Tiger Will Never Be the GOAT???

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Shorty

So---Keegan Bradley could retire now and be considered one of the greatest of all time?

And - stupid as it may seem, when people talk about "all time" for some reason we only think about golfers from perhaps Hogan and after him.

It's all relative. Not an argument anyone can "win".

*IF* percentage was the criteria, yes.  But the point is that there is no particular criteria that is set in stone.  To act as if most majors was somehow the only criteria that is rational (which is what you imply when you say no one can consider Tiger the GOAT until he equals or exceeds Jack in majors won) is just not rational.  It is easy to just pick one particular criterion to be THE ONE, but that is just arbitrary.  How many people considered Walter Hagen the GOAT before Jack passed him in pro majors?  No one, because the most widely accepted criteria was most PGA tour wins, which Snead had.  But even then that criterion was not carved in stone and no one automatically considered Snead the GOAT - there were heated discussion about who was best, Snead, Hogan, or Nelson.  It is a product of our time that we have to say who was THE best.  And a product of our time to insist on making that determination according to some specific simple criterion, rather than using thinking and judgment.

Personally I think that in determining GOAT a combination of criteria is needed.  An outstanding record in the majors.  An outstanding record in non-majors.  In a word, dominance.  How many years was a guy the dominant player in the world and to what extent was he dominant.  In the 16 years Tiger has been on tour he was utterly dominant in 11 of them.  In his whole career Jack had, at most and being generous, 8 dominant years.  And in most cases they were not nearly as dominant as Tiger's dominant years.  What percentage of majors entered has each won?  What percentage of non-majors each entered did they win.  And I have no problem in chopping off anything after 1980 from Jack's records in these percentage computations, since including later years would unfairly penalize him.  I say compare them at comparable points in their respective (pro) careers.  If we are going to use 1996-2011 for Tiger then we use 1962-1977 for Jack.  Through 1977 Jack had won 14 majors out of 63 entered.  Tiger has won 14 majors out of 56 entered.  Jack never won 4 events in a row.  Tiger has winning streaks of 5, 6, and 7, in 07/08, 99/00, and 06/07 respectively.  Jack NEVER had periods anywhere near as dominating as those periods.

And I hope we don't have to yet again debunk the silly notion that the fields were tougher in Jack's days - something that Jack himself debunked in his autobiography as has been cited.

And, as an aside, I think the fact that people seem to ignore the period before Hogan in GOAT discussions fits your Justine Bieber criticism more than those who think Tiger has already established himself as GOAT.

[Harmonious]

It's so difficult to compare the different eras of golf, as so much has changed through the years.   Technology is vastly different today than even 10 years ago.  Many of the older, tighter, arguably tougher championship layouts are no longer used for major tournaments.  Someone with a wayward driver (Tiger) may not have been so dominant had the tree-lined courses been used.  Impossible to say.

What I would say is that there are four golfers who dominated their era that they could be considered.  They are Jones, Hogan, Nicklaus and Woods.  Jones is impossible the rate as he retired so early.  Hogan's brilliant career was cut short by injury, so it's impossible to say how great he could have been. Nicklaus' record is there for all to see.  Woods' is still unfinished.

What makes the most sense to me when discussing strength of each era's fields is not how deep they are, but how many truly excellent players there were during that time.  For instance, Jones had Hagen and Sarazen, but they only competed in a handful of tournaments together.  Hogan had Nelson and Snead, fighting it out at every major.  Nicklaus had Player (9 majors), Trevino (6), Watson (8) and, to a lesser extent, Palmer (7).  Woods had........Mickelsen?  He's the only one with 4 majors.

In other words, there has been little competition for Woods to prove he is/was the greatest of all time.  Not his fault, he beat whoever showed up; but the record shows a lack of competitive talent during his time. That was not the case with Nicklaus. His relative domination came during an era when there were a larger number of historically great players.

Anyway, good topic during the cold wintertime.  There is no "right" answer.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

It's so difficult to compare the different eras of golf, as so much has changed through the years.   Technology is vastly different today than even 10 years ago.  Many of the older, tighter, arguably tougher championship layouts are no longer used for major tournaments.  Someone with a wayward driver (Tiger) may not have been so dominant had the tree-lined courses been used.  Impossible to say.

