Tiger vs. Jack

[Shilgy]

4 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

If the leaderboards don't care then we just add up the leaderboards from all those majors!

 

The 90s was simply a lull between two other worldly golfers, IMO. 

 

Just giving the merry go round another shove!

No one thought of Couples Love Price Norman Faldo Langer  Els Mickelson Stewart Lehman Azinger as a lull at the time.

[csh19792001]

On 1/25/2021 at 7:00 PM, bscinstnct said:

 

*From 1962-1973, non-US golfers won 9 of the 44 Majors played. 
 

20%

Not one non-US player won the Masters.

 

 

 

*From 1999-2010, non-US golfers won 20 out of the 44 Majors played. 
 

45%

 

5 non-US players won the Masters
 

 

You can’t compare the talent pools of Jacks day to TWs.

 

Hey, somebody should send this info to Brandel, he might appreciate it ; )

 

 

 

 

 

I'm of awe of Tiger's fields, but frankly, the players he finished runner up to in Majors, and vice versa, did not do well at ALL compared to Jack's.

 

I'm looking into final round scoring averages for both. 

Edited January 27, 2021 by csh19792001

[Hawkeye77]

8 hours ago, Shilgy said:

No one thought of Couples Love Price Norman Faldo Langer  Els Mickelson Stewart Lehman Azinger as a lull at the time.

LOL, I enjoyed golf immensely in the 90s (but Lehman? Love? Couples? Azinger? - enjoyed them also, but not my idea of HOF-ers, though Freddie was perceived as "cool").  Phil?  Didn't win a major until 2004, was still a preppie late 90s.  Some great Ryder Cups in there, but in general golf was getting a little ho hum and needed Tiger to come along, IMO.  So I'd say lull  -- not a lot of golf "buzz" and the Tour was not at all energizing as a "product".  Norman late 80s, early 90s was probably the biggest needle mover and loved watching him.

 

Hey, I loved getting the then version of Golfweek which was a gigantic, almost trade paper looking thing, and devoured scores from all ranks from everywhere -- I was mad when it went to a traditional magazine size.  But kind of like folks here, I was the exception in a way, not the rule as far as a typical golf fan was concerned back then. 

 

 

[Shilgy]

4 hours ago, csh19792001 said:

 

I'm of awe of Tiger's fields, but frankly, the players he finished runner up to in Majors, and vice versa, did not do well at ALL compared to Jack's.

 

I'm looking into final round scoring averages for both. 

 

1 hour ago, Hawkeye77 said:

LOL, I enjoyed golf immensely in the 90s (but Lehman? Love? Couples? Azinger? - enjoyed them also, but not my idea of HOF-ers, though Freddie was perceived as "cool").  Phil?  Didn't win a major until 2004, was still a preppie late 90s.  Some great Ryder Cups in there, but in general golf was getting a little ho hum and needed Tiger to come along, IMO.  So I'd say lull  -- not a lot of golf "buzz" and the Tour was not at all energizing as a "product".  Norman late 80s, early 90s was probably the biggest needle mover and loved watching him.

 

Hey, I loved getting the then version of Golfweek which was a gigantic, almost trade paper looking thing, and devoured scores from all ranks from everywhere -- I was mad when it went to a traditional magazine size.  But kind of like folks here, I was the exception in a way, not the rule as far as a typical golf fan was concerned back then. 

 

 

That is the point though, is it not? In 1912 there were three greats born the same year. And largely due to the influence of two world wars just the three of them dominated golf starting in the late 30’s. To the point where the three of them are in the top six in all time tour wins(even though one retired in his 30’s and the other had a major accident that reduced his schedule). Then travel became a little bit easier and the post war golf boom started and there were a dozen at most, instead of just three, taking a share of the spoils. Then in the late 80’s or so world travel became much easier to the point where many players from the far reaches of the world played the US tour regularly. And wins began being spread out amongst many many more players. That is the effect depth has in golf.

