What would Tiger Woods need to do to become #1 Greatest Golfer?

[GreatestGolfers]

How about you just try it? If you start to get better Jack seasons at #10 with a major in a year when Tiger didn't, so be it.

It's not a trick. Just rank them how you want to rank them. Starts, wins, majors. If Rick disagrees, he'll tell you, but you get to do the ranking he'll discuss yourself. You don't even have to debate HIS ranking - you get to make it.

Baseball has 162 regular season games. Hockey and basketball have 82 or so. They're not regular season games. Not even close.

If forced to endure this multi-sport-comparison stuff, it'd be more like regular PGA Tour events are playoff wins. Majors are Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, World Series, etc. victories. But really it's virtually pointless to compare the PGA Tour to other sports. Especially when done like this. Last time I checked NFL teams couldn't opt to play a game or not, didn't compete against every other team at the same time after being reset to 0-0 each week, didn't play for four HUGE events per year, etc. Just pointless.

I like the idea of ranking a players best years.

Please help getting a "consensus" view on relative weighting - Make your proposal - I can take the average of proposals?

Any suggestions are welcome (suggest we keep it simple).

a) Majors - win (5.5)

b) Majors - 2nd (1.6)

c) Majors - 3rd (0.5)

d) WGC - win (2.0)

e) US tour event - win (1.0)

f) Players Championship (2.0)

g) Other similar high profile events

Whether you agree or not with this method, I'd like to hear what relative importance you'd assign to these (assume 1point for a regular US Tour event)

My first view: (in brackets).

[ccotenj]

[QUOTE name="iacas" url="/t/83505/what-would-tiger-woods-need-to-do-to-become-1-greatest-golfer/90#post_1177449"]   How about you just try it? If you start to get better Jack seasons at #10 with a major in a year when Tiger didn't, so be it. It's not a trick. Just rank them how you want to rank them. Starts, wins, majors. If Rick disagrees, he'll tell you, but you get to do the ranking he'll discuss yourself. You don't even have to debate HIS ranking - you get to make it. Baseball has 162 regular season games. Hockey and basketball have 82 or so. They're not regular season games. Not even close. If forced to endure this multi-sport-comparison stuff, it'd be more like regular PGA Tour events are playoff wins. Majors are Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, World Series, etc. victories. But really it's virtually pointless to compare the PGA Tour to other sports. Especially when done like this. Last time I checked NFL teams couldn't opt to play a game or not, didn't compete against every other team at the same time after being reset to 0-0 each week, didn't play for four HUGE events per year, etc. Just pointless. [/QUOTE] I like the idea of ranking a players best years. Please help getting a "consensus" view on relative weighting - Make your proposal - I can take the average of proposals? Any suggestions are welcome (suggest we keep it simple). a) Majors - win (5.5) b) Majors - 2nd (1.6) c) Majors - 3rd (0.5) d) WGC - win (2.0) e) US tour event - win (1.0) f) Players Championship (2.0) g) Other similar high profile events Whether you agree or not with this method, I'd like to hear what relative importance you'd assign to these (assume 1point for a regular US Tour event) My first view: (in brackets).

imo, tiger's 2000 season is the baseline... go from there, make up your own rules as you go along... i personally would look a bit beyond just the "win" count to see how those wins were accomplished, where did the player stand in scoring average, etc. just as one variable (amoungst many i'd consider, were i to compile a list), all wins aren't the same... consider the pressure tiger was under to win the 2001 masters to complete the slam... he lived with that for 8 months and went out and did it...

[iacas]

a) Majors - win (5.5)

b) Majors - 2nd (1.6)

c) Majors - 3rd (0.5)

d) WGC - win (2.0)

e) US tour event - win (1.0)

f) Players Championship (2.0)

g) Other similar high profile events

I reject all of that.

A year with no wins in majors but T2s is 6.4 points but you can win three WGCs and have a worse year? Jack also never played in WGCs.

Assigning points… pointless.

And again, I'll say… Let's stick to the topic, please. The topic is not really ranking Jack's years. That belongs in the "Jack vs. Tiger GOAT" thread.

[newtogolf]

I think a good argument can be made that Tiger is already the #1 Greatest Golfer just by the sheer number of wins he's had on all Tours.  If he could win 2 more Majors I don't think the 18>16 would hold as much weight given the disparity in total wins.  I also agree that Tiger competed against a tougher field than Jack did.

