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

[Ceej]

First post, glad to be here.

Then look at stats. It doesn't matter whether or not you've seen him play.

People should stop confusing dominance with greatness. Welcome though

[ganjagolfer]

I am not old enough to have seen Jack play in his prime, as many here are not, but I think it's safe to assume Tiger is the best.

didn't see jack play and "safe to assume Tiger is the best"

[eyedoc]

I am old enough to have seen both and have no hesitation is saying Tiger is the best ever. This past US Open put him over the top in my mind. Tiger is a monster and no one can compare to him.

[SpacklersEdge]

Then look at stats. It doesn't matter whether or not you've seen him play.

Stats don't tell you everything. There are plenty of stats that could make Jack look better.

[mikelz]

You said you weren't alive so how can you say Tiger has a better short game?

I am really coming around.

I watched most of Jack's victories and he was a clutch putter. I now wish there was a way to measure "make or break" putts. In just two events, Bay Hill & The U.S. Open, Tiger made putts on the last hole of three rounds to win or give himself a chance to win. Of course, he won both events. All other skills aside, Tiger is the best putter I have ever seen or could imagine.

[iacas]

In just two events, Bay Hill & The U.S. Open, Tiger made putts on the last hole of three rounds to win or give himself a chance to win.

And Dubai this year, too.

[Ceej]

Stats don't tell you everything. There are plenty of stats that could make Jack look better.

Then what are you going to base this off of? I know Tiger has had a lot of clutch shots, but statistics in golf tell you more about how good someone was/is than any other sport.

[Jeepthrills]

Then what are you going to base this off of? I know Tiger has had a lot of clutch shots, but statistics in golf tell you more about how good someone was/is than any other sport.

Then what stats are we looking at? Tiger has a higher winning percentage, lower scoring average, won the career slam at a younger age, won it a second time at a younger age. Has more majors than jack at the same age. He owns the scoring records at most if not all of the majors. He shot 12 under at a US Open where the next best guy didn't break par. He won a British Open without using his driver.

Dominance and greatness do generally go together. Tiger dominates the tour both physically and mentally. He is so good that he has made people question the greatness of future/current Hall of Fame players like Els, Phil and Vijay.

[SpacklersEdge]

Then what are you going to base this off of? I know Tiger has had a lot of clutch shots, but statistics in golf tell you more about how good someone was/is than any other sport.

I don't agree with that at all. What are you going to look at?

Scoring Average? Driving distance? Putts? Conditions and technology have changed way too much to look at a stat to tell if two guys 45 years apart in their primes are better than one another. To me all you can look at are wins, consistency, margin of victory of the field, etc. I think we both like Tiger in this argument, so I'm not sure why your busting my balls about this :)

[SpacklersEdge]

Tiger has a higher winning percentage, lower scoring average, won the career slam at a younger age, won it a second time at a younger age. Has more majors than jack at the same age. He owns the scoring records at most if not all of the majors. He shot 12 under at a US Open where the next best guy didn't break par. He won a British Open without using his driver.

Now those stats I think make a very good case.

[Ceej]

Then what stats are we looking at? Tiger has a higher winning percentage, lower scoring average, won the career slam at a younger age, won it a second time at a younger age. Has more majors than jack at the same age. He owns the scoring records at most if not all of the majors. He shot 12 under at a US Open where the next best guy didn't break par. He won a British Open without using his driver.

Ever thought that people question the greatness of those players because again, compared to the greats from the past, they're not that great?

Also, compare the competition: Palmer (7 majors 62 wins), Player (9 majors 24 PGA tour wins 166 worldwide wins), Watson (8 majors 39 wins), Trevino (6 majors 29 wins) versus Tigers opponents: Singh (3 majors 31 wins), Els (3 majors 15 wins), Mickelson (3 majors 31 wins), Goosen (2 majors 6 wins). You can say the field is "deeper" all you want, but when it comes down beating out quality opponents to earn a win in each major, Jack has Tiger beat. Dominance and greatness don't go together very well in this case because of that. You'll always have more people wanting to argue that the greatest player ever is in this era. Not 40 years ago. Not to mention how much more advanced equipment is today, and how well courses are maintained. But in the end I've decided you can't really compare the two. There's always going to be a gray area and that's why I'm going to put this thread on ignore.