Edited January 27, 2021 by Shilgy

[Hawkeye77]

I'm not responding to anything from or directed at the OP, but @Shilgy I understand the effect all the various things that have made fields bigger and all of the depth of field arguments, etc.  Still reduces to two overwhelmingly dominant and unique players since 1962 - Jack and Tiger.  Take your pick. Jack's my favorite, I pick him and can defend it. Someone picks Tiger, easy to defend, I don't care.  What I object to, and not directed at you, is the attempt by some to somehow diminish Nicklaus' accomplishments because the fields were allegedly weaker and on and on.  Different eras, different circumstances.  Enjoy each of them for what they accomplished.

Edited January 27, 2021 by Hawkeye77

[Hawkeye77]

Golf was so big in the 80s it resorted to this for some publicity, lol.  Other than Norman - Caldwell, Fergus, Jacobsen, etc. the standard bearers! That may be Payne in there, though!

 

 

Edited January 27, 2021 by Hawkeye77

[csh19792001]

6 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

That is the effect depth has in golf.

 

I don't disagree with you at all here.

 

What is a counterpoint, of course, however, is.....how did an Era where fields were drastically deeper and stronger than the past allow someone to win well over 30% of his starts, for over a decade? 

[Ferguson]

Adding the ERA vs. ERA discussion. 

 

Good applicable  article written by Mike Lynch, circa 2013  

 

 

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1687496-the-myth-of-deeper-pga-tour-fields-during-tiger-woods-era

 

 

"If PGA Tour fields in the modern era of golf are so much deeper than they were in the Nicklaus era, the numbers would show it.  What the numbers show is that the number of golfers winning now is virtually the same.  Deeper fields should be producing more winners, but it's clear that is not what's occurring.  It's logical to conclude that the depths of today's tournament fields are being overrated."

 

 

 

 

The last line is best argued by James Mason,

 

"It's logical to conclude that the depths of today's tournament fields are being overrated."

 

 

[bscinstnct]

36 minutes ago, Ferguson said:

Adding the ERA vs. ERA discussion. 

 

Good applicable  article written by Mike Lynch, circa 2013  

 

 

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1687496-the-myth-of-deeper-pga-tour-fields-during-tiger-woods-era

 

 

"If PGA Tour fields in the modern era of golf are so much deeper than they were in the Nicklaus era, the numbers would show it.  What the numbers show is that the number of golfers winning now is virtually the same.  Deeper fields should be producing more winners, but it's clear that is not what's occurring.  It's logical to conclude that the depths of today's tournament fields are being overrated."

 

 

 

 

The last line is best argued by James Mason,

 

"It's logical to conclude that the depths of today's tournament fields are being overrated."

 

 

Thats a very good argument!

 

But it’s contradicted by how many runner up and top 5/top 10 finishes that Jack and a small handful of golfers had. 
 

If it’s harder to win, it should also be harder to place top 10

 

Still interesting.

 

 

 

 

During those years, Jack had 42 wins and TW had 59. So, that’s 25% more wins TW took off the table for other guys to win than Jack did.

Edited January 27, 2021 by bscinstnct

[Hawkeye77]

1 hour ago, Ferguson said:

Adding the ERA vs. ERA discussion. 

 

Good applicable  article written by Mike Lynch, circa 2013  

 

 

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1687496-the-myth-of-deeper-pga-tour-fields-during-tiger-woods-era

 

 

"If PGA Tour fields in the modern era of golf are so much deeper than they were in the Nicklaus era, the numbers would show it.  What the numbers show is that the number of golfers winning now is virtually the same.  Deeper fields should be producing more winners, but it's clear that is not what's occurring.  It's logical to conclude that the depths of today's tournament fields are being overrated."

 

 

 

 

The last line is best argued by James Mason,

 

"It's logical to conclude that the depths of today's tournament fields are being overrated."

 

 

Love it!  Probably had his friends at GBH run a piece! Mason was evil but played it so well you kind of rooted for him also, lol.