What I would say is that there are four golfers who dominated their era that they could be considered.  They are Jones, Hogan, Nicklaus and Woods.  Jones is impossible the rate as he retired so early.  Hogan's brilliant career was cut short by injury, so it's impossible to say how great he could have been. Nicklaus' record is there for all to see.  Woods' is still unfinished.

What makes the most sense to me when discussing strength of each era's fields is not how deep they are, but how many truly excellent players there were during that time.  For instance, Jones had Hagen and Sarazen, but they only competed in a handful of tournaments together.  Hogan had Nelson and Snead, fighting it out at every major.  Nicklaus had Player (9 majors), Trevino (6), Watson (8) and, to a lesser extent, Palmer (7).  Woods had........Mickelsen?  He's the only one with 4 majors.

In other words, there has been little competition for Woods to prove he is/was the greatest of all time.  Not his fault, he beat whoever showed up; but the record shows a lack of competitive talent during his time. That was not the case with Nicklaus. His relative domination came during an era when there were a larger number of historically great players.

Anyway, good topic during the cold wintertime.  There is no "right" answer.

Bad logic.  Logic that Jack himself disagreed with in his 1996 autobiography*.  The more excellent players there are, the harder it is for them to win many majors.  Jack himself used to say that there were only 5 or 6 players he really had to worry about in the majors.  Now there are a lot more players who can win majors.  Mickelson's 4 majors is an incredible achievement with the number of excellent players he has been competing against.

Also note that Jack's "domination" was far less dominating than Tiger domination by almost any measure we can come up with.

* " , , , the fact is that, to be able to hold onto their cards, and earn a decent living, the golfers in the middle of the pack today have had to become as good as the players at the top were when I started out thirty and more years ago, while those in the top have become the equals of superstars of my generation. ” (Jack Nicklaus, 1996)

[misty_mountainhop]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Bad logic.  Logic that Jack himself disagreed with in his 1996 autobiography*.  The more excellent players there are, the harder it is for them to win many majors.  Jack himself used to say that there were only 5 or 6 players he really had to worry about in the majors.  Now there are a lot more players who can win majors.  Mickelson's 4 majors is an incredible achievement with the number of excellent players he has been competing against.

Also note that Jack's "domination" was far less dominating than Tiger domination by almost any measure we can come up with.

* " , , , the fact is that, to be able to hold onto their cards, and earn a decent living, the golfers in the middle of the pack today have had to become as good as the players at the top were when I started out thirty and more years ago, while those in the top have become the equals of superstars of my generation.” (Jack Nicklaus, 1996)

Not really a very sensible argument. Those whom Jack considered a threat and who could actually have won a Major aren't remotely the same thing. I'm sure Tiger himself didn't consider more than a handful as a genuine threat in his pomp. Pretty much the same as in Jack's time I would think.

I know it's Wikipedia(!), but look at Jack's record in the big ones across 20 years from the early 60's to early 80's. Not just his wins but look at his runner up and top 5s:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Nicklaus#Results_timeline

Woods' record is, IMO, not as consistent (outside of the Masters) aside from the wins:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_woods#Results_timeline

If, however, Woods tops Jack's Majors haul, I'll happily call him the greatest.

[colin007]

personally, i think tiger is the GOAT.  i think he has done enough.

heres my thinking - tiger is like the sandy koufax of golf.  there are many who feel that koufax is the greatest pitcher of all time, despite his short lived career.  i think tiger is the same way.  what he accomplished, and the level of play that he achieved, have never been matched.  his best play beats anyone who has ever played.  of course, this is JMHO...

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by misty_mountainhop

Not really a very sensible argument. Those whom Jack considered a threat and who could actually have won a Major aren't remotely the same thing. I'm sure Tiger himself didn't consider more than a handful as a genuine threat in his pomp. Pretty much the same as in Jack's time I would think.

I know it's Wikipedia(!), but look at Jack's record in the big ones across 20 years from the early 60's to early 80's. Not just his wins but look at his runner up and top 5s:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Nicklaus#Results_timeline

Woods' record is, IMO, not as consistent (outside of the Masters) aside from the wins:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_woods#Results_timeline

If, however, Woods tops Jack's Majors haul, I'll happily call him the greatest.

This just is additional evidence for my point.  It is much easier to pile up runners up and top 5s when the field is relatively weaker.  Do a thought experiment.  Imagine that there were 3 guys who were the playing strength of Player, 3 who were equal to Watson, 3 who were comparable to Trevino.  How many majors would each of them won?  Many less than they did.  In fact, the distribution of majors would have looked a lot like it has looked in the Tiger era.

