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

[skydog]

You mean Jack who had 7 Majors in 5 years then 7 majors in another 5 years stretch.  Sounds a lot like Tiger to me :p

10 years vs. 6 years...only a 66% difference but who's counting :) I understand your point though- Jack's dominance was somewhat confined although to a much lesser extent than Tiger's.

As had already been said the biggest difference though is that Jack won majors both early and late in his career over a 25 year stretch. Again, I don't think Tiger has to do a lot over the next 10 years to be considered the GOAT but you can't pull a dissapearing act in majors after your 32nd bday and be remembered as the GOAT in 30 years.

[Gunther]

10 years vs. 6 years...only a 66% difference but who's counting :) I understand your point though- Jack's dominance was somewhat confined although to a much lesser extent than Tiger's. As had already been said the biggest difference though is that Jack won majors both early and late in his career over a 25 year stretch. Again, I don't think Tiger has to do a lot over the next 10 years to be considered the GOAT but you can't pull a dissapearing act in majors after your 32nd bday and be remembered as the GOAT in 30 years.

Concur (except i do believe Tiger has much left to do). I also think important to the measurement are the number of runner-ups Jack had. 18 may not be greater than 14 but 37 sure as hell is greater than 18. This speaks to sustained greatness or as we've referred to it here, longevity. So, in my view, this at least balances the strength of field argument on the Tiger side and probably eclipses it.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skydog

10 years vs. 6 years...only a 66% difference but who's counting :) I understand your point though- Jack's dominance was somewhat confined although to a much lesser extent than Tiger's.

As had already been said the biggest difference though is that Jack won majors both early and late in his career over a 25 year stretch. Again, I don't think Tiger has to do a lot  over the next 10 years to be considered the GOAT but you can't pull a dissapearing act in majors after your 32nd bday and be remembered as the GOAT in 30 years.

Concur. I also think important to the measurement are the number of runner-ups Jack had.

18 may not be greater than 14 but 37 sure as hell is greater than 18. This speaks to sustained greatness or as we've referred to it here, longevity.

So, in my view, this at least balances the strength of field argument on the Tiger side and probably eclipses it.

One could argue that the second places were a result of weaker fields.  Woods has more wins both PGA and international, more amateur wins and a greater winning percentage against fields that were stronger.  The top players now have even stronger fields to contend with. Nicklaus was the best of his era. Woods was the best of his tougher era.

[Gunther]

Nicklaus was the best of his era. Woods was the best of his tougher era.

Irrefutable.

[ChrisP]

One could argue that the second places were a result of weaker fields.  Woods has more wins both PGA and international, more amateur wins and a greater winning percentage against fields that were stronger.  The top players now have even stronger fields to contend with. Nicklaus was the best of his era. Woods was the best of his tougher era.

One could also argue today's fields are stronger than they were back 15 years ago, so if Jordan or Rory wins 10 majors and 60 events, they have just as much claim to being the greatest of all time as Tiger does if we're going to go by the whole "the fields keep getting stronger" argument.

This whole discussion tires me out, but like someone said, majors mean a lot, and longevity goes along with that (in my eyes) and I have a hard time saying Tiger Woods should be the greatest of all-time when he can't win a major after his 32nd birthday but Jack can win majors in the first half of his career AND the second half. When a person interviews Tiger the last day of his PGA career and asks him "Why should you be the greatest of all-time" and he responds "Well, I had a great first half of my career but couldn't do jack shit in a major once I turned 32", I don't know if people are going to say "Yup, he's the best."

Like I said last night, everyone's definition is different. Some don't think that matters. Some do. I'm in the opinion that it does, and I think there's a lot that think the same. Heck, I heard almost every analyst on TGC say that very point a few weeks ago.

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

Tiger would still be the greatest golfer to ever live even if he didn't come back.

lol, this explains your vehemence in the Grand Slam thread. Didn't peg you as a fanboy.