Edited January 27, 2021 by Hawkeye77

[Hawkeye77]

1 hour ago, bscinstnct said:

Thats a very good argument!

 

But it’s contradicted by how many runner up and top 5/top 10 finishes that Jack and a small handful of golfers had. 
 

If it’s harder to win, it should also be harder to place top 10

 

Still interesting.

 

 

 

 

During those years, Jack had 42 wins and TW had 59. So, that’s 25% more wins TW took off the table for other guys to win than Jack did.

Or is it that Jack was just so good?  Haha, couldn't resist.  I enjoy my Saturday and Sunday Hallmark M&M Columbo reruns!

[Shilgy]

8 hours ago, csh19792001 said:

 

I don't disagree with you at all here.

 

What is a counterpoint, of course, however, is.....how did an Era where fields were drastically deeper and stronger than the past allow someone to win well over 30% of his starts, for over a decade? 

He was pretty good would be my guess.

Edited January 28, 2021 by Shilgy

[Christosterone]

FYI to everyone with short memories....

both jack and Tiger played against a murderers row week in, week out...their entire careers

And both kicked everyone’s teeth in over their career

 

Jack AND Tiger are the best...put them in whatever order u want...both answers are right

 

 

 

 

[Shilgy]

9 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

I'm not responding to anything from or directed at the OP, but @Shilgy I understand the effect all the various things that have made fields bigger and all of the depth of field arguments, etc.  Still reduces to two overwhelmingly dominant and unique players since 1962 - Jack and Tiger.  Take your pick. Jack's my favorite, I pick him and can defend it. Someone picks Tiger, easy to defend, I don't care.  What I object to, and not directed at you, is the attempt by some to somehow diminish Nicklaus' accomplishments because the fields were allegedly weaker and on and on.  Different eras, different circumstances.  Enjoy each of them for what they accomplished.

I always try to not diminish prior feats. That said it is difficult not to at times. Intentionally or not. Do I think Hogan Nelson Snead were great golfers? Yes I do. Do I believe their accomplishments were enhanced by the era they played in. Well yes I do. So is that an attempt to diminish what they did?  Not intentionally but that certainly is a result.

  in other major sports we are constantly expanding the participation levels. We have gone from 6 NHL franchises for years to 31.  Does that mean it is more difficult to win a Stanley Cup now than it was for the original 6. I would think so. Does that diminish the Montreal Canadians achievements? Not really as the field  was smaller which reflected the smaller amount of participants available.

  But in golf? The available spots are still the same as about a century  go or so while the qualified number of participants has exploded. So is it more difficult now? Sounds like it to me.  A quandary for some as that really is saying the past was easier without meaning to diminish the past.

  Does anyone have issue somewhat diminishing the accomplishments of Willie Park Sr and Horace Rawlins?  The first Open and US Open winners won with fields of 8 and 11.  Most would say they had it easier because they faced fewer opponents. I would certainly say that. Same as I believe it has been a more or less continuously increased difficulty to win multiple times. The number of qualified participants has exploded but the available spots is the same. 
 

Sorry for being longwinded but that is as accurate as I can be with my belief on depth in sports. And golf in particular. 

Edited January 28, 2021 by Shilgy

[Hawkeye77]

Willie Park, Jr. designed a heck of a lot of great golf courses! 

[BNGL]

14 hours ago, csh19792001 said:

 

I'm of awe of Tiger's fields, but frankly, the players he finished runner up to in Majors, and vice versa, did not do well at ALL compared to Jack's.

 

I'm looking into final round scoring averages for both. 

[Wildwing55]

Jack is better.  Never hurt himself, physically, or mentally.

 

End of story.

 

Oh, Jack won more majors too.

[Ferguson]

The depth of field is variable week-to-week and therefore moot in a discussion about “all-time” that includes "all players."  