And how would that have affected Jack's numbers?

[x129]

The lack of other excellent players is actually an argument of why Tiger is better. When Jack was playing other people were able to acquire 6+ majors. When Tiger was at his peak no one was able to.  That is a result of the depth of the fields. Winning 3x+ as many majors as your contemporaries is a lot more impressive than winning 2x.

But you really can't just look at the numbers. Snead competed against WWII depleted fields. He also didn't go to the Open a lot (it was a heck of a lot harder trip then versus now). How you factor those in are up to you.  You could also look at how poor the European golfers were in the 50-70s (probably due to world WWII. It takes a long time to rebuild after all your courses have been bombed and your teaching pros killed) and say Jack had it pretty easy compared to Tiger. But at that point your making guesses and judgement calls.

Originally Posted by Harmonious

What makes the most sense to me when discussing strength of each era's fields is not how deep they are, but how many truly excellent players there were during that time.  For instance, Jones had Hagen and Sarazen, but they only competed in a handful of tournaments together.  Hogan had Nelson and Snead, fighting it out at every major.  Nicklaus had Player (9 majors), Trevino (6), Watson (8) and, to a lesser extent, Palmer (7).  Woods had........Mickelsen?  He's the only one with 4 majors.

In other words, there has been little competition for Woods to prove he is/was the greatest of all time.  Not his fault, he beat whoever showed up; but the record shows a lack of competitive talent during his time. That was not the case with Nicklaus. His relative domination came during an era when there were a larger number of historically great players.

Anyway, good topic during the cold wintertime.  There is no "right" answer.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by turtleback

This just is additional evidence for my point.  It is much easier to pile up runners up and top 5s when the field is relatively weaker.  Do a thought experiment.  Imagine that there were 3 guys who were the playing strength of Player, 3 who were equal to Watson, 3 who were comparable to Trevino.  How many majors would each of them won?  Many less than they did.  In fact, the distribution of majors would have looked a lot like it has looked in the Tiger era.

But the reality is that there was ONLY ONE Player, ONLY ONE Watson, and ONLY ONE Trevino.  They did not then, and do not now, have an equal.

The mental part of winning a major is probably more important than any other single factor.  Those three had that mentality.  I don't think you could say the same of the Woods' cohorts.  How many of them folded on Sunday when they had an opportunity to win?  Quite a few. I almost consider them the equivalent of a Tom Weiskopf.  Great swing, overall good game, but always seemed to lack what was needed to win multiple majors, for whatever reason.

[rolopolo]

Is Tiger a better golfer than Jack was? Without a doubt, of course he is. But then, many of today's youngsters might be better than Jack.

Golfers 30 years from now will be much better than Tiger - the speed at which athletes becomes better is phenomenal

People are getting bigger, training is better, we know more about the golf swing and biomechanics, athletes are more professional and start preparing and training at a much younger age.

Therefore, today's athletes will always be better than yesteryear's

But we are not debating who was the BEST . This will never be debatable across generations/eras .

So, we are stuck with the GREATEST - And that can only be Jack. Because being great requires more than being the best or being good. Being great means displaying longevity, respect from your peers, etc....

Tiger is a class A c*nt. He is arrogant, a liar, a nasty piece of work all around. You can tell me that I am unfair, but I have seen enough - He still displays no humility or respect when dealing with the media, etc...

Jack is the GOAT . End of discussion. To become the GOAT, tiger has to win 5 more majors. 4 wont do.

[StephenGSX]

rolopolo

You are bouncing all over the place. The problem with your analysis and conclusion is that golf is not a sport and golfers are not athletes. The faster you run, the higher you jump, the farther you hit the ball (by the way, no-one on tour right now can the ball farther than Jack in his prime) does not make you a better golfer! Understanding biomechanics and the golf swing does not make you a better golfer.

To say that " many of today's youngsters might be better than Jack" is quite comical and can't really mean what you were trying to say.

Golf is a GAME where the winner is determined by the fewest hits to get the ball in the hole. When it comes to competitive golf, nobody has ever done it better than Jack (especially not "the youngsters" on tour)!! And yes, he was the BEST at it.  It was his understanding of the game, his understanding of the nature of human psychology and competition, his understanding of strategy, his patience under pressure and many other aspects that determine who wins at competitive golf that made him the BEST.