And yet there isn't a stronger Tiger fan on this board than me and I was diametrically against @saevel25 in the Grand Slam thread.  Gee, sorry to not fall into one of your little pigeonholes.  But it is easier to call people fanboy or hater than it is to actually interact with the facts and reasoning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisP

The big difference would be Favre and MJ's demise came when they were old (in their sport) and in the last two years of their career, kinda like what Kobe is going through now or Federer in tennis or Manning in football. It's another thing if it happens mid-way through. I think Peyton Manning is the best qb ever, and I thought at the age of 31 he was better than any qb I ever saw at the top of his game, but if he got hurt at 31 and never materialized into anything after that and just vanished, I would have a hard time calling him the best ever and I think his career would be seen as two separate careers....the first half which was amazing and the second half which was crippling.

And this may not apply to Tiger...he may rebound and I truly hope he does and I think he'll win more tournaments down the road....this is just a "What If" game in case he continues to lose it and never gets it back.

Sooo, like Sandy Koufax then?

And Jim Brown (only 9 seasons - voted 2nd best nfl player of all time, best running back)

This is the thing I find so troubling and why I put up such a fight in the Grand Sam thread.  We are redefining criteria for things after the fact to fit circumstance, instead of having criteria and seeing if someone meets them after the fact.  Like Jack did with GOAT and majors.  Like is happening with the Grand Slam.

Here's my take on the Jack and Tiger debate as greatest of all time. At final tabulation analysts (and I kind of do to) will look at the numbers over the span of thier careers. Both had dominance at stages. I would factor in Tigers injuries. Athletes have lost time for injury or service duty before. Jack's wins late in his career cannot be overlooked and/or his overall record. If Tiger comes back and plays well into his early to mid fourties, or at least until Hall of Fame qualification age then one may be able to compare the two in that regard. It has weight. Over a ten year span Tiger dominated, but haven't others in thier eras? What the public might be seeing now is an athlete possibly in his decline...hanging on, or rebuilding from injury close to another comeback. I can't tell. But then jack declined, but then won a late major. It remenber Jonny Miller coming on tour and tearing up the scene and rooting for him. Greater than Jack...for that moment in time.

Jack really did  not have many "dominant" years.  For an ungodly time he was one of the best 3 players in the world, but there weren't all that many years where he was clearly the best for that year and even fewer where he could meet any reasonable definition of dominant.  The thing the Jack guys will never do even though I have invited them over and over is to simply give me a list of Jack's seasons ranked from best to worst.  They won't do it because they know that when we do  year by year side by side Jack's record won't come close to holding up until we get to about the 15th year.

As to domination, no one has ever dominated golf to anything like the extent that Tiger did from 1997 through 2009.  And then he threw in another such year in 2013.  Jack is lauded as the GOAT - he never won more than 3 consecutive tour events - Tiger has won 7 in a row, 6 in a row, and 5 in a row.  Jack never won more than 2 consecutive majors.  Tiger won 4.  These are the measurements of domination.  So no, no one in their era has EVER dominated the way Tiger did for those 15 years or so.

Tiger's best year is better than Jack's best year

Tiger's best 2 consecutive years are better than Jack's best 2 consecutive years

Tiger's best 3 consecutive years are better than Jack's best 3 consecutive years

Etc.

How many years do we have to go before Jack's cumulative years start to overtake Tiger's?  15?  20?  more?

Does it really make sense to pick between them based on their performances at the temporal margins of their careers?

My point on 18>14 is that will be the litmus test 30 years from now. The peripherals will become obscured but that measure will not. Whether you agree with it or not, Jack did his job well.

We'll see.  Or maybe the golf world will wake up to the fact that Jack is the only player in golf history who was considered GOAT by virtue of having won the most majors.  Fortunately Walter Hagen did not live long enough to seem himself eclipsed as GOAT by Jack, even if no one even mentioned him, generally, as the GOAT while he was alive.  Hagen was never GOAT based on having won the most majors but Jack is GOAT by virtue of the number of majors he won.  Makes perfect (non)sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by skydog

Calling Tiger's career 20 years is a mischaracterization. Yes, he has been active  for nearly 20 years on tour but most of his dominance was confined to a handful of years. He won 7 of his majors between Aug 1999- Jun 2002 and 6 between Apr 2005- Jun 2008. That's an aggregate 6 years where he racked up all but one of his majors. It was an amazing run (2 runs) that I don't think we'll ever see again in our lifetime but I don't think it can be construed as a lengthy major career by any golf standards.

