Fidelio

Randomly mentioning the 2002 Masters has nothing to do with anything. Why not pick the 2005 Masters? Why 2002? Weird. I would put Phil's career ahead of those people. I didn't say otherwise. Phil ranks higher for the same reason Jack ranks higher. He has been very good for a long time. I did say Watson was better at his peak than Phil. Watson was Player of the Year six times directly bumping up against Jack. Watson won 8 majors in a compressed time period. His last major was at age 33 just like Tiger's last major was at age 32.

Sure. The better equipment does hurt Tiger. It creates less separation between players. I never said otherwise. Are the top golfers better now? The top 10 are better than the top 10 a generation ago. But do you really think peak Phil was better than peak Tom Watson? I don't it is clear that Rory or Spieth are better than Tom Watson. At 59, he lost in a playoff at the British Open. I think peak Watson would probably be the Vegas favorite head to head over the three people I listed. Even going farther down the list. Hale Irwin well into his 50's was someone who legitimately could have played on US Ryder Cup teams. It is impossible to know for sure, but I can't see why peak Johnny Miller would not be at that top today or peak Seve.

1. Golf has many more good players. 2. Golf courses have not come close to keeping up with technology. How do I know this? I posted the example of Fred Couples hitting it 30 yards farther at 50 than he did earlier in his career. Or I can use myself as an example. I was a marginal college golfer who as basically a fourth and fifth man. Yet my stroke average was better than guys who played in the 80s and then went on to play and win on the PGA Tour. Even guys in the late 90s had high stroke averages. The conclusion on this board would be the players are just so much better today and the guys in the 80's and even 90s just sucked. The reality is that just isn't true though. Equipment has made the game much easier.

I'll assume what you said is true. What does that have to do with anything? The 6 guys behind Jack in 1986 had 19 majors. If you extend it one more place there were 23 majors right behind him. I don't even know what that means. It doesn't help or hurt the case for Tiger or Jack.

Calls Wally Goodwin "Wally Goodman" and proceeded to make the error numerous. I like how Tiger's "letter" that they got their hands on that is supposedly addressed to Coach Goodman. Pretty egregious error.

There hasn't been a good argument to refute the point that Jack has more top 3's than Tiger has top 10s in majors and almost many top 3s as Tiger has top 25s? You get judged on everything but most people weight majors the heaviest. Jack's entire body of work - with emphasis on major wins plus top finishes adjusting for field strength- surpasses Tiger's body of work. The only arguments I see are 1. Variations on Ricky Bobby "If you ain't first you're last." (that's the sports radio argument) I don't agree. Greg Norman and Phil were top players and all of their seconds in majors count. Greg Norman and Ben Crenshaw have similar win totals and majors. Ben Crenshaw isn't in the same stratosphere as Greg Norman though, because of all of Greg's top finishes. 2. "Finishing last in a modern major is like contending in a major in Jack's era" (that was only one person but obviously ridiculous) That is variation on overrating how tough fields are today. 3. "Majors only became majors like 20 years ago or something" (clearly wrong. Jack built his schedule around majors. Sure the British Open was weaker. It still had a tough field and was considered a major by everyone.)

Why would you use entire career? Jack missed a lot cuts as an old man? Why not compare missed cuts and wins vs age? Tiger is 42. So compare Jack up through 42. Total missed cuts as a professional Nicklaus through age 42= 4 (I counted three earlier but it is 4) Tiger missed cuts -6 (and has 3 more majors to go as a 42 year old and he missed 14 tournaments) Jack's first winless year on tour was age 39. He was also winless at age 41. Tiger has been winless 6 times and has to win once these year to not make it 7. As far as field strength, the difference in field strength in and of itself isn't a deciding factor on who is better. It only matters as an adjustment to records. Ben Curtis and KJ Choi played in tougher fields than Jack. They aren't better. When I make an adjustment for field strength, I still think Jack has a better record. The point of listing top 25 finishes wasn't to make the case that Jack had a zillion top 25 (though he did and it does matter) but to point out that Jack had almost as many top 3s as Tiger has top 25s.

