|
Post by hershalcrustofsk on Apr 15, 2019 20:17:00 GMT -5
Seems like a good time to fire up the debate. Who do you have, Tiger or Jack?
Jack still has the majors record and believe he will keep it. Just don’t know if Tiger with all the health issues has it in him to pull it off. This year will be critical with some courses he’s had good results at on the major schedule. Jack also has an obscene amount of 2nd place finishes in majors and was an unbelievable example of consistency, plus 73 tour wins isn’t too shabby.
As great as Jack was I still believe Tiger though. Tiger has 81 (I believe) tour wins, 15 majors and dominated the game unlike anyone before or after him. He transcended the game and is the biggest reason there are so many great players today. He won tournaments in ways we’ve never seen before, and was unstoppable for a significant period of time. Without the personal and health issues, I don’t even think it would be a discussion. But they did happen and they were his doing (the personal at least), so that certainly leaves the door open for discussion. Being someone who makes their living in the world of golf, I can honestly say Tigers success and his growth of the game has personally benefited me among many others in the golf biz, so I may be a little bias.
Interested to hear everyone’s 2 cents on this one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2019 20:56:23 GMT -5
Tiger now, Jack last week.
Won’t elaborate, someone will no doubt get pissy and report me to admin, again...
|
|
|
Post by TheDominator273 on Apr 15, 2019 21:02:04 GMT -5
Tiger, the way he impacted the game is unlike anyone else ever has will or can. His dominance of his era, the way he made golf cool to the casual fan and to young athletes, the way he destroyed courses and forced them to "Tiger proof" came at the perfect time for advancement in golf club technology and he was the face of the new age of golf fueled by distance.
|
|
|
Post by Irving R. Levine on Apr 15, 2019 22:33:41 GMT -5
Jack until Tiger gets to 19.
|
|
|
Post by mrohde4 on Apr 15, 2019 22:51:39 GMT -5
Tiger changed the entire sport. He transcends the game. The greatest ever, hands down.
|
|
|
Post by linkslover on Apr 16, 2019 6:37:33 GMT -5
Impossible to say.
Different eras, different equipment, different knowledge in terms of science, psychology, green keeping and so on.
And what about Bobby Jones? The only man to win a true grand slam in 1930 when he won The Open Championship, The U.S. Open, the Amateur Championship and the U.S. Amateur - the four majors of the time. The Masters was still 4 years from being born while the USPGA is believed to have not got major status until 1960.
|
|
|
Post by paulus on Apr 16, 2019 6:45:50 GMT -5
If it's limited to the actual sport, then Jack, obviously. If it's a wider debate around impact on the sport & beyond, then there is an argument for Tiger.
But to be called the GOAT - it should just be about the sporting achievements only. Irving has it bang on - when Tiger hits 19, he can claim the monicker. Until then he's the 2nd GOAT.
|
|
|
Post by paulus on Apr 16, 2019 7:03:26 GMT -5
As great as Jack was I still believe Tiger though. Tiger has 81 (I believe) tour wins, 15 majors and dominated the game unlike anyone before or after him.I don't think this is true. Jack’s contemporaries included Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Tom Watson and Lee Trevino, each of whom won six or more majors. Tiger’s biggest rival during his golden period was Phil Mickelson - a man Tiger pretty much had in his pocket on major Sunday's. Phil won five majors but none with Tiger in the picture. Aside from him, there are just two other players with three major wins during the Tiger golden era: Ernie Els and Vijay Singh. The evidence suggests Tiger was beating up on inferior competition.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2019 7:11:05 GMT -5
I am used to recency bias as it applies towards investing, but here I see it in the Tiger camp. He has probably the most dominant year ever (2000), but I'll take Jack's total body of work over Tiger at this point. Tiger isn't going to sniff 37 top 2's in his Major career by the time he is done.
|
|
|
Post by paulus on Apr 16, 2019 7:36:26 GMT -5
Great point about recency bias Bob. It’s a large factor in these sorts of debates. We generally judge recent events that occurred in our lifetimes or have personally witnessed as carrying more significance than historical events that occurred before our time or that we didn’t see.
It’s why top100 songs of all time lists often contain a Justin Bieber, Maroon 5 or some other monstrosity in them. They just happen to be (inexplicably) popular right now.
To remove recency bias from your judgement, rely on the stats. Ergo, Jack is still no.1...... atm.
|
|
|
Post by AFCTUJacko on Apr 16, 2019 7:42:19 GMT -5
I agree with paulus . Off the course Tiger's influence is greater. On the course Jack's achievements are greater (both in terms of sheer numbers and the people he had to beat to achieve them)
Tiger's is a great comeback story but it's been forgotten that much of what he went through in the 11 years between his major wins was self inflicted. And not just the off the course stuff.
His swing during his dominant period did him long lasting physical damage. Had he played/practiced a little bit more within himself during that time I think he'd have got to 18 majors long before now. He's lost a big chunk if his career to injuries that could have been avoided.
It sounds bizarre but given he got to 14 majors at the age of 32 you could argue he's underachieved overall to this point. We wouldn't be having this discussion if Woods had truly fulfilled that potential. It wouldn't be in any doubt.
|
|
|
Post by Ashton Fox on Apr 16, 2019 10:29:05 GMT -5
Tiger. Plain and simple. What he's done for the game and how much he has won compares to none. I don't even care about majors as to me, winning is winning. Tiger is now having to win against the monsters he has created.
|
|
|
Post by paulus on Apr 16, 2019 10:56:42 GMT -5
Tiger [...] how much he has won compares to none. Jack : 18 Majors + 73 Tour Wins Tiger: 15 Majors + 81 Tour Wins Factor in the fact that Jack never had the oppurtunity to play small field events like the WGC or FedEx where the chances of winning are greater. The two are totally comparable.
|
|
|
Post by Ashton Fox on Apr 16, 2019 11:09:41 GMT -5
Tiger [...] how much he has won compares to none. Jack : 18 Majors + 73 Tour Wins Tiger: 15 Majors + 81 Tour Wins Factor in the fact that Jack never had the oppurtunity to play small field events like the WGC or FedEx where the chances of winning are greater. The two are totally comparable. Those smaller events would be arguably tougher to win than majors because they are the best of the best that season usually playing their best. Anyone that thinks Nicklaus is better than Tiger is usually north of age 45, loves Ohio State, or doesn't feel "a black man should dominate a white man's game". This isn't throwing shade on any person in this discussion but rather an observation that I've gathered from discussions I've had and things I've read.
|
|
|
Post by csugolfer60 on Apr 16, 2019 11:15:22 GMT -5
Jack : 18 Majors + 73 Tour Wins Tiger: 15 Majors + 81 Tour Wins Factor in the fact that Jack never had the oppurtunity to play small field events like the WGC or FedEx where the chances of winning are greater. The two are totally comparable. Those smaller events would be arguably tougher to win than majors because they are the best of the best that season usually playing their best. Anyone that thinks Nicklaus is better than Tiger is usually north of age 45, loves Ohio State, or doesn't feel "a black man should dominate a white man's game". This isn't throwing shade on any person in this discussion but rather an observation that I've gathered from discussions I've had and things I've read. Yeah it is worth noting that Jack won most of his events before non-Caucasian people were allowed to compete. And most of his competition had cigarettes for breakfast.
|
|