You mean Jack who had 7 Majors in 5 years then 7 majors in another 5 years stretch.  Sounds a lot like Tiger to me :p

Yeah funny how they come up with  criticisms of Tiger without checking to see if maybe something similar applied to Jack.  And he of course ignores the fact (and Yes, I claim that as a fact because no one will take me up on my "put Jack's years in order from best to worst", challenge) that Tiger's regular seasons were FAR FAR better than Jack's over a 15 year period.

Majors are suppose to have the strongest fields in the toughest conditions correct? Basically the best of the best right?

Not even remotely.

From a historical perspective,.strength of field has had almost nothing to do with major status.  Surely no one thinks that the British Amateur of 1930 had anything like the strongest field of 1930 events.  Heck its field was probably weaker than every single PGA tour event.  As was the case for a stretch of years for the British Open.

And even now the event with arguably the best, and inarguably one of the top 4 strongest fields, isn't a major at all - the Players.  So no, strength of field has not, historically been the criteria.  But of course in these days where we change the criteria to fit the achievement . . .

[Abu3baid]

And yet there isn't a stronger Tiger fan on this board than me and I was diametrically against @saevel25 in the Grand Slam thread.  Gee, sorry to not fall into one of your little pigeonholes.  But it is easier to call people fanboy or hater than it is to actually interact with the facts and reasoning. And Jim Brown (only 9 seasons - voted 2nd best nfl player of all time, best running back) This is the thing I find so troubling and why I put up such a fight in the Grand Sam thread.  We are redefining criteria for things after the fact to fit circumstance, instead of having criteria and seeing if someone meets them after the fact.  Like Jack did with GOAT and majors.  Like is happening with the Grand Slam. Jack really did  not have many "dominant" years.  For an ungodly time he was one of the best 3 players in the world, but there weren't all that many years where he was clearly the best for that year and even fewer where he could meet any reasonable definition of dominant.  The thing the Jack guys will never do even though I have invited them over and over is to simply give me a list of Jack's seasons ranked from best to worst.  They won't do it because they know that when we do  year by year side by side Jack's record won't come close to holding up until we get to about the 15th year. As to domination, no one has ever dominated golf to anything like the extent that Tiger did from 1997 through 2009.  And then he threw in another such year in 2013.  Jack is lauded as the GOAT - he never won more than 3 consecutive tour events - Tiger has won 7 in a row, 6 in a row, and 5 in a row.  Jack never won more than 2 consecutive majors.  Tiger won 4.  These are the measurements of domination.  So no, no one in their era has EVER dominated the way Tiger did for those 15 years or so. Tiger's best year is better than Jack's best year Tiger's best 2 consecutive years are better than Jack's best 2 consecutive years Tiger's best 3 consecutive years are better than Jack's best 3 consecutive years Etc. How many years do we have to go before Jack's cumulative years start to overtake Tiger's?  15?  20?  more? Does it really make sense to pick between them based on their performances at the temporal margins of their careers? We'll see.  Or maybe the golf world will wake up to the fact that Jack is the only player in golf history who was considered GOAT by virtue of having won the most majors.  Fortunately Walter Hagen did not live long enough to seem himself eclipsed as GOAT by Jack, even if no one even mentioned him, generally, as the GOAT while he was alive.  Hagen was never GOAT based on having won the most majors but Jack is GOAT by virtue of the number of majors he won.  Makes perfect (non)sense. Yeah funny how they come up with  criticisms of Tiger without checking to see if maybe something similar applied to Jack.  And he of course ignores the fact (and Yes, I claim that as a fact because no one will take me up on my "put Jack's years in order from best to worst", challenge) that Tiger's regular seasons were FAR FAR better than Jack's over a 15 year period. Not even remotely.   From a historical perspective,.strength of field has had almost nothing to do with major status.  Surely no one thinks that the British Amateur of 1930 had anything like the strongest field of 1930 events.  Heck its field was probably weaker than every single PGA tour event.  As was the case for a stretch of years for the British Open.   And even now the event with arguably the best, and inarguably one of the top 4 strongest fields, isn't a major at all - the Players.  So no, strength of field has not, historically been the criteria.  But of course in these days where we change the criteria to fit the achievement . . .