Another factor that leads me to give the nod to Tiger is that Jack had the benefit of playing most of his career before the internet, 100's of sports channels and social media.  Jack got to compete in relative obscurity while Tiger was constantly in the spot light and under the microscope, the pressure on Tiger had / has to be tremendously greater yet he was still able to dominate.

[Gunther]

Another factor that leads me to give the nod to Tiger is that Jack had the benefit of playing most of his career before the internet, 100's of sports channels and social media.  Jack got to compete in relative obscurity while Tiger was constantly in the spot light and under the microscope, the pressure on Tiger had / has to be tremendously greater yet he was still able to dominate.

I don't give him an edge here. He was mentally dominant over his opponents at this time, and even today. Sergio, Reteif, Vijay or even Ernie wilted opposed to him, and still do today. So, that media attention, while a hassle to be sure, is netted out against this. All those guys heard was how great Tiger is, it had to affect them. Rory destroys Tiger h2h today, as does Jordan, as does PReed, as I suspect Ollie Schniederjans will when given the chance and probably Rickie this weekend. These kids don't kowtow to that crap. They are better than Tiger now and they know they are. That mental edge is gone, as is Tiger's chance of winning again. Media, schmedia, it works both ways.

[iacas]

Rory destroys Tiger h2h today, as does Jordan, as does PReed, as I suspect Ollie Schniederjans will when given the chance and probably Rickie this weekend. These kids don't kowtow to that crap. They are better than Tiger now and they know they are. That mental edge is gone, as is Tiger's chance of winning again. Media, schmedia, it works both ways.

I think you give way too much credit to "intimidation." It's golf. You hit a golf ball. Nobody hits you.

I don't think those players who "wilted" were under any real pressure. They just didn't play good enough golf to win. Tiger didn't always play great - he made a lot of pars in majors and let others make mistakes… just like Nicklaus did. Except sometimes Jack lost the lead himself, as Tiger did once (Yang). Tiger being 14 of 15 at converting 54-hole leads (though to be fair some on this forum could have converted in 1997 and 2000) is unheard of. I think the "intimidation" is purely a media creation. I don't think Retief Goosen is out there being intimidated. Heck, if anything, the young guys growing up watching Tiger do this repeatedly would be more intimidated than the guys who were only beat head to head a few times. They'd see him winning ALL of his tournaments, meanwhile Vijay who finished T32 or whatever doesn't feel like he was mentally beaten by Tiger Woods.

Tiger gets a slight edge for those two blowout wins in my book. Jack's largest margin of victory (9) wasn't 12 let alone 15…

[Rogin]

@Rogin, please stop stating your opinions as facts. The fact is that even right now there are plenty of people who do not consider only "18 > 14".

Tiger leads over 2:1 in the poll on this thread: Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer? .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogin

One thing to spice up the debate, though, in the 60s and 70s was the PGA really a "major" in the way it is now?

Yes. It was. There's really no debate about that. It was a major long before the 60s and 70s…

I'm sorry, isn't that stating your opinion as a fact?

[iacas]

I'm sorry, isn't that stating your opinion as a fact?

Nope.

Fact: The PGA Championship was considered a major in the 60s and 70s.

[Rogin]

you said above "long before". Was it a major in the 1950s when it was scheduled opposite the Open Championship?

[boogielicious]

[QUOTE name="turtleback" url="/t/83505/what-would-tiger-woods-need-to-do-to-become-1-greatest-golfer/108#post_1177904"] I also say that @skydog is not a new member and has refused this challenge before, and at this point a little snark directed at him is hardly out or place.  And he still won't do it.  I asked a simple thing - rank Jack's years from best to worst.  He refuses to do it until I give him some formula to do it.  But I don't want the results of a formula, I want HIS ranking.  AND I offer him the ability to CHANGE his ranking if he doesn't like what I do with it, and yet he still won't do it.  Even his last offer doesn't answer my question, it is just HIS opinion of how many Tiger years were better than Jack years.  I'm not asking him ANYTHING about Tiger but he has to drag Tiger into his answer.  It is beyond comical how he twists and turns to avoid a simple ranking, according to whatever criteria he wants to adopt, of Nicklaus' years from best to worst.  He doesn't even have to look up the stats for those years, if he gives me a list of years I will look up and fill in:  # of events, # of victories, # of majors won. [/QUOTE] Dude maybe you're off your meds but two days ago on this thread was the first time I have ever seen or heard anything of this 'challenge'. I have not 'refused this challenge before' because I had never heard or seen of it before. If you can provide any evidence to the contrary I'll send you $100 but you're dead F'ing wrong and apparently have me confused with someone else. Get over yourself.

