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

[ChrisP]

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:

Jack wasn't the only one who said majors are the main measure. Mike Tirico did an interview with Tiger after his 13th major and asked him if he feels he's the greatest to ever play with what he's already accomplished and Tiger said "No." And Tirico tried to follow up with Tiger asking him what it would need to take, and Tiger's response was very simply "18." And Tirico questioned him more about it in which Tiger responded again "18." Now obviously Tiger's being humble and showing respect towards Nicklaus, but it just shows how important these players hold the majors record.

The problem with saying "Tiger beat a stronger field than Nicklaus" is how many majors do you dock Nicklaus for beating a weaker depth field? 3? 5? 7? You see, this is where it gets fishy with the whole 14>18 argument and why I've said that I think Tiger needs to at least get another major to convince more people because while he's convinced some people, I would say there's a lot of people out there that he still hasn't convinced. I think he can convince almost everyone if he can get to 16 majors, even if he himself says 18 is the number.

There really isn't any way to compare the two in different eras. That's why I brought up the point a few days ago if you put Tiger, Jack, Jordan and Rory all Tiger's era, it's impossible to say which one wins the most majors. We can guess and assume all we want, but you just don't know. If we're going to sit here and say "Well Tiger's better because the field is stronger", then when Rory or Jordan hits 10 majors and 60 wins, I'll say "They're better than Tiger because the field is stronger." If we're going to go with the whole field depth thing, then that's the precedent we're setting.

Very simply put I think Tiger can shut a lot of people up....myself included.....by winning a major or two in the next 10 years. And I do think he will. I don't think he'll get to 18, but I do think he'll get to 15 or 16, pass Snead and in my mind, supplant himself as the best even without breaking Jack's record.

[jbishop15]

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 !/?

The first sixteen years of Tiger's career: 25.6% (79/309)

The first sixteen years of Jack's career: 20.2% (68/336)

Pretty good comparison there.

[Wally Fairway]

The first sixteen years of Tiger's career: 25.6% (79/309)

The first sixteen years of Jack's career: 20.2% (68/336)

Pretty good comparison there.

TIgers best 10 years in majors vs Jacks best 10 years in majors (I don't believe that winning is the only thing that counts)

I will pick 1970-1979 for Jack (other periods could be argued as well):

8 wins, 7 seconds, 35 top tens (87.5%), and only 1 missed cut

I will pick 2000-2009 for TIger (you could start at 1999 or 1998 but I picked 2000)

12 wins, 6 seconds, 25 top tens (62.5%), 2 missed cuts, 2 DNP

I think that Tiger played in an era with a much deeper field, but I also look at his never coming from behind in a major as something missing from his resume (he gets credit for being the best front runner ever having only lost 1 major while holding the 54 hole lead - if I have that correct). And IMO Jack gets credit for overtaking the 54 hole leader 8 times in a major and for finishing second 19 times while Tiger has finished 2nd 6 times.

Again there are discussions for both, all I know is that Jack was the best player in his era and Tiger was the best player in his.

I think it is like asking who is the better basketball player Michael, Kobe or LeBron - the answer for many depends on their age when those players were in their prime.

Maybe we need a separate GOAT board to roll this whole series of threads into.

[iacas]

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.

I don't know if you read what I actually read what I wrote. I said (with notes added in parentheses): It's fine (but I'll still disagree with you) if you want to think that 18x > 14y, but you can't pretend that x >= y. The main point of the comment was the second half…

If you just think 18x > 14y, fine. 29%, sure. Honestly if pressed I still think 18x > 14y. I give Tiger the small edge because of the other things he's done. The way in which he's won those 14. His 3 U.S. Amateur wins (people forget that Jack used to count those as majors too… and even @turtleback has seemed to miss out on that. He stopped saying he had 20 majors when Tiger won three U.S. Ams), his margins of victory, his play in other events, etc. all push him ahead in my mind.

But, there are people out there who think x >= y, and that's what the second half of the comment said.

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?

I don't go strictly by majors. So who cares? I also think you're just cherry-picking this "length of career" crap. Look at the span over which other greats won majors. It's awfully short (except Gary Player).

When math percentages and equations start entering the discussion, that's when it's going overboard.

Then you too missed the point of my post. It wasn't math - it was simply a comment on strength of field.

How much deeper? Pull out the damn calculator again.

It levels off. It can only get so good.

Again, if you rate players A through F, the strongest field you can amass is 154 A players. We're close to that now (not quite there, particularly in majors, given the qualifying criteria). In Jack's day you had a number of B, C, and even D players making up fields. In Tiger's day you had some B players. Maybe an occasional C player.

I've said before, given a long list of other accomplishments, the number to beat given strength of field is as low as 12. It's not linear (10) and even if it was linear it hasn't been 35 years like it was from Jack to Tiger.

Like I said a few days ago, it's impossible to compare eras. You just can't.

Then I'm with @turtleback : don't post here. :P It's impossible to get a definitive answer . It's not impossible to compare eras.

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.

They absolutely belong in the conversation. Among Tiger's 79 PGA Tour wins (more than Jack), he competed in some that had awfully strong fields, and not only won a few, but dominated and won a BUNCH of them. That's better than winning some podunk PGA Tour event. So it belongs in the conversation.

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.

Seriously? Do you not see how blatantly you're shading truths to keep arguing your point? Why lop off one of Tiger's major victories and rob him of three years (1997-2008 is 12 different years), but ignore the fact that Jack won in 1986… adding six years to his record? He doesn't need six years added. 19 is still > 12.

