Greatest male player ever

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='LeoKal' timestamp='1374980158' post='7552886']
I just read a few pages of this debate and didn't see any reference to the one factor that separates the earlier eras in sports from today more than anything else, MONEY!!
[/quote]

Unless you're a Jack worshipper, career earnings is the only fair yardstick to judge players of different eras. The US dollar has been the standard for the world since Roman times.

107 million > 6 million, therefore Tiger is the GOAT. QED.

[tstephen]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1374981629' post='7553034']
[quote name='LeoKal' timestamp='1374980158' post='7552886']
I just read a few pages of this debate and didn't see any reference to the one factor that separates the earlier eras in sports from today more than anything else, MONEY!!
[/quote]

Unless you're a Jack worshipper, career earnings is the only fair yardstick to judge players of different eras. The US dollar has been the standard for the world since Roman times.

107 million > 6 million, therefore Tiger is the GOAT. QED.
[/quote]

No - that is just all the pharmaceutical dollars pouring into golf or I guess Bobby Jones is the worst of all time or WOAT.

[turtleback]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1374946447' post='7550248']
1963-1977 Jack was #1 in the world for 15 straight years. He was a threat to win at more majors than anyone at anytime in the history of the game. Jack has so out-performed Tiger in majors (by 60 percent) that it is laughable. If it is OK for the Tiger supporters to have their theories using probability to show the strength of modern fields over its use in betting than that just seems like a stupid use of math. I guess sarcasm is something that Tiger's clan is totally clueless with in regards to the recent activity comment. Jack dominated the field in the 1980 PGA by 7 strokes and in the 1980 US Open beat #3 in the world Aoki in a great classic battle. Does Tiger even have anything close to that in his future or when he reaches 40? I seriously don't think so. But then again, with the talent pool probability theory, he will be lucky just to make any cut in majors by the time he reaches 40.
[/quote]

Apparently you do not understand what the words [b]specific years[/b] means. Or you are just being coy as you use the reverse fallacy of composition. Because you realize that your argument cannot stand, if you answer the question.

[turtleback]

[quote name='LeoKal' timestamp='1374980158' post='7552886']
I just read a few pages of this debate and didn't see any reference to the one factor that separates the earlier eras in sports from today more than anything else, MONEY!!
[/quote]

A point that Jack dealt with in his 1996 autobiography.

[quote]“Except for the Masters, the biggest purse on the tour in my first year as a professional in 1962 was the Thunderbird Classic’s $100,000, with most tournaments offering between one-third and one-half that amount, to be divided between thirty-five to forty players. Win and you generally took home between $5,000 and $9,000. Finish last and you hardly made the bus fare to the next event – usually well under $100.”

“Thirty-four years later, in 1996, the average purse on tour was $1,400,000, with highs of $3,000,000 (Players and Tour Championship).” [note: and this factor has increased way beyond what Jack saw in 1996 - the 2013 Players, for example, had a total purse of $9,500,000 more than 3 times the number Jack was talking about]

“In evaluating these numbers, consider if you will how many more contenders your business would have attracted, and how much more competitive it would have become, given comparably huge increases in financial incentive over the same time span. By then imagining how much harder it would have become for you to remain a market dominator, you will get a sense what it takes to become a dominating golf champion as we approach the second millennium.”[/quote]

He said that in any sport an infusion of more money results in an increase in the playing pool, and an increase in competition. And he used this as one of the reasons (along with improved equipment that makes it harder for the best to separate themselves) that he believed that the age of the superstar in golf was over.

And then Tiger came along, and swimming against the tide of these factors that Jack said would prevent someone from reaching superstardom in golf, he proved to be the most dominant player the game had ever seen for 14 years (1996 to 2009). And in 2013 is still more dominant than all but the best of Jack's years.

And let's give Phil a little love here too as he has clearly established himself as one of the all time superstars in golf.

[tstephen]

You don't have a clue and once again another Tiger guy comes off as the greatest comedian next to Melissa McCarthy and has me rolling on the ground in laughter. PHIL MICKELSON IS POTY right now so how is Tiger dominant? At the very least Phil is World Player of The Year and I hope you do know that the British Open does go for a win on the PGA Tour and is this thing called a major. I thought I would mention the PGA tour thing since I know Tiger fans like to double count tournaments that are wins for both tours. Also Brock will be proud of me for going with the POTY thing.