 

Individually, Jack and Tiger performed markedly better compared to the best players in their respective eras over a significant period of years and number of tournaments.  That means their skill and talent for winning was more linear when viewed against other players.  The “ depth of field” would only be relevant if the field was the same each week.  In other words, winning to these two guys was NOT defined or dependent on the field, as I believe Jack and Tiger had the brain matter and talent to perform at a higher level every single week when other players (no matter what the era) simply did not.

 

Jack won more majors compared to all players, not just Tiger. 

*Tiger won more tournaments compared to all players, not just Jack.

 

*Snead, tied

 

 

[disco111]

Depth of field has really no meaning to the final out come and here's why............Golf, as everyone here knows or yet should know, is an individual endeavor and there for rests solely on the shoulders of the one playing. If, repeat, if you can't bring it and maintain it for the duration of the competition, then you in all reasonable probability won't/can't win. As our esteemed Bon Vivant Ferguson so eloquently stated, both Jack and Tiger had the more talent and intestinal fortitude to perform at a higher level. 

[Ferguson]

2 hours ago, disco111 said:

Depth of field has really no meaning to the final out come and here's why............Golf, as everyone here knows or yet should know, is an individual endeavor and there for rests solely on the shoulders of the one playing. If, repeat, if you can't bring it and maintain it for the duration of the competition, then you in all reasonable probability won't/can't win. As our esteemed Bon Vivant Ferguson so eloquently stated, both Jack and Tiger had the more talent and intestinal fortitude to perform at a higher level. 

 

 

I owe it all to Tom Stanley and his  book, Networking with the Affluent and Their Advisors.

 

[Shilgy]

2 hours ago, disco111 said:

Depth of field has really no meaning to the final out come and here's why............Golf, as everyone here knows or yet should know, is an individual endeavor and there for rests solely on the shoulders of the one playing. If, repeat, if you can't bring it and maintain it for the duration of the competition, then you in all reasonable probability won't/can't win. As our esteemed Bon Vivant Ferguson so eloquently stated, both Jack and Tiger had the more talent and intestinal fortitude to perform at a higher level. 

Two different discussions going here. Not uncommon on wrx. One is Tiger vs Jack. The other is the strength of field each faced with some saying Jack faced more HOF worthy competitors.  If each era had one Jack or one Tiger and then one era had a half dozen next level players and the other had 20 it stands to reason the field  with 20 will have the wins not claimed by the big dog more spread out than the field with 6. 
Jack himself has stated he faced fewer quality players than the fields today but we can sit here and argue if it matters all winter long.

[Christosterone]

25 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Two different discussions going here. Not uncommon on wrx. One is Tiger vs Jack. The other is the strength of field each faced with some saying Jack faced more HOF worthy competitors.  If each era had one Jack or one Tiger and then one era had a half dozen next level players and the other had 20 it stands to reason the field  with 20 will have the wins not claimed by the big dog more spread out than the field with 6. 
Jack himself has stated he faced fewer quality players than the fields today but we can sit here and argue if it matters all winter long.

as I always say, jack burst on the scene at 21 in 1960...Tiger at 21 in 1997

 

we can only hope in 2034 we get another one...he is currently 6 or 7 years old

 

-chris 

 

-chris

[Forged4ever]

On 1/26/2021 at 10:16 PM, grm24 said:

Actually it's 55 out of 59 events that Tiger held/shared the lead after 54 holes on the PGA Tour.

 

https://www.pgatour.com/statsreport/2019/10/27/golf-numbers-tiger-woods-record-tying-82-pga-tour-wins.html

 I already knew that Jack & Tiger can't walk on water, however it took GRM to prove that neither does BI😂😂😂

 

Fairways & Greens 4ever My Friends⛳️
RP

Edited January 28, 2021 by Forged4ever

[bscinstnct]

14 minutes ago, Forged4ever said:

 I already knew that Jack & Tiger can't walk on water, however it took GRM to prove that neither does BI😂😂😂

 

Fairways & Greens 4ever My Friends⛳️
RP

 

Richard!

