That's your response to me saying you're not comparing apples to apples?
I didn't say it wasn't "clear." I said you've not proven it. You haven't.
Since you're now including shit like that last sentence, the rules for you are:
No more talk of distance or accuracy from you (or @LICC) in this topic. It's off topic, and we've said this a few times.
You're on thin ice with the name-calling, so anything remotely troll-like will likely result in one of the non-involved mods being asked to take a look at your posts in this topic.
But you ignored the most important part. He was more accurate relative to the average player on tour than Tiger is to the average today.
Ummm.. No I didn't. He said nothing in that post. Nothing. That was a zero value added post. And he still thinks it is isn't clear Jack was more accurate. You are not smart enough to have an opinion.
Jack hit it much shorter than Tiger, so by "degrees offline" we don't know who was "more accurate."
Jack played to wider fairways than Tiger typically plays to (which bounced and rolled out less, too), which would increase a player's fairways hit percentage.
You aren't comparing apples to apples, hence my comment that you haven't actually "proven" this to be true.
He wasn't "so far ahead of anyone." Jack was, throughout his career, more often behind several players in any given year.
Tiger won more Vardons than Jack.
Tiger won more money titles than Jack.
Tiger was also player of the year more times than Jack.
@turtleback, I believe, made a post at one point that detailed every year of Jack's career and talked about the years he could have won the Vardon or the POTY or the other awards, or what year he was clearly the best golfer. Long story short: the facts don't support your, uhhhhh, "recollection."
IIRC, he has another post with more detail than this, including the years Jack was "not eligible" for some awards.