So, year in and year out the majors don't have the best players in the world competing in it compared to other tournaments? Let me rephrase, if we put the tournaments and gave each a rank would these 4 majors be in the top 5? Top 10? Top 15? And even with the players I remember reading a lot of talk about how people were for making it the 5th major.. I'm asking because I really don't know the answer, I just figured they must be.. So, if there are 5 or 10 tournaments with stronger fields I would like to know.

[saevel25]

Yeah funny how they come up with  criticisms of Tiger without checking to see if maybe something similar applied to Jack.  And he of course ignores the fact (and Yes, I claim that as a fact because no one will take me up on my "put Jack's years in order from best to worst", challenge) that Tiger's regular seasons were FAR FAR better than Jack's over a 15 year period.

I did that. Listing the years by winning percentage. Jack's best year was ranked 5th. Tiger's 4 best years were better than Jack's best year. It was just crazy how good Tiger was and against better competition. The fact that 80% of the golfers in 2000 had a better scoring average than 50% of the golfers in Jack's era.

[ChrisP]

I did that. Listing the years by winning percentage. Jack's best year was ranked 5th. Tiger's 4 best years were better than Jack's best year. It was just crazy how good Tiger was and against better competition. The fact that 80% of the golfers in 2000 had a better scoring average than 50% of the golfers in Jack's era.

That's great. He was unstoppable for a period of time there. I've said over and over no one was ever better than him in his prime. But for some people, it's about maintaining that high level of play past the age of 32. And yeah I know he won his traditional Memorials and Bay Hills since 08, but his finishes in majors have really dropped off since 2008. He had a couple good finishes in majors in 09, but he since that knee surgery in 08, he just hasn't been a force in majors. The 09 PGA was his only realistic shot at winning down the stretch that I can remember. And that's simply the debate. Do you consider him the greatest ever if he never can win another major after 32? Different people have different answers and different opinions there. He was great in 2013, but that was his only really great and outstanding year from 2010-2015.

[saevel25]

That's great. He was unstoppable for a period of time there. I've said over and over no one was ever better than him in his prime. But for some people, it's about maintaining that high level of play past the age of 32.

you mean his 7 wins at the age of 33, and his 3 wins at the age of 36 and his 5 wins at the age of 37?

[GreatestGolfers]

Couldn't agree more. I just don't think you can't supplant yourself as the best ever by having a great career up to your mid-30s and then all of a sudden drop off the face of the earth. The fact Tiger Woods is at least #2 in my mind and most everyone's minds is a credit to just how dominant he was the first half of his career. But there's a second part of your career and you need to show up that second half. Tiger does not have to do much to be #1 in my mind (and many's minds). He doesn't even have to get to 18. Just win some more tournaments. Play some good golf. Show me that you can play strong in your 20s, 30s and 40s like Jack, Gary and other great players did. I promise you that history will remember him as much for his failures the second half of his career as the dominance the first half IF he never wins again. He has to rebound and I truly hope he does.

The fact that there is much debate around the subject shows that Nicklaus and Woods are close.

This calculation based method, by which I rank all of the Greatest Golfers, shows Nicklaus ahead at this stage.

1) 391 points - Jack Nicklaus

2) 369 points - Tiger Woods

The debate around The Greatest Players being those who performed over a long career vs those that were the best over a "shorter" time period is also seen in comparing Ben Hogan with Sam Snead. Many see Ben Hogan as at least the # 3, but looking at performance over an entire career, Sam Snead comes out at #3 (Note: well behind Tiger and Jack)

3) 250 points - Sam Snead

4) 221 points - Ben Hogan

A) The calculation takes a number of things into account. However, the most influential factors determining a players final points are: -

i) Performance in the majors (points are awarded for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place finishes) - Nicklaus, with his 19 R-up finishes scores here.

ii) Total results over the entire players career - so slumps do affect players winning % in majors (a factor included in the calculation), but what is more important is their TOTAL results - they all add up.