Nothing to do with athletics, biomechanics, swing mechanics, SAM putt labs, bigger people, or whatever else. If you think that there is a youngster out there that can PLAY BETTER GOLF than Jack did (not even in his prime, he was competing with the youngsters into his mid-50's), I do believe everyone here would love to know about him! Please share.

[iacas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by StephenGSX

The problem with your analysis and conclusion is that golf is not a sport and golfers are not athletes. The faster you run, the higher you jump, the farther you hit the ball (by the way, no-one on tour right now can the ball farther than Jack in his prime) does not make you a better golfer! Understanding biomechanics and the golf swing does not make you a better golfer.

Boy, you got off to a bad start. I'm not sure it's possible to say more wrong things in a short period of space as that! :-)

Golfers are athletes. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about that. I won't even entertain the "what about John Daly in his day" because baseball had Cecil Fielder and Tony Gwynn (and still does have their type), basketball had Charles Barkley (ditto), and football has linemen.

Distance is a huge advantage in golf. Statistically speaking, in fact.

And Jack himself disagrees with you on the last part. Heck, in Jack's day people hit the ball past him. Tom Weiskopf was longer than Jack.

And absolutely understanding the biomechanics of the golf swing can help you become a better golfer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by StephenGSX

Golf is a GAME where the winner is determined by the fewest hits to get the ball in the hole. When it comes to competitive golf, nobody has ever done it better than Jack (especially not "the youngsters" on tour)!! And yes, he was the BEST at it.  It was his understanding of the game, his understanding of the nature of human psychology and competition, his understanding of strategy, his patience under pressure and many other aspects that determine who wins at competitive golf that made him the BEST.

Did Jack ever win one of the major "games" by fifteen shots? Or twelve? You need to be more clear. Individual games have been played better than Jack ever played an individual game. Over a career, perhaps no, and there's only a few who could even possibly challenge that (and likely come up short), but be clear if you're going to rake someone for not being clear themselves. Individual games have been played better than Jack ever played an individual game, I guarantee you.

[x129]

Was it mental problems that caused Jack to finish 2nd a dozen (not the real number but close) times? After all if he was a winner he should have been able to win more often right? I doubt it. Yes some guys fold under pressure (see the Rory this year at the masters or Van de Velde) but a lot of it is regression to the mean type stuff where after 3 good rounds you should expect a round closer to the players average round. If pressure really mattered, I would expect more repeat winners as the pressure on someone with 1 major is a heck of lot less than on the guy that has never won.

There may have been one Watson (not sure if you expect him to have a twin brother or something) but the fact there were 4 guys with similiar records suggests that winning a lot of majors in the 60s and 70s was not as hards as it was in the 90s/00s. This is basic math.

But the reality is that there was ONLY ONE Player, ONLY ONE Watson, and ONLY ONE Trevino.  They did not then, and do not now, have an equal.

The mental part of winning a major is probably more important than any other single factor.  Those three had that mentality.  I don't think you could say the same of the Woods' cohorts.  How many of them folded on Sunday when they had an opportunity to win?  Quite a few. I almost consider them the equivalent of a Tom Weiskopf.  Great swing, overall good game, but always seemed to lack what was needed to win multiple majors, for whatever reason.

[GaijinGolfer]

Last time I checked, Jack has still won more majors than Tiger has, so I dont see how anyone could say Tiger is already the GOAT.  Maybe Tiger will someday surpass Jack but at this point, Jack is still the GOAT and that is a fact.

[newtogolf]

If you're using Majors as the measuring stick you are correct.  I think part of the debate here is if Majors is the only objective stat that should be considered for determining GOAT.

Originally Posted by TitleistWI

Last time I checked, Jack has still won more majors than Tiger has, so I dont see how anyone could say Tiger is already the GOAT.  Maybe Tiger will someday surpass Jack but at this point, Jack is still the GOAT and that is a fact.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by x129

Was it mental problems that caused Jack to finish 2nd a dozen (not the real number but close) times? After all if he was a winner he should have been able to win more often right? I doubt it. Yes some guys fold under pressure (see the Rory this year at the masters or Van de Velde) but a lot of it is regression to the mean type stuff where after 3 good rounds you should expect a round closer to the players average round. If pressure really mattered, I would expect more repeat winners as the pressure on someone with 1 major is a heck of lot less than on the guy that has never won.

