Fidelio

I think from my very first post on I have said Tiger is the better player and have not remotely hinted otherwise. I also think Bo Jackson is the best running back of all time. Bo does not make my top 10 greatest running backs for what should be obvious reasons. Only judging up to this point. Tiger could pass Jack in my mind. Kenny Perry won 11 times after 40. If Tiger got to 90 wins with another major or 2, I think that would be pretty compelling. I probably would flip my opinion. As far as Tiger's injuries, that is a tough one. I don't know how to count that. Having read Hank Haney's book it would seem that Tiger is largely responsible for his health problems because of poor life decisions (the Navy Seal stuff, the overly intense workouts.) He also changed his swing a number of times, which I think has the potential to put undue stress on his body. My instinct is that he is a golfer who is more beat up than most NFL running backs. Something doesn't seem right there. But I don't know. It could just be bad luck. So I don't use the injuries to help or hurt him other than to discount the percentage of wins stats.

Even though this is my favorite golf topic, I feel the topic has run its course, but.. That 10 year stretch was clearly better. But my whole argument kind of hinges on how the next 10 went. A career is a marathon. Tiger from 32 to 42 only won 18 times and one major. Not to mention Tiger was shooting 85s and topping the ball while Jack's bad tournaments were like 5th place finishes.. Jack won 33 times and 8 majors over the same period. The next 10 is where the tortoise overtakes the hare. Tiger was much better in his prime. (Also much worse in his non-prime.) He had six years better than Jack's best year. Maybe. Not 12. Jack won 7 times and 2 majors in 1972. If you want to argue that 1972 is the only one that makes the top 10 between the two, I could see that. But he clearly didn't have 10 or 12 years better than 1972.

I think it is hardly unreasonable and I don't see why that isn't more convincing to you. And I agree with everything Wally Fairway said. I just want to put something up that is relevant to the actual thread of field strength. Look how bad this stretch is for Tiger. It is why he doesn't have the career numbers. Not just the field strength. Jack never had stretch his bad on the regular tour And for fun I included Jack in his mid/late 50s when he overlapped some with Tiger up to his hip surgery. Jack as an OLD MAN playing against modern players was better in the majors than Tiger has been since 2014. Jack made 12 of his last 15 cuts before hip surgery. All I am saying. A little perspective. Tiger Jack(same age) Jack (as an old man) DNP 7 CUT DNP T6 T28 69 1 CUT CUT CUT CUT T17 4 T35 CUT T9 CUT CUT T2 T79 CUT T65 T67 DNP T33 T41 DNP 1 T27 DNP T4 T45 DNP 1 CUT DNP T2 T39 DNP T6 T52 DNP T23 T60 DNP T4 CUT T32 T15 T6 CUT 2 T43

1. This isn't the right thread for this discussion and I am ready to move onto other topics 2. Tiger is 42. A cursory look shows Jack finished first, second or third 54% of the time as a pro up through age 42. I'll assume your numbers are correct. 30% vs 54%. That is a big gap and it is the deciding factor for me. (Not to mention one of those players missed quite a few tournaments on the back side of their career. Seems likely that gap would have been even wider.)

There is one not so ancillary stat where Jack dominates Tiger. 47 top 3s in majors 164 starts. And the gap is so large that it isn't just attributable to field strength. It is something Sir Nick (my favorite golfer) brings up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2LnaVsmYiM

I feel like this is a topic that is pretty settled by reasonable people. The number of wins from top players in both majors and regular tournaments drops every generation. That alone should make it obvious that it is harder to win. Every other aspect of life improves over time in relatively free societies. Athletics is no different. Walter Hagen and Bobby Jones and Byron Nelson should not be put ahead of Mickelson. I hate seeing these lists with all old players on them comparing numbers as if they are apples to apples. That said, it doesn't automatically follow that Lebron had the better career than Michael or Tiger is ahead of Jack. It can be a strong indication if they put up equal numbers. But if numbers are much better for one person it makes the debates tough to call.

To be clear, I do put Phil ahead of Watson. I just think it is debatable. I think Watson was a better player in his prime. He beat Jack head to head 4 times where they were first and second. I view a person's career as one long round of golf. I don't count dominance at all. But a lot of people clearly do think it is important so it makes for an interesting topic.

Sure. I agree. It is completely useless. But I noticed the guy who thought Dudley Hart was better than Lee Trevino wasn't getting sufficient push back until the last few posts. I do see the post pointing out how useless stroke averages comparisons are now..