B) A few other factors taken into account: -

i) wins on all the major golf tours - with weighting of points in a manner very close to system used by "Official World Golf Ranking"

ii) Big events are given a higher points weighting - for example: Players Championship, WGC events (Nicklaus would be further ahead if WGC events weighted as just a regular US Tour event) and Western Open in earlier years.

iii) points awarded for the "Amateur majors" - US & British Amateur - before 1940

iv) A factor is applied to weight the increased competitiveness of golf in modern times compared to early 1900's

This method allows a comparison/measure of all diversity of players such as:

- Bobby Jones (the most successful amateur, with an extremely short career but very high win ratio in majors)

- Jack Nicklaus, Sam Snead & others (with long and successful careers into their 40's)

- Tiger Woods (very successful career up to recent years, with recent "lows")

- Ben Hogan (very successful with periods also of relatively low performance)

Note: if a player continues to play late in his career (in 40's and 50's say, the factor measuring performance in majors is slightly negatively affected - so if Tiger did not win or come second in any majors from now, but continued competing, the points gap between them would increase (slightly).

This calculated method is aimed at removing some subjectivity, for myself (and hopefully others), in the comparison of the Greatest Golfers (Google if interested). The relative tournament weightings are still an example of an assumption, but once the assumptions are made, they are applied equally to all players.

It is interesting how close many of the top ten are (with very different career wins and playing longevity) & would explain why there is such debate on many comparisons - see next three players:

5)   204 points - Gary Player

T6) 200 points - Walter Hagen & Arnold Palmer

8)   186 points - Bobby Jones

Also close to each other:

9)  166 points - Tom Watson

10)165 points - Phil Mickelson

11)158 points - Byron Nelson

My view on rankings, hope you find it interesting.

[DrvFrShow]

Tiger was amazing in his prime. He dominated everyone. When he was on, there wasn't anyone who could beat him. Fantasy match up: Jack in his prime vs. Tiger in his prime. Who would win? Equipment differences neutralized.

PS: my pitching pick is Randy Johnson.

[Gunther]

The fact that there is much debate around the subject shows that Nicklaus and Woods are close. This calculation based method, by which I rank all of the Greatest Golfers, shows Nicklaus ahead at this stage. 1) 391 points - Jack Nicklaus 2) 369 points - Tiger Woods  The debate around The Greatest Players being those who performed over a long career vs those that were the best over a "shorter" time period is also seen in comparing Ben Hogan with Sam Snead. Many see Ben Hogan as at least the # 3, but looking at performance over an entire career, Sam Snead comes out at #3 (Note: well behind Tiger and Jack) 3) 250 points - Sam Snead 4) 221 points - Ben Hogan A) The calculation takes a number of things into account. However, the most influential factors determining a players final points are: - i) Performance in the majors (points are awarded for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place finishes) - Nicklaus, with his 19 R-up finishes scores here.   ii) Total results over the entire players career - so slumps do affect players winning % in majors (a factor included in the calculation), but what is more important is their TOTAL results - they all add up. B) A few other factors taken into account: - i) wins on all the major golf tours - with weighting of points in a manner very close to system used by "Official World Golf Ranking"  ii) Big events are given a higher points weighting - for example: Players Championship, WGC events (Nicklaus would be further ahead if WGC events weighted as just a regular US Tour event) and Western Open in earlier years. iii) points awarded for the "Amateur majors" - US & British Amateur - before 1940 iv) A factor is applied to weight the increased competitiveness of golf in modern times compared to early 1900's This method allows a comparison/measure of all diversity of players such as: - Bobby Jones (the most successful amateur, with an extremely short career but very high win ratio in majors) - Jack Nicklaus, Sam Snead & others (with long and successful careers into their 40's)  - Tiger Woods (very successful career up to recent years, with recent "lows") - Ben Hogan (very successful with periods also of relatively low performance) Note: if a player continues to play late in his career (in 40's and 50's say, the factor measuring performance in majors is slightly negatively affected - so if Tiger did not win or come second in any majors from now, but continued competing, the points gap between them would increase (slightly). This calculated method is aimed at removing some subjectivity, for myself (and hopefully others), in the comparison of the Greatest Golfers (Google if interested). The relative tournament weightings are still an example of an assumption, but once the assumptions are made, they are applied equally to all players.  It is interesting how close many of the top ten are (with very different career wins and playing longevity) & would explain why there is such debate on many comparisons - see next three players: 5)   204 points - Gary Player T6) 200 points - Walter Hagen & Arnold Palmer 8)   186 points - Bobby Jones Also close to each other: 9)  166 points - Tom Watson 10)165 points - Phil Mickelson 11)158 points - Byron Nelson My view on rankings, hope you find it interesting.

