist to Nike Golf. For a year or two his equipment was actually inferior to the rest of the field. I remember when this happened there were a lot of talking heads saying it would take Nike at least 3 years to catch up to the rest of the manufacturers. 

I don't know if that's true or just an example of the Mandela Effect.

 

Seems I remember hearing/ reading that somewhere a while back. Let's start another topic, "How Many Majors Would Tiger Have Won if He Had Stayed with Titleist?" LOL

[Ty_Webb]

Just now, iacas said:

@Ty_Webb you could’ve saved yourself five minutes and just linked to one of the hundreds of times I have made that point. I did so in 2021 with the graphics.

🤣

Very possibly, but it would have probably taken me five or more minutes to find them. There are 395 pages in this thread! I've probably made a virtually word-for-word similar post elsewhere in here too