These weird kinds of actions make you look bad. 19 > 12. If you want to stick to "career longevity" as a major sticking point (pun intended), don't make yourself look stupid in doing so.

I disagree that it's a "huge feather in Jack's cap." As stated earlier, what's it matter if Tiger had achieved Jack's record in half the time? You'd knock Tiger for that, instead of giving him credit? Seems dumb.

Again look up the career longevity of other major champions. Gary Player apparently gets a HUGE bump. His span, if you chop off Jack's 1986 Masters, is longer than even Jack's. Most others don't even get to double digits.

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/?

Tiger would have to play (and fail to win) a lot of events.

And we aren't discussing best of each era. Technically we are not even discussing Jack vs. Tiger in this thread. Yet that doesn't seem to stop people…

Jack wasn't the only one who said majors are the main measure. Mike Tirico did an interview with Tiger after his 13th major and asked him if he feels he's the greatest to ever play with what he's already accomplished and Tiger said "No."

So? We can't disagree?

At least he didn't change his mind like Jack did. If Tiger had said "Well, I think the best is really a measure of WGC victories plus major victories" and he'd have done the same thing Jack did.

The problem with saying "Tiger beat a stronger field than Nicklaus" is how many majors do you dock Nicklaus for beating a weaker depth field? 3? 5? 7? You see, this is where it gets fishy with the whole 14>18 argument and why I've said that I think Tiger needs to at least get another major to convince more people because while he's convinced some people, I would say there's a lot of people out there that he still hasn't convinced. I think he can convince almost everyone if he can get to 16 majors, even if he himself says 18 is the number.

It's more than just the record in majors.

Let's say Tiger won 21 more PGA Tour events, but never another major. That would convince many he was the greatest of all time (not all, but many).

I think that Tiger played in an era with a much deeper field, but I also look at his never coming from behind in a major as something missing from his resume (he gets credit for being the best front runner ever having only lost 1 major while holding the 54 hole lead - if I have that correct). And IMO Jack gets credit for overtaking the 54 hole leader 8 times in a major and for finishing second 19 times while Tiger has finished 2nd 6 times.

What does that matter? You're effectively docking Tiger for being a great front-runner. If he was on, he didn't even need to come from behind. Heck, even in 1997, he came from behind… it just happened to be mid-way through the first round when he shot 40 on the front nine… on his way to winning by 12.

You can't dock Tiger for not coming from behind if you just about negate that docking by crediting him for the 14/15 holding on to a lead after 54 holes. Jack can't even begin to touch that.

Honestly, the whole "come from behind" thing or "wins while ahead" thing is beside the point. A major is four rounds. The winner is the guy at the end with the lowest score. That's about it. Who cares if you lead after 18, 36, 51, 54, or 64 holes? Heck, Tiger came from behind after 89 holes to win the U.S. Open in 2008! Does he get extra credit for that?

---

I'm going to say again… and my moderators will stick to it: posts after this point that compare Jack to Tiger in a way that the post belongs more in the "Jack vs. Tiger" thread will be moved there.

This thread is supposed to be different. Please treat it as such.

[Wally Fairway]

What does that matter? You're effectively docking Tiger for being a great front-runner. If he was on, he didn't even need to come from behind. Heck, even in 1997, he came from behind… it just happened to be mid-way through the first round when he shot 40 on the front nine… on his way to winning by 12.

You can't dock Tiger for not coming from behind if you just about negate that docking by crediting him for the 14/15 holding on to a lead after 54 holes. Jack can't even begin to touch that.

Honestly, the whole "come from behind" thing or "wins while ahead" thing is beside the point. A major is four rounds. The winner is the guy at the end with the lowest score. That's about it. Who cares if you lead after 18, 36, 51, 54, or 64 holes? Heck, Tiger came from behind after 89 holes to win the U.S. Open in 2008! Does he get extra credit for that?

Yes I do give extra credit for Tiger winning after being behind after 89 holes, and for making his birdie on the 72 hole to tie.

Golf is not played in a vacuum, sure the lowest score for 72 holes wins, but there is different pressure that is on a player who is behind than is on someone with a stroke or 5 stroke lead. IMO, just like it takes having all the shots, I also think that it takes being able to play under all conditions and under different types of pressure. There is a huge difference is overtaking the leader with 3 rounds to play than there is with only 1 round or as they say on the back 9 at Augusta on Sunday, where the tournament is won or lost.

To be honest I don't know why people are so worried about trying to prove who is the best player ever, or to convince others that their opinion is correct of who is the greatest player ever - I'll say it again, and then I will be done with this thread (just like the Jack vs Tiger thread) it is impossible to compare, on an absolute impartial basis, the difference in eras across virtually all sports.

[turtleback]

To be honest I don't know why people are so worried about trying to prove who is the best player ever, or to convince others that their opinion is correct of who is the greatest player ever - I'll say it again, and then I will be done with this thread (just like the Jack vs Tiger thread) it is impossible to compare, on an absolute impartial basis, the difference in eras across virtually all sports.

That is true but kind of irrelevant, as all you are really saying is that it is impossible to decide a subjective question using objective criteria.

But that doesn't mean we cannot talk about it, argue about it, etc.  It is impossible to say, on an absolutely impartial basis which was the greatest centerfielder in NY in the 50's, Mantle or Mays, yet it certainly stimulated a huge amount of talk, for the non-internet era.

It is also possible to come to a conclusion based on the strength of the arguments presented.  NO matter what the Dodgers fans said it was always clear that Snider really didn't belong in that discussion.