[jons1]

The professionals that are actually competing in these events have lives, other priorities in life, and even lose interest in the competition or drive to practice over time. You can't ever really compare players of different eras because there are way too many factors outside of golf like family, business, desire, opportunities, war times and public service, etc, and inside of golf like the competition, the courses, the equipment, the ability to easily travel, the money, etc.

Jones was the Vardon of his era
Jack was the Jones of his era
Tiger is the Jack of his era
and so it will continue

[tstephen]

I just hope The Players does not become a major taking away The Grand Slam. This first happened on The Champions Tour and now the LPGA where nobody is going to know what to call what Inbee Park is doing other than 4 consecutive majors in the same year and even worse what if she does not win this week but then wins The Evian Masters? The future of golf might have 7 or 8 majors and will make my argument obsolete. I think the Tiger guys already think the WGCs are majors.

[Hardluckster]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375033354' post='7555320']
I just hope The Players does not become a major taking away The Grand Slam. This first happened on The Champions Tour and now the LPGA where nobody is going to know what to call what Inbee Park is doing other than 4 consecutive majors in the same year and even worse what if she does not win this week but then wins The Evian Masters? The future of golf might have 7 or 8 majors and will make my argument obsolete. I think the Tiger guys already think the WGCs are majors.
[/quote]

What does it really matter if your argument becomes obsolete? All of the GOAT arguments and positions in this thread are pure supposition and conjecture anyway. There will never be a 'definitive argument' for comparing players across the eras.

And at the end of the day, what difference does it really make to anyone on this board? Now, don't get me wrong - I totally enjoy reading this thread and watching adults (I assume) try, in all futility, to get others to change their opinions (or just prove that they are 'right') on a subject that to many is very devisive.

I really like the way that golfpros1 put it above:
"The professionals that are actually competing in these events have lives, other priorities in life, and even lose interest in the competition or drive to practice over time. You can't ever really compare players of different eras because there are way too many factors outside of golf like family, business, desire, opportunities, war times and public service, etc, and inside of golf like the competition, the courses, the equipment, the ability to easily travel, the money, etc.

Jones was the Vardon of his era
Jack was the Jones of his era
Tiger is the Jack of his era
and so it will continue "

As for majors, every event cannot be a major. That said, I see no reason why events that are 'a level above the norm', which contnually attract a very high majority of the top players in the game, and which attract high fan attendance and interest could not be given the same status as the current 4 majors.

[Dave230]

If Players Championships counted then Nicklaus would be on 21 and Woods would be on 16.

[rhh7]

I have enjoyed reading this thread, but as some have already noted, at the end of the day few if any will change their positions. This topic is subjective opinion, which can never be proved like a scientific experiment in the lab. When I was a young man, I enjoyed debate, the more of a bare-knuckle brawl the better. I was often rude and unkind, getting angry at anyone who was stupid enough not to see that I was right. Now I never argue, I won't get mad no matter what anyone says to me, or about me. No matter who your GOAT is, you are my friend.

P.S. Just thought of the evolution of Olympic athletes, especially in swimming and track and field. I honestly don't see how you can deny the exponential improvement in the size, strength, and speed of world-class athletes, decade by decade for the past century. I have the sincere opinion that a similar evolution has taken place among professional golfers. The player who wins 20 PGA tournaments between 1993 and 2013 is better than the player who won 20 PGA tournaments between 1973 and 1993. Why? Because they have faced deeper fields, where the average competitor is becoming better each year.

I have been a fan since 1951, when Ben Hogan became my boyhood idol. I respect, and revere his accomplishments. But if we had a time-machine, and we could take Ben forward to 1996, or if we could take Tiger or Phil back to 1938, Tiger and Phil would dominate Hogan...in my opinion.

[tstephen]

Track and Field records hold up for a long time. I always like comparing eras in baseball just because it has not changed much, with the exception of types of relief pitchers and slightly better fielding. Steroids and not technology as with golf has been the only difference in power improvement. I just don't really see anyone bigger, stronger or better all around athlete(maybe better shape only) in either golf or baseball the last 40 years. Football is really the only sport everyone is bigger and faster. I wonder why?...

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375033354' post='7555320']
I just hope The Players does not become a major taking away The Grand Slam. This first happened on The Champions Tour and now the LPGA where nobody is going to know what to call what Inbee Park is doing other than 4 consecutive majors in the same year and even worse what if she does not win this week but then wins The Evian Masters? The future of golf might have 7 or 8 majors and will make my argument obsolete. I think the Tiger guys already think the WGCs are majors.
[/quote]

No no, it's okay because when Tiger got his Tiger Slam, he also won the Players (it was in March that year if anyone is growing senile ts), so even if the Players does become a major, Tiger still has the Tiger Slam. Only it's even more impressive than it already is...