 

Im far from perfect but my numbers were accurate as, in my actual post, I cited TWs career through 2013 ; )

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/1641320-2000-us-open-victory.amp.html

[Ferguson]

2 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Two different discussions going here. Not uncommon on wrx. One is Tiger vs Jack. The other is the strength of field each faced with some saying Jack faced more HOF worthy competitors.  If each era had one Jack or one Tiger and then one era had a half dozen next level players and the other had 20 it stands to reason the field  with 20 will have the wins not claimed by the big dog more spread out than the field with 6. 
Jack himself has stated he faced fewer quality players than the fields today but we can sit here and argue if it matters all winter long.

 

You are interpreting Jack's comments as if they were spoken to be explanatory regarding his success.  Jack often bashed people without them knowing it.   He bashed people with his clubs and his comments.  

 

  

 

[Forged4ever]

2 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Richard!

 

Im far from perfect but my numbers were accurate as, in my actual post, I cited TWs career through 2013 ; )

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/1641320-2000-us-open-victory.amp.html

Nope, there's no one on the board who drops more accurate or relevant stats than you and while you may not be perfect, you occupy a space of which I am not familiar, lolol😜

 

Never minimize or downplay a compliment directed at ya, Brotha~ 

 

Either let it pass or just say thanks😉

 

In my eyes, you set the bar round these parts👊
 

Have a Great Weekend🍻

RP

Edited January 28, 2021 by Forged4ever

[00steven]

Tiger is the greatest golfer of all time. His peak was perhaps the greatest any athlete has dominated their sport.

[deadsolid...shank]

8 hours ago, 00steven said:

Tiger is the greatest golfer of all time. His peak was perhaps the greatest any athlete has dominated their sport.

I think the athlete that dominated his sport or event the most was Edwin Moses in the 400 hurdles. Not that that is really relevant to this discussion (although it might make for an interesting thread), but your comment just got me to thinking about dominant athletes of the past. 

[Hawkeye77]

5 hours ago, deadsolid...shank said:

I think the athlete that dominated his sport or event the most was Edwin Moses in the 400 hurdles. Not that that is really relevant to this discussion (although it might make for an interesting thread), but your comment just got me to thinking about dominant athletes of the past. 

That's a good one!  I went to the Drake Relays in '85 just for the heck of it and to see Danny Harris from, cough, ISU who was the heir apparent (Moses wasn't running but they had been 1, 2 at the Olympics).  He finally beat Moses a couple years after that, but there was nobody like Moses.

 

Dare I say Ali vs. Tyson?

 

Williams vs. Musial vs. Gwynn?

 

Pete Rose vs. Black Sox?

 

Rin Tin Tin vs. Bullet?

 

 

Edited January 29, 2021 by Hawkeye77

[bscinstnct]

25 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

That's a good one!  I went to the Drake Relays in '85 just for the heck of it and to see Danny Harris from, cough, ISU who was the heir apparent (Moses wasn't running but they had been 1, 2 at the Olympics).  He finally beat Moses a couple years after that, but there was nobody like Moses.

 

Dare I say Ali vs. Tyson?

 

Williams vs. Musial vs. Gwynn?

 

Pete Rose vs. Black Sox?

 

Rin Tin Tin vs. Bullet?

 

 

 

I would have loved to have seen Bob Gibson’s 1968 season, 1.12 ERA, 13 shutouts

 

Lawrence Taylor dominated more than any single player could do so in football

 

Tyson! I saw him in person once when he was 20 years old in NYC. He was just with 2 friends buying a hot dog, lol, in Papaya King. Hard to explain, he wasn’t physically huge, except his neck was like a tree trunk, but he emanated such an aura of pure power and violence that you got a little on edge just being around him. The high pitched voice made him even more scary 😂
 

I saw LT at a bar once, he gave off a similar vibe, but nothing like Tyson.