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

[iacas]

In addition to what @turtleback said… after carefully considering and reading more, your logic boils down to the incredibly simplistic "18 > 14"?

I gave people way too much credit. It's fine if you want to think that 18x > 14y, but you can't pretend that x >= y.

[ghalfaire]

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.

Sort of for the record I was only considering Jack and Tiger and which was better since they both had 4 majors a year opportunities.  I wasn't arguing that either was the GOAT as there are some other pretty good "sticks"today and in golf history that ought to be a part of the the conversation of who is the GOAT.

[ghalfaire]

In addition to what @turtleback said… after carefully considering and reading more, your logic boils down to the incredibly simplistic "18 > 14"?

I gave people way too much credit. It's fine if you want to think that 18x > 14y, but you can't pretend that x >= y.

I am Sorry IACAS but I can't help myself.  If for a moment we assume that Tiger's and Jack's  major records are of identical achievement then you can say X/Y=7/9.   In other words for Tiger's record to equal Jack's one has to believer the strength of field in Tiger's days was approximately 29% more difficult than in Jack's day.  For whatever that is worth to anyone.

[jbishop15]

I am Sorry IACAS but I can't help myself.  If for a moment we assume that Tiger's and Jack's  major records are of identical achievement then you can say X/Y=7/9.   In other words for Tiger's record to equal Jack's one has to believer the strength of field in Tiger's days was approximately 29% more difficult than in Jack's day.  For whatever that is worth to anyone.

It's not so much about the major records being identical as much as Tiger's complete resume outweighs Jack's. Also, considering that Jack's prime was in the 1960s and 70s, and considering the enormous achievements in golf technology and athletic training, it's not crazy to think that things have improved substantially. I'm not saying 30%, but it's a lot.

[ChrisP]

I am Sorry IACAS but I can't help myself.  If for a moment we assume that Tiger's and Jack's  major records are of identical achievement then you can say X/Y=7/9.   In other words for Tiger's record to equal Jack's one has to believer the strength of field in Tiger's days was approximately 29% more difficult than in Jack's day.  For whatever that is worth to anyone.

And that's kinda the point I made a few days ago...if you go strictly by the majors argument and if you calculate the strength of the field, is Tiger really four majors better than Jack? When math percentages and equations start entering the discussion, that's when it's going overboard. The problem with calculating field strength is when Rory or Jordan hit 10 majors and get 60 wins, then we start to say they are the greatest ever because the field now is even deeper than it was in the late 90s and early 00s. How much deeper? Pull out the damn calculator again.

Like I said a few days ago, it's impossible to compare eras. You just can't. You can throw out all the math and statistics you want, but if you put Jack, Tiger, Rory and Jordan in, say, Tiger's era, it's impossible to say who would win more majors and more tournaments. You just don't know. I could argue while Tiger's 1997 performance at Augusta was impressive, if Rory has one of his hot weeks, he can overpower that course more than Tiger and he may shoot 20-under. Tiger played great at the 2002 Masters, but maybe Jordan shoots a couple shots better. Nobody knows.

[jbishop15]

And that's kinda the point I made a few days ago....if you calculate the strength of the field, is Tiger really four majors better than Jack? When math percentages and equations start entering the discussion, that's when it's going overboard. The problem with calculating field strength is when Rory or Jordan hit 10 majors and get 60 wins, then we start to say they are the greatest ever because the field now is even deeper than it was in the late 90s and early 00s. How much deeper? Pull out the damn calculator again.

Like I said a few days ago, it's impossible to compare eras. You just can't. You can throw out all the math you want, but if you put Jack, Tiger, Rory and Jordan in, say, Tiger's era, it's impossible to say who would win more majors and more tournaments. You just don't know. I could argue while Tiger's 1997 performance at Augusta was impressive, if Rory has one of his hot weeks, he can overpower that course more than Tiger and he may shoot 20-under. Tiger played great at the 2002 Masters, but maybe Jordan shoots a couple shots better. Nobody knows.

Then why even post in the thread? The premise of this thread is to debate on what it would take for Tiger to become the #1 greatest golfer; if that premise is untenable to you, which I understand even though I don't agree, then why post?