[iacas]

Also, compare the competition:

http://thesandtrap.com/thrash_talk/t..._debate_act_ii Also, Tiger's well ahead of Jack's pace (i.e. he takes more of the wins away from his competition), and some of the players you mentioned won some of their majors outside of Jack's heyday.

You can say the field is "deeper" all you want, but when it comes down beating out quality opponents to earn a win in each major, Jack has Tiger beat.

Jack himself has said differently. He's said that the field is deeper, the knowledge is deeper, the ability is deeper, and that it's tougher to win majors these days.

Not to mention how much more advanced equipment is today, and how well courses are maintained.

That works in everyone's favor, and I could make a pretty damn compelling argument that if the equipment were crappy, that would favor Tiger

even more . Tiger's said as much. Jack has said as much.

[maverickgolf]

I vote for Tiger.

In any profession, working on your competitive advantage is essential to being the best. Nowadays, everyone on tour strikes the ball well. They hit long, they have solid short games, and they can putt - otherwise, they wouldn't be out there making money.

I think Tiger has 2 major competitive advantages;

1) focus
Having just spent 3 days at the US Open at Torrey Pines....I can tell you that almost every player at some point of walking down fairways and between greens and tee boxes usually smiles or waves to fans, etc. Tiger is a machine. He walks down the fairway - always looking at course conditions, wind patterns, etc. People call it unfriendly, etc. Call it whatever you want - he's won 14 majors and is the 3rd all time in PGA tournament victories. Maybe we as fans - or the media - should stop wanting it both ways. Tiger is a great interview....AFTER his day at the office is done.

2) physical conditioning
He's ripped. Enough said. He was the first pro golfer to understand that being in the best physical shape possible would give him a significant advantage. The majority of the guys in the 70's 80's 90's.....probably couldn't even spell sit-up, or bench press. Sure they were thin enough to get into those tight plaid pants....but they were all as thin as rakes. Tiger was the first to pump up.....and the first WINNING player to hit 300 yard tee shots on a regular basis.

So....when it comes down to Tiger vs. Jack.....I'll give you that Jack was focused. But I don't think Jack ever made the effort to find a way to DIFFERENTIATE himself from the pack. Tiger gets my nod for going to the gym and working hard.

Marcelo

[Jeepthrills]

But in the end I've decided you can't really compare the two. There's always going to be a gray area and that's why I'm going to put this thread on ignore.

Very mature response to the debate. I'm taking my ball and going home.

One of the great things about sports is the ability to debate eras. Would the 1970's Steelers beat the 80's 49ers and the 90's Cowboys? I say yes, but many others will say no. I know they would beat the Patriots because without the technology that has allowed them to cheat so well they would not be as good. There is no right answer in any of these, only opinions. An argument can be made for Jack as it can be for Tiger. There may have been a few more great players in Jack's era, but many of them, like Palmer and Watson, were either at the end or the beginning of their runs. Most of the top players that Tiger is facing have careers that are almost parallel to him. Phil, Ernie, Goosen and Duval all joined the Tour within about 5 years of Tiger. Vijay's best years also came in the "Tiger" era. The depth and ability of the guys an Tour is amazing, top to bottom. Every year there are multiple first time winners. The quality of play is better now than ever. There are 40+ guys that can win every week.

[Jeepthrills]

Well, I guess we can close this thread now. I think Tiger just answered the question by winning the US Open with stress fractures in his knee and a torn ACL.

[ERC7.5]

Well, I guess we can close this thread now. I think Tiger just answered the question by winning the US Open with stress fractures in his knee and a torn ACL.

Finally!!!!

[BASHERBAKER69]

Jack is still the greatest, no matter how many majors are handed to Tiger.

[ERC7.5]

Jack is still the greatest...

...to you and the 195 other members of this forum that has voted accordingly.

....no matter how many majors are handed to Tiger.

Tiger hasn't been handed any majors....just the trophies that he'd won. If the majors were being handed to him....last years US Open would have been a perfect opportunity.