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

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

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

I’ve linked to it within the past day or two. Yeah.

[Vinsk]

4 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

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.

I don’t think that’s even relevant to the debate. Jack didn’t have that upbringing or training …and that’s just part of the equation that favors Tiger. Tiger didn’t have the luxury of playing against weak fields. Jack didn’t have the technology for training. All part of the reality. Just like those who might say Tiger’s injuries took away what could’ve been even more wins. So what? He DID have injuries and that’s the reality. 
 

I think the argument’s been made very well that taking what they each accomplished IN TOTALITY, Tiger has by far the greater accomplishments. Put aside all the could’ve/should’ve/would’ve/ factors and just focus on what was actually done. How well did each golfer perform and against what opponents? Tiger easily wins this.

[EnterSandTrap]

I think Jack was better, but I also think Joe Montana was better than Tom Brady and I think Bob Gibson was better than Sandy Koufax.  Peach is also better than strawberry.   I hope that settles this once and for all….

[Vinsk]

54 minutes ago, EnterSandTrap said:

I think Jack was better, but I also think Joe Montana was better than Tom Brady and I think Bob Gibson was better than Sandy Koufax.  Peach is also better than strawberry.   I hope that settles this once and for all….

Nope. You’re just telling us who/what you like more. That’s fine of course, but not what this is really about.

No different than those who think Tiger and Snead are tied in total wins. They’re not. Tiger has more. Period. That’s just a pure fact. So unfortunately you kinda fall under the ‘ just like Jack because I do’ group just as those who give Snead 82 by including wins that don’t count for Tiger. Asinine. You’re not using unbiased reasoning or logic for your choices. You’re not using statistics. Just pure melancholy and sentiment. Again, that’s fine but answer nothing.🙂

[EnterSandTrap]

2 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Nope. You’re just telling us who/what you like more. That’s fine of course, but not what this is really about.

No different than those who think Tiger and Snead are tied in total wins. They’re not. Tiger has more. Period. That’s just a pure fact. So unfortunately you kinda fall under the ‘ just like Jack because I do’ group just as those who give Snead 82 by including wins that don’t count for Tiger. Asinine. You’re not using unbiased reasoning or logic for your choices. You’re not using statistics. Just pure melancholy and sentiment. Again, that’s fine but answer nothing.🙂

It was tongue in cheek attempted humor.   It seems like when humor is attempted on most forums, everyone interprets everything so literally, much like Bob Newhart’s German stand up character who says “Why do you call this man Curly?  He has no hair.  And this man you call Tiny, he weighs at least three-hundred pounds.”   Oh well.  

[Vinsk]

6 minutes ago, EnterSandTrap said:

It was tongue in cheek attempted humor.   It seems like when humor is attempted on most forums, everyone interprets everything so literally, much like Bob Newhart’s German stand up character who says “Why do you call this man Curly?  He has no hair.  And this man you call Tiny, he weighs at least three-hundred pounds.”   Oh well.  

Emojis help with that. Pure text can be misunderstood….but my bad.🙂

[boogielicious]

1 hour ago, EnterSandTrap said:

I think Jack was better, but I also think Joe Montana was better than Tom Brady and I think Bob Gibson was better than Sandy Koufax.  Peach is also better than strawberry.   I hope that settles this once and for all….

Bob Gibson was nasty good! Montana can’t even hold Tom’s jock strap unless he uses the illegal stickum that Rice used! 😜

This debate will rage on forever and it’s kind of amusing when folks see it that way. Thanks for lightening it up. 

[csh19792001]

On 5/11/2024 at 5:36 PM, 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.

I'm sure you've read this, but I just have to post it, here, again, for everyone who hasn't. It changed my thinking forever and irrevocably on this exact topic: 

Edited May 21 by iacas
Replaced with link to the original post

[csh19792001]

On 3/12/2018 at 10:34 AM, iacas said:

It doesn't here.

The math is pretty simple.

 

Iacas- Can you please post all the data behind field strengths?

Thank you very much!

[boogielicious]

1 hour ago, csh19792001 said:

 

Iacas- Can you please post all the data behind field strengths?

Thank you very much!

It’s been posted in earlier in this thread. Please use the search function.

[iacas]

4 hours ago, csh19792001 said:

"We don't say "the golfers are more talented" today. We say "there are more talented golfers today." "More" meaning they are far more numerous, not more talented.

Which makes it tougher to win tournaments, and speaks to the strength and depth of fields.

4 hours ago, csh19792001 said:

And there's no telling whether the most talented player of any period, including this one, was more talented than Jack, or Jones, or Vardon. It's absolutely unknowable.

It's unknowable how to specifically rate a player (i.e. is Jack a 99.1 and Tiger is a 99.8?), but since the format for PGA Tour and major championships has remained basically the same, by comparing records and the players that took part, you can pretty directly compare across eras and derive that Tiger > Jack.

4 hours ago, csh19792001 said:

What do you have to counter that?

Do you even know what side of this discussion I'm on?

4 hours ago, csh19792001 said:

Nothing but your belief that there were half a dozen golf phenoms all at the same time in the 60's, and none today, now that Tiger's past his prime.

That's not my opinion or belief. Did you quote — and reply — to the right person? Doesn't seem like it.

4 hours ago, csh19792001 said:

Well, it looks like you're going to crow about the lack of current talent every time a guy backs into a win for the foreseeable future, but come on.

Okay, I think it's clear now you've replied to the wrong person.

3 hours ago, csh19792001 said:

Can you please post all the data behind field strengths?

I have many times.

[Ty_Webb]

16 hours ago, iacas said:

That's not my opinion or belief. Did you quote — and reply — to the right person? Doesn't seem like it.

Okay, I think it's clear now you've replied to the wrong person.

I think (don't hold me to it) that he was quoting your post to say "I agree with you and here's why" rather than to disagree, but I may very well be wrong.

[csh19792001]

18 hours ago, iacas said:

 

Okay, I think it's clear now you've replied to the wrong person.

I’m in full agreement with your position. I’m supporting you 100%!
 

I personally thought that was an amazing post, and thought you would appreciate it!

20 hours ago, boogielicious said:

It’s been posted in earlier in this thread. Please use the search function.

Please let me know what to query.

Im new here and I’m learning.

Thank you!

Edited May 20 by csh19792001

[csh19792001]

2 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

I think (don't hold me to it) that he was quoting your post to say "I agree with you and here's why" rather than to disagree, but I may very well be wrong.

Exactly correct. 👍 

[turtleback]

On 5/19/2024 at 10:18 AM, csh19792001 said:

 

Iacas- Can you please post all the data behind field strengths?

Thank you very much!

There is a whole thread on this, as you should know since yours was the very last post in it.  A year ago.

[boogielicious]

5 hours ago, csh19792001 said:

I’m in full agreement with your position. I’m supporting you 100%!
 

I personally thought that was an amazing post, and thought you would appreciate it!

Please let me know what to query.

Im new here and I’m learning.

Thank you!

This was your post a year ago.

[Vinsk]

Yeah. It’s because of the equipment:

[iacas]

2 hours ago, boogielicious said:

This was your post a year ago.

Oh, and look at that: he copied and pasted the post of someone else. At least a year ago he gave credit and linked to the original post. This time around he just posted it as if it was his own thoughts.

We don't do that here. I've replaced your original post in this topic with a link to that other post.