Here's the thing: Tiger has won more tournaments, 79-73. He's won four less majors, 14-18. Tiger is playing in era with competition that is superior to Jacks, noticeably so. He's also playing in an era where technology levels the playing field much more so than the past. He's also competing in an era in which athletic training is much more in vogue, even in his early years. Combine that stuff the ease of travel for all players (not just the very best), plus the perks of vast wealth, and you've got a recipe for strong play.

If that isn't convincing enough:

Vardon Trophy:

- Jack: 0

- Tiger: 8

PGA Player of the Year:

- Jack: 5

- Tiger: 11

Season Money Leader:

- Jack: 8

- Tiger: 10

Tiger has won 25.6% of the tournaments he's played in (79/309)

Jack won 13% of the tournaments he played in (73/595); taking out every tournament from 1987 on, (124 tournaments), he won 16% of the tournaments he played in.

There is more than a compelling argument that Tiger Woods is already the greatest golfer of all-time. Someday, someone will probably surpass him; that's the nature of things. Jack Nicklaus was the best, and then Tiger took his place. Shit happens, and it wouldn't surprise me to see Rory or Spieth really make a run at him as their careers go on. That's the way shit goes.

[ChrisP]

Then why even post in the thread? The premise of this thread is to debate on what it would take for Tiger to become the #1 greatest golfer; if that premise is untenable to you, which I understand even though I don't agree, then why post?

Here's the thing: Tiger has won more tournaments, 79-73. He's won four less majors, 14-18. Tiger is playing in era with competition that is superior to Jacks, noticeably so. He's also playing in an era where technology levels the playing field much more so than the past. He's also competing in an era in which athletic training is much more in vogue, even in his early years. Combine that stuff the ease of travel for all players (not just the very best), plus the perks of vast wealth, and you've got a recipe for strong play.

If that isn't convincing enough:

Vardon Trophy:

- Jack: 0

- Tiger: 8

PGA Player of the Year:

- Jack: 5

- Tiger: 11

Season Money Leader:

- Jack: 8

- Tiger: 10

Tiger has won 25.6% of the tournaments he's played in (79/309)

Jack won 13% of the tournaments he played in (73/595); taking out every tournament from 1987 on, (124 tournaments), he won 16% of the tournaments he played in.

There is more than a compelling argument that Tiger Woods is already the greatest golfer of all-time. Someday, someone will probably surpass him; that's the nature of things. Jack Nicklaus was the best, and then Tiger took his place. Shit happens, and it wouldn't surprise me to see Rory or Spieth really make a run at him as their careers go on. That's the way shit goes.

Re-read my intro (which I edited before you quoted). I said "IF" your argument alone is majors, then you get into the whole math equations game calculating field strength and can drive yourself nuts. I know all the numbers and what not...no need for a refresher. Just pointing out for those whose sole basis on comparison is majors that you can drive yourself crazy with the percentage game.

My opinion has and always will be that Tiger needs to win a major after his 32nd birthday as I think longevity plays a huge role in who is the greatest ever. I said that in one of my first posts on this board a few years ago and that hasn't changed. You can't front end the first part of your career with majors and then lay a goose egg your last 18 years on Tour. If he doesn't win a major, if he can at least pass Sam Snead, then I could make a stronger argument for Tiger over Jack. But he needs to do something here moving forward, and I think he will. I do think he'll win in another major and pass Snead IF he stays healthy.

[jbishop15]

Re-read my intro (which I edited before you quoted). I said "IF" your argument alone is majors, then you get into the whole math equations game calculating field strength and can drive yourself nuts. I know all the numbers and what not...no need for a refresher. Just pointing out for those whose sole basis on comparison is majors that you can drive yourself crazy with the percentage game.

My opinion has and always will be that Tiger needs to win a major after his 32nd birthday as I think longevity plays a huge role in who is the greatest ever. I said that in one of my first posts on this board a few years ago and that hasn't changed. You can't front end the first part of your career with majors and then lay a goose egg your last 18 years on Tour. If he doesn't win a major, if he can at least pass Sam Snead, then I could make a stronger argument for Tiger over Jack. But he needs to do something here moving forward.

I get what you're saying, but I don't agree.

Tiger won his first tournament in 1996, and won his 79th in 2013. That's 16 years.

Jack won his first tournament in 1962, and 16 years later won his 68th.