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1375063468' post='7558180']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375033354' post='7555320']
I just hope The Players does not become a major taking away The Grand Slam. This first happened on The Champions Tour and now the LPGA where nobody is going to know what to call what Inbee Park is doing other than 4 consecutive majors in the same year and even worse what if she does not win this week but then wins The Evian Masters? The future of golf might have 7 or 8 majors and will make my argument obsolete. I think the Tiger guys already think the WGCs are majors.
[/quote]

No no, it's okay because when Tiger got his Tiger Slam, he also won the Players (it was in March that year if anyone is growing senile ts), so even if the Players does become a major, Tiger still has the Tiger Slam. Only it's even more impressive than it already is...
[/quote]

I still say it was a Calendar Grand Slam for someone with a Thai mother.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songkran_%28Thailand%29"]http://en.wikipedia....kran_(Thailand)[/url]

[turtleback]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375006684' post='7553732']
You don't have a clue and once again another Tiger guy comes off as the greatest comedian next to Melissa McCarthy and has me rolling on the ground in laughter. PHIL MICKELSON IS POTY right now so how is Tiger dominant? At the very least Phil is World Player of The Year and I hope you do know that the British Open does go for a win on the PGA Tour and is this thing called a major. I thought I would mention the PGA tour thing since I know Tiger fans like to double count tournaments that are wins for both tours. Also Brock will be proud of me for going with the POTY thing.
[/quote]

All of which adds up to : [b]STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED THE QUESTION!![/b]

[tstephen]

The reality or answer is that Tiger screwed up big time! He has also mentally screwed himself out of ever catching Jack.

[javy5]

I maybe off in this thinking...but...

If you put Jack who had a bad short game on today's courses and greens, he would not win as often.

We already saw what Tiger did on the courses that Nicklaus played before they redesigned a lot of them and made them longer.

Tiger blew away the fields. Tiger just like Jack had a superior long game, but Tiger's short game puts him above Jack.

[rafer11]

[quote name='rhh7' timestamp='1375044612' post='7556350']
I have enjoyed reading this thread, but as some have already noted, at the end of the day few if any will change their positions. This topic is subjective opinion, which can never be proved like a scientific experiment in the lab. When I was a young man, I enjoyed debate, the more of a bare-knuckle brawl the better. I was often rude and unkind, getting angry at anyone who was stupid enough not to see that I was right. Now I never argue, I won't get mad no matter what anyone says to me, or about me. No matter who your GOAT is, you are my friend.
[/quote]

We can always use a few objective facts, but in the end it always turns out subjective. However, there are always winners to debates.

This thread reminds me of a debate you can watch on youtube, between Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry vs The Catholic Church.

The topic was "Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the world". If you aren't aware, Christopher Hitchens is a well known atheist, and since Sept 11, 2001 has gone much further in his talks talking about how religion does more bad than it does good in the world.

At the start of the debate, they ask the audience of ~2000-2500 whether they think the catholic church/religion is a force for good in the world.

About
700 say yes,
1100 say no, and
400 say not sure.

After the debate, they retake the poll. About

250 say yes.
1900 say no,
50 say not sure.

You can't really PROVE necessarily whether religion is a good or bad thing at this point in society (it has it's role in younger society's), however, you can still end up with winner's to debates.

Had this topic been a debate and we had 2000 people looking at it, 1000 on each side.... after these 54 pages it would be about 1900 for Tiger, and 100 for Jack.

There's been a lot of great arguments on the Tiger side, and virtually nothing on the Jack side.

So while it's all subjective, there have been a few posters in here that have absolutely slaughtered the debate in favor of Tiger being the greatest golfer of all time.

[rafer11]

[quote name='javy5' timestamp='1375118423' post='7561688']
I maybe off in this thinking...but...

If you put Jack who had a bad short game on today's courses and greens, he would not win as often.

We already saw what Tiger did on the courses that Nicklaus played before they redesigned a lot of them and made them longer.