I like this approach and it really solidifies my--and others--thought around longevity, especially the number of runner ups. I thought I remember from a previous post that you also factored strength of field. How did you do that?

[GreatestGolfers]

First, let me say that I agree with the strength in depth argument - that the fields are stronger in depth today than in previous decades - has been discussed in previous threads

However, I take the view that the top three in any decade would be amongst the top three in any other decade, had they been born at a different time, with the same motivation to succeed as they obviously had. Their wins in a different era/decade

My view, again is that the top three players say, may win slightly fewer times in the modern age compared to earlier decades - due to all the factors mentioned in previous thread on "strength of field" (Tiger vs Jack's day), but to a lesser degree than people may expect.

What makes this discussion difficult is that the young pro's of today need to complete their careers for us to evaluate whether our view holds any water - we don't know how many wins they will have when their careers are over.

So maybe looking at this from the opposite perspective - looking at the Greats of the Game and looking at their wins and what time period this was in:

I'll list the wins on the two biggest tours (US and Euro, so exclude Australian & RSA & Japan tours for now)

Players playing from : 1990 - 2015

1) 87 wins (79 US) - Tiger

2) 44 wins (42 US) - Phil M

3) 41 wins (19 US, 22 Eu) - E. Els

4) 43 wins (34 US) - Vijay S

Players playing from : 1960 - 1980

1) 73 wins (73 US) - Nicklaus

2) 64 wins (62 US) - Palmer

3) 52 wins (51 US) - Casper

4) 31 wins (29 US) - Trevino

Players playing from : 1945 - 1970

1) 82 wins (82 US) - Snead

2) 64 wins (64 US) - Hogan

3) 53 wins (52 US) - Nelson

(note Palmer overlapped here also)

If I removed this factor and calculated the points of the players (as though they played in the same era), the following changes to their "Ranking Position" would apply: -

Walter Hagen up 1 position to # 5 above G. Player

Byron Nelson up 1 place just below Tom Watson & ahead of Phil M.

Gene Sarazen would move up 1 place above E. Els

Harry Vardon would move up the most - 5 places to above E. Els

John Ball would move up 4 places

Jim Barnes up 1 place

etc..

So there is a downrating effect on the earlier decades applied progressively. Another factor to consider is that there are more tournaments today than in mid 1900's & before - this also "down rates" the Ranking of earlier players - same effect as counting their wins as less significant when allocating points for ranking of "Greatest Golfers".

[iacas]

Calling Tiger's career 20 years is a mischaracterization. Yes, he has been active  for nearly 20 years on tour but most of his dominance was confined to a handful of years. He won 7 of his majors between Aug 1999- Jun 2002 and 6 between Apr 2005- Jun 2008. That's an aggregate 6 years where he racked up all but one of his majors. It was an amazing run (2 runs) that I don't think we'll ever see again in our lifetime but I don't think it can be construed as a lengthy major career by any golf standards.

Please do as @turtleback has said: list Jack's years from best to worst. List Tiger's years from best to worst. Find the point at which Jack's years start eclipsing Tiger's. It's going to take about 14 or 15 years before that turns out to be the case… and nobody truly knows how much Tiger has left to bump that number out to 15, 16, 17….

This calculation based method, by which I rank all of the Greatest Golfers, shows Nicklaus ahead at this stage.

Calling it a "calculation based method" implies that it has a mathematical or statistical value to it. In the end, you created the math, so it's just your opinion of how much things weigh, and you don't take into account things like strength of field.

Jack Nicklaus has said that the average PGA Tour player would have been a star in his day. That says more about strength of field than a lot of things.

What makes this discussion difficult is that the young pro's of today need to complete their careers for us to evaluate whether our view holds any water - we don't know how many wins they will have when their careers are over.