Not sure the emotion you are referring to. I think Phil had the better career. I have said that I think multiple times in my limited posting history. I think Phil is better than Watson for similar reasons that I put Jack numero uno. I think this is the quote you are even referring to. "Tom Watson was a better player than every single person on that list except Phil. (And I am really only conceding Phil because it is at least debatable.) I do think Watson/Phil is a fun highly debatable topic like Jack vs Tiger. whereas I don't think feel as though the Tom Watson vs Dudley Hart comparison is a good one.

I responded to the exact quote. An upper level journeyman winning the money title would actually help Jack's strength of field case. Do you see why?

Yes. Players in every sport are better. Also things like equipment have created more parity which hurts the top players. And even something like a yardage book gave Jack an advantage over his competition that doesn't exist today. And just the widespread knowledge of sports psychology and swing instruction is able to get more people to a higher level which means more random people are capable of winning on a given week. Plus golf is a more international game. But most here are taking that waaaaaaaay too far. For example, "Also, since you want names of players who are better than the players of the time of Nicklaus, how about I start listing some out for you?" Tom Watson was a better player than every single person on that list except Phil. (And I am really only conceding Phil because it is at least debatable.) Rocco Mediate and Brian Watts are not better than Hale Irwin. It is prima facie wrong. I just watched the 1992 Masters. Raymond Floyd is not worse than Bob Estes and Scott Hoch. In fact 50 year old Raymond Floyd was probably a better player than a third of the people on that list in their best year. There is even a thread where I see people wondering if Phil and Jack is a more apt comparison. The answer to that is no and it isn't even remotely close. Phil and Watson is a good debate. Phil and Hogan is reasonable.

It is rare for televised coverage to show the player marking and replacing the ball where it would be obvious that the ball has moved. Even Thompson, with that close up camera shot probably would have gotten away it if it didn't look exactly like she was trying to move the ball out of a spike mark. She didn't line the ball up or back away. She basically picked up and moved it and initially was moving it a couple of inches.

Of course she did it regularly. It is cheating. It was blatant. Right or wrong (mostly wrong), here is the reality. 100% of tournament golfers have done what she did to some degree. I don't remember a specific instance but I am sure I have moved the ball slightly out of perforation or moved the ball to a place that was less likely to move when I addressed a putt on fast scuffed up greens. Very few current PGA pros didn't side with Lexi Thompson because they know it could easily have been them called out. Only Phil had the integrity to directly say he has done the exact same thing. Unless this has been a common complaint against her it would have been better to deal with it privately given how pervasive this is. There is no doubt in my mind you would find plenty of instances of Arnie, Tiger, Jack, Player, Watson, Norman if the cameras were on them closely every time they marked. There are times where it is difficult to actually put the ball in the same place without it moving.

I don't agree and there are no shortage of people with Nobel Prizes in Economics who also strongly disagree. I believe insider trading helps the people on the other side of the transaction as the article I linked to expresses, though that isn't the reason I support eliminating those laws. It is just a benefit.

I can't find an example of a free market economist in favor of insider trading laws. Feel free to link to one. I would be curious to find just one. There has to be but I can't find him or her. Also, no one being screwed. Every time you buy a share of something, you are essentially saying the other person is an idiot for selling to you. Trading is based on asymmetries. James was a solid day trader. Here is him just saying what I said with different words. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-insider-trading-should-be-legal-2011-05-17

There are obviously endless articles and opinions on both sides. Free market economists are pretty unanimous in favoring eliminating insider trading. Other philosophers have differing views. I have no idea how the average investor would respond. You could easily make the opposite argument that the markets will be more transparent and the average investor should feel more confident because everything will baked into price. Even if insiders withheld information (which is illegal) that information would only be valuable if someone acted on it, which if they did, would make prices more correct. Most people who favor expanding insider trading still want to force anyone who acts on it to disclose it. Either way that argument won't be settled here. Ultimately it is a moral issue to me. If you possess information, that is your property. You should be able to do as you please with your property as long as you don't harm someone else in a free society. If someone willingly trades with you, that is not harm. Insider trading is similar to why drug laws and laws against prostitution are wrong. Neither one has a direct victim. When you have willing buyers and sellers on both sides, there isn't a role for government in my view. Frankly, I think they are unconstitutional. I don't think Phil is a moral crusader, but I view him as a reduced version of Marc Rich, which is to say a quasi-hero. I don't break bad laws, but if other people do (like evade taxes), that wouldn't be a black mark against their character to me personally.