There may have been one Watson (not sure if you expect him to have a twin brother or something) but the fact there were 4 guys with similiar records suggests that winning a lot of majors in the 60s and 70s was not as hards as it was in the 90s/00s. This is basic math.

I think you misinterpret the point I was trying to make.  During Nicklaus' era, there were a number of "winners" who had the mental toughness to win multiple majors, even with Nicklaus in the field.  There are no such "winners" that proved they could stand up to Woods time after time in the last round of a major tournament. Not Mickelsen, not Garcia, not Els.  No one.  More often, we remember that no one could beat Woods if he held the 54-hole lead, or that so-and-so folded when he had the chance to win.

Your basic math is just wrong.  The fact that four guys won so many majors during that era was that there were four guys who had the game AND THE MENTAL TOUGHNESS to win multiple majors. And I haven't even included others like Miller, Wadkins, Floyd and Irwin who were also in all those fields.

[misty_mountainhop]

Originally Posted by turtleback

This just is additional evidence for my point...

Eh? Sorry, I don't see your logic what-so-ever.

Originally Posted by x129

...There may have been one Watson (not sure if you expect him to have a twin brother or something) but the fact there were 4 guys with similiar records suggests that winning a lot of majors in the 60s and 70s was not as hards as it was in the 90s/00s. This is basic math.

Sorry. Basic maths it ain't. I could just as easily posit (with as much evidence) that those guys were simply exceptional players and their Majors records are entirely warranted.

Originally Posted by Harmonious

I think you misinterpret the point I was trying to make.  During Nicklaus' era, there were a number of "winners" who had the mental toughness to win multiple majors, even with Nicklaus in the field.  There are no such "winners" that proved they could stand up to Woods time after time in the last round of a major tournament. Not Mickelsen, not Garcia, not Els.  No one.  More often, we remember that no one could beat Woods if he held the 54-hole lead, or that so-and-so folded when he had the chance to win.

Your basic math is just wrong.  The fact that four guys won so many majors during that era was that there were four guys who had the game AND THE MENTAL TOUGHNESS to win multiple majors. And I haven't even included others like Miller, Wadkins, Floyd and Irwin who were also in all those fields.

Good point. I'd also think those of earlier eras were far tougher players. It's far easier to make a millionaire's living by being an also-ran these days.

[x129]

Why does it require more mental toughness to win 2 majors instead of 1? It doesn't. The fields were much weaker back then so a 1 in 10 million player (odds made up) could win 5 majors. Today that same 1 in 10 million player wins 2 majors because there are twice as many 1 in 10 million players in the field. And yes I know how far out on the outlier scale that puts Tiger.  You compare Tigers first 15 years to Jacks and no one will think Jack was a better golfer. The only reason their is even a discussion is because Tiger stopped being a top level golfer at 33 while Jack was still churning out wins til he was 40 (and then the flukey one at 46).

If you don't think depth of field matters, look at the LPGA to see how it helps the top golfers suck up more wins.

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Your basic math is just wrong.  The fact that four guys won so many majors during that era was that there were four guys who had the game AND THE MENTAL TOUGHNESS to win multiple majors. And I haven't even included others like Miller, Wadkins, Floyd and Irwin who were also in all those fields.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by x129

Why does it require more mental toughness to win 2 majors instead of 1? It doesn't. The fields were much weaker back then so a 1 in 10 million player (odds made up) could win 5 majors. Today that same 1 in 10 million player wins 2 majors because there are twice as many 1 in 10 million players in the field. And yes I know how far out on the outlier scale that puts Tiger.  You compare Tigers first 15 years to Jacks and no one will think Jack was a better golfer. The only reason their is even a discussion is because Tiger stopped being a top level golfer at 33 while Jack was still churning out wins til he was 40 (and then the flukey one at 46).

If you don't think depth of field matters, look at the LPGA to see how it helps the top golfers suck up more wins.

I don't follow your fuzzy math, so I'll just ask a simple question:  During Woods' reign at the top of the golf world, was there anybody that came even remotely close to Tom Watson's record?  Does anyone come remotely close to Gary Player's?  How about Lee Trevino's?  These are the people that Nicklaus had to beat to get his majors.  He didn't do it every time, but he did it more than anyone else.

Depth of field doesn't matter if there is no one who can challenge the leader. That certainly was the case with Woods. It was not the case with Nicklaus.