Most people would take finishing last to mean 156th but it doesn't change anything. A person who makes the cut and finishes 65th in 2018 is not like finishing 5th in 1962, There is no point in arguing. It is like saying 9-11 was a government conspiracy. Just because people have opinions doesn't mean they are worth taking seriously. Not that week they weren't.

Sure, you could argue that. It just means that you don't deserve to have an opinion.

What's more impressive winning the 1962 US Open or finishing last at the 2018 US Open?

Sure. There are a lot of bad arguments made in favor of Jack. I see people saying Bill Casper and Arnold and Johnny Miller were better than Tiger's competition. I don't agree. I would take Phil, Ernie, and Vijay every day of the week plus the fields are deeper. (I would take the Tom Watson Jack played against over Phil, Ernie, and Vijay though). But these bad arguments cut both ways. When I post Jack has almost as many Top 3s as Tiger has top 25s, that is devastating. That is a tough argument to overcome. Instead of acknowledging that it is a great argument, even if you think Tiger is best and want to point out the arguments for Tiger, I noticed there is no response other than some variation of sports talk radio barker "You ain't first ur last" or just repeating the irrelevant tougher field argument. There isn't even an acknowledgement that it is reasonable to say Jack belongs ahead of Tiger based on his major record.

Tiger was better. Vegas would have prime Tiger as a prohibitive favorite vs prime Jack. That has little to nothing do with with who the greatest golfer. A fund manager doesn't get to throw out their bad years. Tiger has 6 winless years vs 2 for Jack at this point. Tiger missed twice as many cuts in majors and would have missed more had he not sat out so many tournaments. Tiger's last major was at age 32. Jack won 10 majors after age 30. Jack also had 8 senior majors. Here are the TKO stats. Tiger faced tougher fields. So what? Tougher and deeper fields would matter if their accomplishments were close. They aren't. Jack almost has as many top 3's as Tiger has top 25s. Jack top 3s- 46 Tiger - 24 Jack top 5's- 56 Tiger- 31 Jack Top 10's-73 Tiger -38 Jack Top 25's -95 Tiger- 55 It is conceivable to believe 18 >14 and 11< 9 or 8 based on the gap in field strength from the early the early 1900s to the 70's being so much larger than the gap in the field strength from the 70's to 90's. The magnitude of the gap is what matters not that there is a gap.

That's a pretty terrible analogy. I think Jack belongs ahead of Tiger. I DON'T think 18 is unequivocally better than 14. That said, if someone does think 18 > 14. it does not logically follow that Hagen's 11 is ahead of Watson. Context matters with everything. You could very easily (and correctly) assume the jump in talent was much larger between the early 1900's and 1970-80s than the jump between the 70-80s and the 90-00s. That isn't a double standard.

Oh. Ok I'll help you out. I don't how to directly quote so I'll just cut and paste. ME: "Where are you getting that? No. Actually Jack doesn't agree. What you said is completely false. Jack was charitable and said there is little difference in iron play. Jack has said he was better driver on multiple occasions. I can't believe you won't even concede driving." YOU: From interviewing him nearly every year for the past decade plus. And thus, not false at all. Your response would indicate that you accepted my premise. Even then, you said they were close off the tee in prior posts, which they aren't. Also, I am still waiting on that interview with Jack.

"You also exhibit a very common fault of Jack apologists, namely asserting that he was the best player on tour almost every year. He wasn't. He was very good for a very long time, but there were IMO only five years when he was clearly the best player on tour. Let's look at the six years you claim he should have won POY. " No person with an IQ over 85 would interpret what I said as saying he SHOULD have won EVERY year from 1962 to 1967. Saying someone COULD have won, meaning conceivable, is not the same as SHOULD. Big difference. And then you said I asserted he was best player on tour almost every year when in fact I believe the total opposite. I believe Jack was not the number one player for most of his career.