I mean, we agree (to varying degrees of increase) to the fact that Tiger's had tougher competition. Tiger has won 11 more times than Jack did in that same time period, not to mention more than his entire career period.

Tiger may not have won a major since he was 32, but he did win five highest-level non-majors, in the Players Championship and four WGC's. Those have fields equal if not better to the four majors. Also, let's not forget: since 2008, Tiger has won 14 times. I think that 14 wins, including five highest-level non-majors, is pretty damn good resumé, and equal to a few majors.

[GreatestGolfers]

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.

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

Regards "The intimidation factor of Tiger"

Gunther, I tend to agree with you and would look at players playing with Tiger in the last group on a Sunday when in contention.

Look at the average score of these players when playing with Tiger vs when playing with anyone else - I don't think the figures will surprise.

I am not sure what the equivalent results are in Nicklaus era (would guess, not as dominant as Tiger in his prime).

[newtogolf]

Regards "The intimidation factor of Tiger"

Gunther, I tend to agree with you and would look at players playing with Tiger in the last group on a Sunday when in contention.

Look at the average score of these players when playing with Tiger vs when playing with anyone else - I don't think the figures will surprise.

I am not sure what the equivalent results are in Nicklaus era (would guess, not as dominant as Tiger in his prime).

They crumbled not because Tiger intimidated them, he was just the best golfer on the course during those times.  They knew with a high level of certainty that Tiger wasn't going to choke, so if they were behind they were going to have really push and go for the flag on every shot to have a chance to win.   The fact they had to try to make shots they typically wouldn't have to usually caused them to score poorly.  I don't think the poor scores were due to intimidation it was due to them knowing the only way to win was to shoot lower than Tiger who would likely shoot fairly low himself.

[ChrisP]

I get what you're saying, but I don't agree.

Tiger won his first tournament in 1996, and won his 79th in 2013. That's 16 years.

Jack won his first tournament in 1962, and 16 years later won his 68th.

I mean, we agree (to varying degrees of increase) to the fact that Tiger's had tougher competition. Tiger has won 11 more times than Jack did in that same time period, not to mention more than his entire career period.

Tiger may not have won a major since he was 32, but he did win five highest-level non-majors, in the Players Championship and four WGC's. Those have fields equal if not better to the four majors. Also, let's not forget: since 2008, Tiger has won 14 times. I think that 14 wins, including five highest-level non-majors, is pretty damn good resumé, and equal to a few majors.

WGCs are nice and all, but they're hard to compare when Jack never had any to compete in. So those wins are nice, but can't really be held in the discussion. And while Tiger won in a 16-year window, he lost some time to injury and personal life issues and 13/14 of his majors came in a nine-year window whereas Jack's 18 majors came in a 24-year window. So if longevity is a part of your criteria (and it is mine), and you mix that with majors, that's a huge feather in Jack's cap.

Don't get me wrong, I think Tiger's really close to Jack, IMO...really close. And I think he'll pass Jack one day. But right now, if he were to drop off the face of the earth and never win again, I think Jack still holds the edge. And the majors number are big ....I give them more than 3/4 weight in the discussion, so 18>14 is big, albeit not the only part of it. If it were the only part of it, I'd say Tiger needs to get to 18 because even with strength of competition, you can't compare a golfer of one era and say he's better than the golfer in another era just because the fields are stronger and better. If that's the case, Rory and Jordan won't need to win a lot of majors to pass Tiger. Without putting them side by side on the course, there's no way to tell except by those numbers. However, while Jack has the edge in majors and that 75% edge (here I go now with the math), Tiger has an edge in almost everything else. I just think he needs to do a little bit more, in my opinion, on the back end of his career just like Jack did.

[bubble]

If tiger can wreck a round It's probably for very slow play

Otherwise I dont think tour pros are influencable.

[Gunther]

They crumbled not because Tiger intimidated them, he was just the best golfer on the course during those times.  They knew with a high level of certainty that Tiger wasn't going to choke, so if they were behind they were going to have really push and go for the flag on every shot to have a chance to win.   The fact they had to try to make shots they typically wouldn't have to usually caused them to score poorly.  I don't think the poor scores were due to intimidation it was due to them knowing the only way to win was to shoot lower than Tiger who would likely shoot fairly low himself.