Please don't reply to snarky comments with more snarky comments. We've asked Turtle to stop it and now I am asking you to stop it.

[Gunther]

I think you give way too much credit to "intimidation." It's golf. You hit a golf ball. Nobody hits you. I don't think those players who "wilted" were under any real pressure. They just didn't play good enough golf to win. Tiger didn't always play great - he made a lot of pars in majors and let others make mistakes… just like Nicklaus did. Except sometimes Jack lost the lead himself, as Tiger did once (Yang). Tiger being 14 of 15 at converting 54-hole leads (though to be fair some on this forum could have converted in 1997 and 2000) is unheard of. I think the "intimidation" is purely a media creation. I don't think Retief Goosen is out there being intimidated. Heck, if anything, the young guys growing up watching Tiger do this repeatedly would be more intimidated than the guys who were only beat head to head a few times. They'd see him winning ALL of his tournaments, meanwhile Vijay who finished T32 or whatever doesn't feel like he was mentally beaten by Tiger Woods.

Perhaps "intimidation" is a bit strong, although I do think it fits. Equate it to confidence. No one was more confident than Tiger. The guys from his era had to be lacking in confidence when they went up against him, had to be. The media played a role in building Tiger up, it created that aura around him making him seem other-worldly to his peers at the time. So, while there was added media during Tiger's era, my argument is that this shouldn't be used as a differentiator in the GOAT debate because I believe it helped him at least as much as it hurt so it nets out.

[iacas]

you said above "long before". Was it a major in the 1950s when it was scheduled opposite the Open Championship?

Yes. The weaker major then was actually the British Open. Sam Snead went once, won the thing, and said he'd never be back because he lost money. Hogan went once, won the thing, and didn't return.

Perhaps "intimidation" is a bit strong, although I do think it fits.

You do. I don't. Simple as that, and about the same as always.

[Rogin]

That's certainly the impression you get about the Open in the 1950s - that the US Pros weren't really bothered. It was Arnie, wasn't it, who was determined to emulate Hogan's feat of 1953, in 1960 (and just pulled up short behind Kel Nagle, a bit like Spieth this year) to kick-start it again. Ironically, when the leading US pros all came back to play in it, by 1965, Peter Thomson (who'd won it 4 times in the 50s) beat them all to win it a 5th time, perhaps proving that maybe he'd have done so too earlier.

I've read in several places that said, indeed, in the 1950s, the event considered by all the pros as the one to aim for (alongside the US Open) was the self-styled "World Championship", as its first prize was - by the time it was discontinued in 1957 - about 5 or 6 times more than any other event on tour? It was the FedEx Cup final of its day? Is that right?

[iacas]

That's certainly the impression you get about the Open in the 1950s - that the US Pros weren't really bothered. It was Arnie, wasn't it, who was determined to emulate Hogan's feat of 1953, in 1960 (and just pulled up short behind Kel Nagle, a bit like Spieth this year) to kick-start it again.

Okay, this has now wandered too far into OT land…

[turtleback]

imo, he doesn't have to do anything else... he was the most dominant player any of us have ever seen, and he maintained that dominance for "long enough".... i have no doubt in my mind that fields are far stronger and evenly matched than they were 40-60 years ago, which mitigates the raw number argument... and even then, the only raw number that favors jack is 18, by any other raw number argument, tiger "wins"...

ot... best pitcher... pedro martinez... dead in the middle of the steroid explosion of baseball, he put up numbers that matched those of pitchers from the dead ball era, and he did it for "long enough"... he was the most dominant pitcher i've ever seen in my 52 years...

common thread in the above... i rank "dominance" over "compilation"... if my life depended on the outcome, give me "prime" tiger/pedro over anyone else...

You have pretty well described my exact opinion on the subject.