You had to play 80 rounds. Did Jack play 20 tournaments most years? Secondly, you used absolute scores. "Tiger Woods, in an era with a scoring average nearly a full 2 strokes lower than Jack's career" Finally, the current number is adjusted based on the average score of the field. Playing a schedule tilted toward majors would penalize an absolute number in Jack's era. Edit: I see someone else just made the same post on the number of rounds.

Jack played a limited schedule focused on majors. That number wasn't adjusted. Majors are played on more difficult courses. That should have been an easy one. Pro tip: If some data point is an outlier, maybe check the premises. Also, Fred Couples in 1982 averaged 268 yards off the tee. Fred Couples averaged 298 yards his last year on tour. Relative stroke averages between eras are far more useful than absolute numbers.

Yes. I don't see anything in there that would suggest I believe he should have won it every year. He should have won more than 0 times in that time period and it makes POY a poor measure between the two. Using the results of subjective opinions when there is so many objective data points doesn't make much sense.

Yes. It is my opinion. I didn't say it has to be anyone else's view. I just think it is the most reasonable view. I don't see why you think your opinion is worth more. I noticed you pointed out the opinions of others are factually wrong on opinion issues that are settled by most people. I agreed with you every time you did it because people who argue for Jack make some very bad arguments. But I'll turn it on its head. You said Tiger is a better driver than Jack. That is just "factually" wrong. There is nothing to support that view. There was a survey of the top 100 teachers that said Jack was number 2 behind Norman. The stats back up the view that Jack was far superior. But you are so unreasonable you won't even concede even the most obvious things Jack is superior on. No reasonable person thinks Tiger is in the same ballpark off the tee. Jack was longer (if you adjust for equipment using the driver stats of people like Fred Couple who played at the same time as Jack and still plays today) and straighter. And btw, where are those quotes from Jack saying Tiger was a better driver and iron player? You said you interviewed him. You said Jack made those statements. Please point to that publication with those quotes. That is quite a scoop. It contradicts every other public statement. I am very interested to see them. I'm sure you have got them handy.

Nicklaus is correct. But Nicklaus also says the top players in his era were better (which I don't agree with). That Tom Watson's was better in the stretch that he competed against Nicklaus than Phil, Vijay, or Ernie against Tiger.

I went to the first comment 2827. It took me forever and it wasn't your comment. Either way, I have never made the case for Jack's dominance and I have never said Tiger didn't face deeper fields where more people could randomly beat him on any week. Jack wasn't dominant. Hogan was more dominant. Watson may have been as dominant as Jack. I don't view that as anything. I view a golf career as one long round of golf. That's how I would evaluate any other profession. The whole body of work is what matters not just the best years. Jack has 46 top 3's in majors. Tiger only has 38 top 10's. In fact that is the deciding factor in the debate. I equate 18 and 14 as about the same, maybe even a slight edge to Tiger. Top finishes count for a lot. Finishing t-20 is no the same finishing t-2. Jack's record is so much better overall in majors because he played well for so long.

Gee. Thanks for that great explanation. Very helpful comment. I didn't know. That adds a lot to the discussion. The breakdown of the Masters that looks at the Masters makes a useful comparison when adjusting for fields, even if the conclusions that should be drawn aren't quite right. close enough because relative scores are what matter.) http://www.golfwrx.com/126704/tiger-vs-jack-a-definitive-answer/

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm................ Ugghhhhhhhhhhh...................... Ummmmmm Because YOU brought it up. And literally whole point of the response was point out that it is not a good way to measure the differences. Geez.

I am not a Jack apologist. I never made any assertion that Jack was the best player almost every year. I believe just the opposite and a careful reading of my posts would lead you to that conclusion. Jack being consistently number one or dominant is not an argument I made for him. I never made any claim Jack should have won the POY those 6 years. I said COULD have and the point was the POY is very subjective and probably tilted against Jack his first few years. Try making less dishonest arguments.

"You’re calling posters who disagree with you, “cultists”" My post is not calling people who disagree with me cultists and it is not referring to any specific person. Apology accepted for calling me a liar. Instead of calling you dishonest, I'll just make the assumption you didn't spend the 30 seconds to look through the posts.