Fidelio

Literally Jack's character was zero percent of why made that post. Zero point zero. I think I would know. I wrote it and know what was going on in my head.

No. I didn't. I made an argument about judgment and how it negatively influenced Tiger's career. Other people have made that argument about Jack's a swell guy so he is better. I think it is a bad one and irrelevant. I don't care even a little bit about the character of the two men as relates to this debate. I made no such argument. I am pretty sure I know what I wrote 3 minutes ago.

That's fine. Your argument is sighs and eye rolls. My argument is grounded in reason and facts. But just for fun. I just did. Hogan missed 33 events because of WWII and not playing the British in the period between his first and last top 10 in major. So, if he would have finished in the top 10 in EVERY ONE of the those events he would fall 1 short of Jack. Apology accepted. Try harder. Be better.

I literally made no argument about character. The argument was about decision making and the influence it had on the length of Tiger's career. I have no idea how you interpreted what I said otherwise. I don't care if Jack is a swell guy.

Not a relevant argument outside of WWII and the cost to play in the British Open. Ben Hogan has almost 50% fewer top 10s.

I explicitly said it wasn't a good argument. But it is interesting, Butch has gone all in on Jack. Obviously it could be sour grapes. I just thought it was worth noting. And I also thought it was interesting how the majority of people who overlapped with Jack and Tiger pick Jack. Ernie Els, a guy Jack dumped on for not being that great when he talked about Tiger's competition, effusively says Jack belongs ahead of Tiger. Faldo is a guy who overlapped with Tiger and Jack and would have a pretty good feel for the competition differences seems kind of offended at the notion someone would refer to Tiger as the greatest.

Actually those win per start stats are irrelevant. Jack played in tour events until he was 65. And Tiger's injuries were probably almost entirely because of poor life choices. Tiger is more beat up than NFL running backs. Nobody forced him to put that kind of strain on his body with 4 (5?) completely different golf swings. Nobody forced him to wreck his knee in Navy Seal training (source Haney's book). Tiger made the tabloid lifestyle choices he made that caused him to miss tournaments. And BTW, it is somewhat interesting judgment to go to Anthony Galea as doctor? I don't have any evidence that he did anything improper with Tiger, but at a minimum it is not what he should have done. All of those were bad choices Tiger made. Consistently bad choices have a way of catching up with you. Something people here don't like hear, Jack was just a lot better at life than Tiger was. Jack may not have been a better golfer, but he was an infinitely better decision maker and life manager which lead to a better career.

Seems like a pretty devastating argument actually. 37 top 2s and 73 top 10s vs 41 top 10s. Tiger's tied 50ths and missed cuts are not like finishing 4th (which was like a bad finish in Jack's 30s). And guys like Watson, Floyd, and Miller would have zero trouble adapting to the modern game. Trevino might not adjust as well but do guys like Spieth, Koepka, DJ rank in the same stratosphere as Lee? Not even close at this point. I just came back to see how much Tiger humping there would be. It is interesting that I have heard Butch Harmon in three separate interviews saying Jack has the superior career. I actually even heard Hank Haney flip and go to Jack. Not that this is great argument but other people I have heard this past year: Faldo adamantly said Jack is the greatest, Jim Furyk on Dan Patrick's show, Tom Watson, Ernie Els, Luke Donald, Norman, and I came across an interview with Jack pretty smugly saying his major career is vastly superior.

But he is though. Jack has almost as many top 2s as Tiger has 10s. You can say he faced super easy competition but why did Jack's peers compete so well against Tiger's peers. Did Raymond Floyd just get better at golf in his late 40s and early 50s? Did Tom Watson get better at 59?

Why didn't Hogan, Snead, Nelson, or anyone else do it? Why didn't Tom Watson do it? Why didn't Seve or Faldo or Norman do it?

Obviously Tiger is the best to ever play. Greatest? Not yet. maybe 1 more major and 9 more top tens and quality of competition argument becomes relevant. 16 vs 18 and 50 vs 73 is getting close. As it is right now Jack has almost as many top 2s as Tiger has top tens and Jack was in the process of having Watson and Hal Sutton rip majors from him at the same age Tiger is. Top tens 1. Jack -73 2. Watson - 46 Tiger-41 Hogan 39 Arnold- 38 Mickelson- 38 Ernie 35

At this point. I am telling. I am not debating on the luck issue. I am right. You are wrong. It isn't disputable. Continuing to act like what I am saying is crazy is the equivalent to not believing in gravity. The two sentences I singled out say everything that needs to be said about your posts. Why would it be bizarre to bring up counterpoints to your argument? If you pursue truth, that should happen constantly. It happens in almost all of my posts that are multiple paragraphs. It happens in none of your posts. Literally none. You write like Paul Krugman.

That's very nasty of you. Very nasty. I feel like replying in kind. I won't though. I will say the statement you quoted is one of the more profound ideas in the 12 years of this thread.

You do get judged by majors. Lee Westwood had a much better career in majors. Lee Westwood is a good example of why wins aren't the only thing that matter. Top finishes and luck should be big part of analysis. Perfectly illustrates why Jack's seconds, thirds, top tens are so important to the debate.

If Jack finishes 3 back and finishes 3rd in his era and Tiger finishes the same 3 back and finishes 8th in the modern era, the gap in finishes is larger because of field strength. It also means Jack should win more often on average because fewer people will luck into a win. And the times that Jack has better than average luck there will be fewer times that someone is slightly luckier because there are fewer people in contention.