Tiger blew away the fields. Tiger just like Jack had a superior long game, but Tiger's short game puts him above Jack.
[/quote]

Not to mention all the changes at Augusta, that since they've been put in play, Tiger has not won. Without those changes, he would have likely changed quite a few of his recent top 7 top 10's (3/2/2/6/4/4/4) in the last 4 years into anywhere between 3 and 7 wins. Those changes affected Tiger more than anyone else. 7 top 6's, and 6 top 4's. You can make a realistic case that without the changes, he may have won all 7 of those.

[turtleback]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375116329' post='7561410']
The reality or answer is that Tiger screwed up big time! He has also mentally screwed himself out of ever catching Jack.
[/quote]

In other words: [b]Still afraid to answer the question.[/b]

[rafer11]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1374956826' post='7550988']
[quote name='rafer11' timestamp='1374956342' post='7550950']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1374949309' post='7550436']
Only that it is the most stupid post in history. Prestwick was only 12 holes ace. Also, Do you even have a clue what they were using for a ball and clubs? Young Tom had a combine total from his 12 hole round followed by his front 6 of a 76 which might be like a 56 in today's game.
[/quote]

Incorrect reply

Nicklaus or Morris?
[/quote]

Yeah, I screw up and was trying to edit again, but it would be Young Tom if anything over Jack & Tiger.
[/quote]

Well at least you answered, and in doing so, you agree that both Young Tom Morris and Old Tom Morris are greater golfers than Vijay Singh.

Young and Old Tom Morris both had a total of 4 wins, all Majors. Vijay has only a measly 3 Majors, 2 WGC's, 34 total PGA tour wins, and 9 on the Euro Tour.

Despite that Vijay was winning against 156 guys, a decent 90 who had a chance to win... he still isn't as great as young Tom Morris. Afterall Tom Morris had to face a whopping 11, 13, 16, and 7 other competitors during his wins. Not only that, but in 1872 during his last Major win, while facing SEVEN tough competitors total, he had to face the likes of "Down Town I don't F*** Around" Hugh Brown and William "The Mean Grunter" Hunter, who would go on to respectively shoot 18 holes averages of 99.5 and 101. BAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You've proven once again you're a clown, but I will admit there is one part of your argument I enjoy. If I were born in the mid 1800's, I would have won 4 Majors with one hand tied behind my back, and you would think I'm a greater player than Vijay Singh. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='rafer11' timestamp='1375119088' post='7561766']
Christopher Hitchens is a well known atheist
[/quote]

Was, unfortunately.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='rafer11' timestamp='1375121769' post='7562138']
Afterall Tom Morris had to face a whopping 11, 13, 16, and 7 other competitors during his wins. Not only that, but in 1872 during his last Major win, while facing SEVEN tough competitors total, he had to face the likes of "Down Town I don't F*** Around" Hugh Brown and William "The Mean Grunter" Hunter
[/quote]

Now that's funny.

But it shows how far the Jack fans will go to deny that the strength of field argument is valid. Not even Tiger's mom would claim that his World Challenge should be counted as a major, but it has fields ten times as strong as anything Young Tom won. And yet, tstephen is willing to give full credit to a win over a field of 7 as a major win. Just amazing.

[Dave230]

[quote name='rafer11' timestamp='1375119088' post='7561766']
[size=4]Had this topic been a debate and we had 2000 people looking at it, 1000 on each side.... after these 54 pages it would be about 1900 for Tiger, and 100 for Jack.[/size]

There's been a lot of great arguments on the Tiger side, and virtually nothing on the Jack side.

So while it's all subjective, there have been a few posters in here that have absolutely slaughtered the debate in favor of Tiger being the greatest golfer of all time.
[/quote]

I really don't think so, the general opinion here is that people have said that Nicklaus is number 1 until Woods beats his record. There have been more saying that then Woods undoubtedly number one so I don't know where you are coming up with those figures from.

If it was that much in favour of Woods, I'd like to be more convinced than I am.

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1375135529' post='7563804']
[quote name='rafer11' timestamp='1375121769' post='7562138']
Afterall Tom Morris had to face a whopping 11, 13, 16, and 7 other competitors during his wins. Not only that, but in 1872 during his last Major win, while facing SEVEN tough competitors total, he had to face the likes of "Down Town I don't F*** Around" Hugh Brown and William "The Mean Grunter" Hunter
[/quote]

Now that's funny.