So maybe looking at this from the opposite perspective - looking at the Greats of the Game and looking at their wins and what time period this was in:

I'll list the wins on the two biggest tours (US and Euro, so exclude Australian & RSA & Japan tours for now)

You realize the obvious problems in doing that, don't you? The older guys won more as well because they too played against weaker fields. How many guys did Nicklaus have to beat, week in and week out? 10? 20? A third of his fields were club professionals for a long time. Tiger's faced no fields that weak… nor has Phil. Or Ernie. Or Vijay. Etc.

The guys ranked in the 30s on the Tour in the 1960s and 70s probably wouldn't even have a Web.com Tour card these years…

[skydog]

The thing the Jack guys will never do even though I have invited them over and over is to simply give me a list of Jack's seasons ranked from best to worst.  They won't do it because they know that when we do  year by year side by side Jack's record won't come close to holding up until we get to about the 15th year.

Please do as @turtleback has said: list Jack's years from best to worst. List Tiger's years from best to worst. Find the point at which Jack's years start eclipsing Tiger's. It's going to take about 14 or 15 years before that turns out to be the case… and nobody truly knows how much Tiger has left to bump that number out to 15, 16, 17….

If I wanted to do this excercise I wouldn't know where to start, because unless I'm missing something, I don't know how we would objectively or formulaically rank one season 'better' or 'worse' than another. Which do you characterize as better- a Jack sesason where he won nothing besides the Masters or a Tiger season where he won no majors but won 5 tour events? By your math with this 15 year claim I'm guessing you are calling the latter the 'better' season but this seems highly subjective unless I'm missing something, which I very well may be.

Folks may disagree but I believe that Majors are the measure of what defines one seaon as better than another (FWIW, I think Tiger would agree and would tell you he would have happily traded his 5 2013 wins for one green jacket that year). Jack won majors in 13 different years, Tiger won majors in 9 different years, so if we're using majors as the measure of greatness, Jack had more 'better' (apologies for the grammar) seasons unless I'm missing something.

Comparing golf to other sports, tour events are the regular season and the majors are the playoffs. What you do in the regular season matters but it's what you do in the playoffs that defines your legacy. Peyton is the best regular season QB in history but with only one ring he will never be considered as the GOAT.

[ChrisP]

you mean his 7 wins at the age of 33, and his 3 wins at the age of 36 and his 5 wins at the age of 37?

Hence why I said 2010-2015. He was 33 in 2009. And I already stated he had a nice year in 2013. In 2012, by his standards it was a so-so year...by Jordan Spieth standards a crummy year. Only had one top-10 in the majors. Also had a couple missed cuts and a WD during the season. He started to turn it around at The Open, a turnaround that really boosted him and lasted up until his back problems.

Like I've said, I think Tiger will bounce back from this hiccup in his career and go down as the greatest ever (as long as he stays healthy), so this conversation will probably be mute. But at this stage in his career, in my mind and the mind of many others (obviously not yours), he has more work to do. Simple as that.

[turtleback]

This calculation based method, by which I rank all of the Greatest Golfers, shows Nicklaus ahead at this stage.

Your method does not remove any subjectivity, it simply hides it a little deeper.  Any such method has no intrinsic credibility and resides just as much in the realm of pure opinion, as a non-numerical opinion.

If I wanted to do this excercise I wouldn't know where to start, because unless I'm missing something, I don't know how we would objectively or formulaically rank one season 'better' or 'worse' than another. Which do you characterize as better- a Jack sesason where he won nothing besides the Masters or a Tiger season where he won no majors but won 5 tour events? By your math with this 15 year claim I'm guessing you are calling the latter the 'better' season but this seems highly subjective unless I'm missing something, which I very well may be.

LOLOLOLOL.  You can't even take a shot at it?  I promise, if after the fact you do not like the result and you want to shuffle them around, I will allow it.  What I want to see is a) # of events entered, b ) # of wins, and c) number of majors won.  So you choose.  It will not matter.

And do not make assumptions and claims about what I might or might not do.   Certainly if I use the info in  a way you feel is unfair you will have ample opportunity to rebut it and I suspect you will have assistance in that area as well,m from other posters.

As to the part of your post I didn't quote, it is just blah blah blah of what you have said 1000 (hyperbole alert)  times.  This is something different.  I have no doubt that the challenge will be dodged again, as it always has by every Jack supporter to whom it has been issued.  Prove me wrong.