Fidelio

I just re-read what I said. It is clear. And it is very benign.

Nope. I didn't actually. Never happened.

I certainly did not call you a name and there is nothing inappropriate about the way I phrased that sentence. It certainly doesn't debase discourse in any way. For some reason I can't find those quotes where he says Tiger was a better driver and iron player. I have no problem finding quotes with Jack saying otherwise.

Nope. Even when you adjust for field strength. It should have been obvious that's meant. Jack still more consistent. Here is an article that was well researched (though I disagree on the interpretation of many of his stats) looking at Augusta that concludes Tiger has the edge in the the prime years. But also points out http://www.golfwrx.com/126704/tiger-vs-jack-a-definitive-answer/ "Also, it shows that Jack would hypothetically finish in the top-10 and top-2 more consistently than Tiger, when compared to the 17-year averages. It does prove, however, that Tiger shot lower scores than Jack on a more frequent basis (because he shot lower than 277 five times compared to Jack’s three)."

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. That much I think you would get most Tiger cultists to agree on. The stats are pretty clear on driving. Jack was a better driver (long and straight) in his FORTIES than prime Tiger.

I don't see anything you posted that addresses Jack. I don't know why you would throw out years. Tiger was a good driver in his best years. But never to close Jack. They only kept ball striking stats once in the prime of Jack's career and it was Jack's worst year in his career up to that point. Jack lead in driving distance and he lead in GIR by a huge margin. When they started keeping stats in 1980, Jack was near the top in distance and accuracy at age 40 and lead in total driving with a number no one has ever come close to. And I gave a very specific reason for that. The best example is 1963. Jack won the Masters and PGA and finished 3rd in the British. Julius Boros was POY that year. He only had 1 major. Boros only won three tournaments that year.

Tiger was a more dominant player and certainly a superior player in his prime. Nobody disagrees. That Player of the Year award is not a good a measure though. Jack didn't win a Player of the Year award until his sixth year on tour even though he could have won it every year up to that point. Jack won two majors in 1963 and wasn't player of the year. He won the money title in 64 and 65 but no player of the year. Jack was a more consistently good player in majors. There have been people who have done analytics on this.

Jack was a superior ball striker, which is why he had more consistent record than Tiger. (Does anyone disagree with that?) You could maybe say Tiger and Jack were similar with iron play (though Jack was statistically superior in GIR). But even Tiger's best driving years when he won the Grand Slam were not as good as 40 year old Jack in 1980 when that was first measured. Tee to green Jack is the clear favorite. On and around the greens Tiger is clearly better. Ball striking is a more consistent stat than putting.

Right. I used top 10 as the metric to be on safe ground. Simple fact Jack: 37 top 2s. Tiger: 38 top 10s. Lot of margin of safety in that stat to say Jack had the best career.

Name one fact that I listed that wasn't true. Please do. You keep bringing up this strength of field thing. Literally, the very first sentence I posted after I created an account implies I believe the fields are deeper and tougher today. THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE addresses that argument.

Ummmm... Right. Fields were weaker in Jack's era. That post implies I believe that and my subsequent posts explicitly state that. Maybe try one more re-read.

Sorry I stopped reading your post after the very first thing you said. Your post is the equivalent when people said Joe Montana is better because he is 4-0 in Super Bowls and Tom Brady was 4-2. It is nonsensical. Actually finishing second in major is not the same as finishing 20th. The fields were not so weak that a 3rd place finish would be out of the top 10 in the modern era. There is no analytic you can show otherwise. So third in Jack's is better than 10th in Tiger's era.

The fields are of course not as deep. But the problem is the fields aren't so weak that a third place finish in 1970 is like finishing out of the top 10 today. I even put 14 majors in Tiger's era on the same plane as 18 majors in Jack's era. But the simple reality is Tiger has 38 top 10s in majors. Jack has 37 top 2s. That settles it. Scoreboard. Ballgame. Jack. And it isn't close.

Jack has more top 3s than Tiger has top 10s in majors. That settles the depth of field argument in Jack's favor. And it wasn't like Jack was facing duck hooking duds. Tom Watson was runner up at the 2009 British Open. Jack had a chance to win the Masters at 58. Jack even won 8 Senior Majors. It is absolutely bonkers to put Tiger ahead of Jack. Also worth noting almost 30 of the tournaments Tiger won were limited field events vs 7 for Jack. That really cripples the deep field argument. But even then, you get measured on majors and Jack's record is so much better that I don't see this as a debatable topic.