@iacas @ScouseJohnny If Phil Mickelson has strong reason to believe that a company is going to have a bad quarter or a drug is going to fail FDA approval, he would short the stock. His selling would depress the stock price. A person who was adamant about getting long would be filled at a better price so when the bad quarter or FDA failure does get announced they will lose slightly less money. If Phil Mickelson and others with this knowledge trade in enough size their selling could signal to others that something is potentially wrong which might help them avoid buying the stock. That selling (as well as reduced buying) also cushions the blow for when the negative event does happen. There won't be as large of a gap down surprise. Here are some random quotes from economists. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/InsiderTrading.html

Insider trading is a crime in the same way jaywalking is a crime, which is to say it is not a real crime. There is no victim involved in insider trading. One of the key ideas in economics is that prices communicate information. Banning insider trading means prices don't fully discount the fundamentals of a company. Insider trading laws actually help perpetuate frauds. Disobeying immoral laws does not show a lack of character.

You are a product of America's poor job educating in math and science. And even worse, you are condescending. You are the perfect example of the high self esteem know-nothing that this country produces. "Tiger was lucky" in the context I described is a very reasonable statement to any non-math illiterate.

Played with them in college as well as played in the same tournament as them a number of times. I used them as examples because they both made Ryder Cup teams with Tiger. I highly doubt they are better than the average Ryder Cupper from the 70's. I doubt either one is better than Jerry Pate for instance. There were a lot of other very good players I played rounds with who were also rans like James Lepp, Parker Mclachlan, Josh Teater, Robert Hamilton, Tom Johnson. That should be a big enough sample size to at least be able to have perspective on this topic. The fields Tiger played against were better but marginally so. I don't think 18>14 on its own. It is the context around it. A golf career has a lot of randomness. Winning and losing is often very close. If you took Jack and Tiger's careers and ran each major tournament with their skill levels a thousand times in a Monte Carlo simulation , I think you would find 14 majors for Tiger is on the high end, meaning he was somewhat lucky over his career. He contended far fewer times and had an amazing conversion percentage when he was in the hunt. Whereas Jack had 19 seconds and 9 thirds. Jack had a much lower conversion percentage which means he was probably slightly unlucky relative to his skill level. So I don't view it as 18>14. I think it is more like 20>12 or maybe even as high as 22>10 It is similar to the debate on who had the better career Soros or Buffett. The correct is most likely Soros because Buffett made so few trades and was so right on the few he made that he probably was lucky relative to his skill level over his career. https://www.cnbc.com/id/35300031

Last I checked, Tom Watson lost in a playoff for the 2009 British Open. I strongly suspect Tom Watson isn't wondering if he would have had PGA Tour status if he played today. I watched an interview with Jack on Fox News a couple of months ago. He said he would have no problem in today's game. He did beat Tiger, Phil and Ernie at the 98 Masters after all. Not to mention he was paired with Faldo (who won) in the final round of the 90 Masters. I only know about that guy from reading about him in a golf magazine when I was 10. I know he seemed a little eccentric. I suspect he is prone to having non-standard opinions. I am not sure what tales he shared. I will search the site.

What? I guess your whole point is Vijay and Hale are equals as Seniors and Vijay has only two senior wins because the competition is so brutally tough now and Hale had 45 Senior wins because the competition was so bad? That is clearly wrong. 1. I am a very mediocre golfer. Very mediocre. 2. Feel free to confirm that the message I sent you includes evidence of competitive rounds beating said players. It would be a weird thing to make up. The only point is I have actually played with multiple generations of good players.

Hale was not on the Senior Tour when Jack was in his prime. I am talking about like 15-20 years ago in Tiger's prime. The whole point is even someone who was never at the very top in Jack's era like Hale would have near the top against the guys Tiger played against. Vijay is terrible now. Why would you compare Hale to Vijay? Hale at 55 was MUCH better than Vijay at 55. I have played competitively and casually with a number of tour winners from different eras. I consider myself terrible but I have beaten guys like Jeff Overton and JB Holmes in competitive rounds I have played with them. I have also played casually with duds like John Schroeder. I played with 78 year old Jack Fleck and he was still basically a tour player with less strength. He shot even par on 6800 course. The average level of play is better but not anywhere near to the degree people here think it is. The average player a generation ago was not some duck hooking dud.

Original post : And he burned bright for more than just a few years.

I said multiple times Tiger was better at his peak. Much better. Tiger dominated in a way Jack never did in both the quantity he won and the way he won. And he burned bright for more than just a few years. But he also stopped winning majors at age 32 while Jack won 10 after age 30. Sometimes the tortoise wins. Jack was just better at managing his life.