Whatever you want to call it, Tiger held a mental edge. Intimidation, confidence, knowing he wouldn't choke? Anyway you slice it, there was a mental domination Tiger had on his opponents (except Phil) and he exploited it. He does not hold it today over anyone other than those with scar tissue from those days of yore; hence, my contention he will not break Snead's record.

[bm85]

No one achieved a higher peak than Tiger. No one can dispute that prime Tiger had the most incredible run and game in golf. Jack was never THAT good, c'mon.

A good argument to me was that Jack didn't need to be. Who knows how high he would have rose to the occasion, we just know he rose high enough more times than anyone else. He deserves a lot of credit, and he gets it. He could nail targets, and sink 20 footers under pressure with the best of them. Still, he was never no damned Tiger Woods. The power, precision, touch, focus...Tiger had everything and in big supply.

Like most of you, I strongly believe without the injuries Tiger would have ended this discussion before it began. After losing that much ability, if he can dig it out again and win a major at this new level of golf, it would be unreal. Still, he would not be no damned Michael Jordan ( even though Kenny G is a better golfer than him... )

[colin007]

Tiger's winning percentage is pretty much all I need to see.

[ghalfaire]

Like I said a few days ago, it's impossible to compare eras. You just can't. You can throw out all the math and statistics you want, but if you put Jack, Tiger, Rory and Jordan in, say, Tiger's era, it's impossible to say who would win more majors and more tournaments. You just don't know. I could argue while Tiger's 1997 performance at Augusta was impressive, if Rory has one of his hot weeks, he can overpower that course more than Tiger and he may shoot 20-under. Tiger played great at the 2002 Masters, but maybe Jordan shoots a couple shots better. Nobody knows.

I would agree that it is really not very practical or maybe not possible to compare the achievements of athletes from different eras.  Just too many things change over the years and there really is no consensus on what specifically constitutes strength of field.

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisP

WGCs are nice and all, but they're hard to compare when Jack never had any to compete in.

In this one phrase,if followed to its logical conclusion, you give the whole game away.

Why does so much of the golf world insist the GOAT has to be the guy with the most majors?  Because jack sold them on it.  Remember his famous statement which I have oft-quote here:

Quote:

The only fair, adequate way to compare a player of one era against a player of another is his record in the major championships.

And thus, by virtue of winning the most majors he annointed himself GOAT.  But what did he NOT take into account?  The exact point YOU are making.  You think counting WGCs is not fair to Jack. but it is Jack himself who, with that quote, said ONLY fair way is to compare results in events REGARDLESS of how many opportunities one had in those events.  Because he knew darned well he had already had far more opportunities in majors than the guy who, just a few years previous, he had considered the GOAT, Hogan.

So look, Hogan never had the most majors yet at one point Jack considered him the GOAT.  Then Jack decides the GOAT should be the guy with the most major wins  - when he had a significant advantage in the number of opportunities compared to Hogan.  Other than the fact that in one case we are talking about opportunities just in majors and in the other opportunities in combined majors and WGCs what is the difference?  Certainly the WGCs are comparable to the majors in terms of strength of field.

In another post someone opined that the GOAT was JACK because with his 18 majors he beat the best of the best the most times  But that is completely false.  Tiger beat the best of the best more than Jack did.  Tiger also PLAYED the nest of the best more than Jack did.  Jack beat the best of the best more times than Hogan, but he also PLAYED the best of the best more times than Hogan  Again, what is the difference?

Somewhere along the line Tiger should get some brownie points for sticking to his initial goal, and not shifting the goal to met the accomplishment, the way Jack did.

[Wally Fairway]

Tiger's winning percentage is pretty much all I need to see.

And yet that stat is falling with each event that he plays, and in 5 or 10 years it will looke rather pedestrian if he keeps playing - just pointing out that it is easy to shoot holes in any individual point in this discussion. I fall back on my point that Hogan was the best in his era; Arnie then Jack, then Nick/Greg, then Tiger, then Rory/Jordan/?

It is very hard to compare eras - just like trying to say who is the greatest football/basketball/baseball/hockey player; the games change, the stats change, the eras change.

There is one constant here; some are committed to prove that they are correct in thinking Tiger is the GOAT, others are equally committed to prove he is not.

Maybe what we need is a new thread to discuss what Rory or Jordan or that 14 year old kid who qualified for the US  Open need to do to be the GOAT !/?