Quote:

Originally Posted by k-troop

Do you remember who was the 2nd dude to run a 4-minute mile?

(Not saying I agree with that logic in this case, but in "greatness" comparisons the tie seems to always go to the one who achieved it first.)

Yeah but even the most ardent 18>14ers out there would have to agree that once 18=18 then the other tournaments do matter at least a little bit. And to that is say 83>73. :)

Oh, no, that would see the continuing and then accelerating rise of the "19 second place finishes in majors" argument.

Dude maybe you're off your meds but two days ago on this thread was the first time I have ever seen or heard anything of this 'challenge'. I have not 'refused this challenge before' because I had never heard or seen of it before. If you can provide any evidence to the contrary I'll send you $100 but you're dead F'ing wrong and apparently have me confused with someone else. Get over yourself.

It's been here a long time as you have.  And as a noted Tiger detractor (as I am a noted Tiger supporter) you have spent time in threads where it has been issued.  But if you say in all that time spent on Tiger threads you never noticed it then fine, I believe you.  But, for 2 days, at least, you have personally refused it.  Even now, instead of simply listing the years you deflect into something else.

you said above "long before". Was it a major in the 1950s when it was scheduled opposite the Open Championship?

Absolutely.  The real question being: was the British Open a major in that stretch of years.

There was a time when the Western Open was considered a major, but I think it got subsumed by the major-hood of the Masters and poof! Walter Hagen lost about 5 majors.  Which would have given him 16, far more than anyone else before Nicklaus.  Yet strangely he was never considered anything like a consensus GOAT based on having the most majors, even though he had the most (professional) majors even AFTER losing those 5 Western Opens, with is now official 11 majors..

[ghalfaire]

I have to admit I did not read any of the earlier posts.  But if the OP has read any of the "who's the greatest" threads on this forum what is needed before anyone can be crowned "greatest of all time" there will need be a consensus of how you measure performance of golfers who played in different eras.  Not an easy task but without such a consensus there will never be a consensus on who was the best.  BTW I think there were some other players that deserve consideration other than Jack and Tiger.  These are always interesting discussion however and I enjoy reading them and will now go and read this one.

[ghalfaire]

OK now that I have read more than a few of the post I can answer the OP's question, for me at least.  The ONLY thing Tiger could do at this point that would convince me that he is a better golfer than Jack was it to win more, or at least match, Jack's number of majors.  My logic is that in both Tiger's and Jack's era you can be sure the "strength of field" was a good at it got at the time at the majors.  The best of the best of the there were there and playing.  "To be the best, you have to beat the best" and that is what Jack did more times in his career than Tiger.

[turtleback]

OK now that I have read more than a few of the post I can answer the OP's question, for me at least.  The ONLY thing Tiger could do at this point that would convince me that he is a better golfer than Jack was it to win more, or at least match, Jack's number of majors.  My logic is that in both Tiger's and Jack's era you can be sure the "strength of field" was a good at it got at the time at the majors.  The best of the best of the there were there and playing.  "To be the best, you have to beat the best" and that is what Jack did more times in his career than Tiger.

Wow, it would be hard to come up with a more apt argument IN FAVOR of TIGER ..  Because every time Tiger won a WGC he was also beating the best of the best.  Their fields are at least as good as the Masters, and a hell of a lot stronger than most of the fields Jack played against in the British Open which, contrary to your assertion, were far from being the best of the best when Jack was winning them - particularly the earlier ones.  Similarly the PGA, when a third of the field were club pros.

And while in a way that would be unfair to Jack, as he didn't have the same opportunity as Tiger to play WGCs, Jack himself did not seem to  think that lack of opportunity was a valid reason for having fewer wins at something.  In fact HE HIMSELF said the FAIREST way was to look at the record in majors (despite having the opportunity of playing many more majors than his predecessor GOATs) and now that we have WGCs bringing together the world-wide best of the best, why should't they be in it as well?  Ben Hogan having far fewer major opportunities than Jack didn't seem to matter to Jack, why should Jack having so many fewer WGC opportunities trouble anyone?

And before anyone's head explodes, I am not arguing that the one with the most combined majors and WGCs is the GOAT, I just think some of you would be very hard pressed to come up with a convincing counterargument that could not be easily turned against the current "most majors" criteria.