But it shows how far the Jack fans will go to deny that the strength of field argument is valid. Not even Tiger's mom would claim that his World Challenge should be counted as a major, but it has fields ten times as strong as anything Young Tom won. And yet, tstephen is willing to give full credit to a win over a field of 7 as a major win. Just amazing.
[/quote]

There is more to sport than just hard numbers. Young Tom Morris is a legend for advancing the game and playing at a level that no-one else could get near at that time. That puts him amongst the legends. It is no mean feat to win four Open Championships in an game which is really in its infancy by 21 years of age. His achievements have long been surpassed but his legacy remains, unlike winners of the Target World Challenge.

[Pat_Irish]

Tiger never faced Titanic playing for his own money, now if legend is to be believed Tiger would have felt real pressure playing for that What is assumed in this thread is that over the years all the best players were Pro,s ( Jones was pretty close ) Best players 50 years ago were all AMs, Pro golf was seen as the bottom of the pile

[rafer11]

[quote name='Dave230' timestamp='1375136932' post='7563954']
[quote name='rafer11' timestamp='1375119088' post='7561766']
Had this topic been a debate and we had 2000 people looking at it, 1000 on each side.... after these 54 pages it would be about 1900 for Tiger, and 100 for Jack.

There's been a lot of great arguments on the Tiger side, and virtually nothing on the Jack side.

So while it's all subjective, there have been a few posters in here that have absolutely slaughtered the debate in favor of Tiger being the greatest golfer of all time.
[/quote]

I really don't think so, the general opinion here is that people have said that Nicklaus is number 1 until Woods beats his record. There have been more saying that then Woods undoubtedly number one so I don't know where you are coming up with those figures from.

If it was that much in favour of Woods, I'd like to be more convinced than I am.
[/quote]

Perhaps because the thread has been presented in such a haphazard way, as is to be expected from a thread. They aren't exactly a controlled debate with a moderator.

If we were on the other hand to organize a detailed info-graphic with every possible topic shown in an easy to see picture... we'd have 15 check marks for Tiger and 1 for Jack. Jack gets the more majors argument. Tiger gets the stronger fields argument, more dominance argument, greater win % argument (jack isn't even 2nd), easier for the bottom of the pack to compete with recent technology such as easier to hit balls, cavity backs, hybrids, taking away the advantages of the true greats who use their precise skills to differentiate themselves from the pack argument, the true worldwide competition argument, the most overall wins argument, etc etc.

The only check mark for for Jack would be on the 18 is more than 14 argument. But when you take any shred on context into consideration... you realize majors become increasingly harder to win every year as the game grows. Find Michael J Fox and hop in the Delorean back to 1872, and 3/4 of the posters in this thread would have whooped Young Tom Morris's a** in the 1872 Open. 8 total golfers, 2 of which averaged 100 strokes. As the years have gone by, and more people play the game... the harder the competition has been to win. Jack himself has been quoted as saying "Fields in 1996 are 3 times harder to win than in my era. There was only 30 guys who could potentially beat me. Nowadays there are 90 guys who can win at any given tournament" I believe in post 1595 here, the quoted poster talks about Jack talking about how the increase in money has also led to the increases quality of competitors, and the less variance in skill between the best and worst. It's simple supply and demand 101 economics.

So basically the one argument that the Jack group has, has not only been destroyed here by numerous arguments, but it's been obliterated by Jack himself. After all of this, the only reason someone would stick on the Jack side is a bias. A biased love for Jack, or a biased hate for Tiger.

Imagine this. Take 2000 people who don't know a damn thing about golf. Describe everything to the group, calling the golfers "Golfer X" and "Golfer Y". Golfer X has 4 Majors and no other wins. These 4 majors came against fields of an average of 10 people, the bottom of whom were 30+ shots off. Golfer Y has 3 Majors, and an additional ~43 worldwide wins. His came against 156 golfers each, when the game was so global that the talent pool was likely 100000x deeper than Golfer X's era. At the end of the debate.... how would the 2000 people vote. Obviously 2000 people would vote for Golfer Y (Vijay Singh) and 0 people would vote for Golfer X (Young Tom Morris).

Take 2000 people who don't know a thing about golf, call them by anonymous names, and describe their feats, field, competition, records, win %, era's, blah blah... in the end... they will learn that 2000 people voted for Tiger and 0 voted for Jack Nicklaus once the names are revealed.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='Pat_Irish' timestamp='1375137363' post='7563996']
Tiger never faced Titanic playing for his own money, now if legend is to be believed Tiger would have felt real pressure playing for that What is assumed in this thread is that over the years all the best players were Pro,s ( Jones was pretty close ) Best players 50 years ago were all AMs, Pro golf was seen as the bottom of the pile
[/quote]

Um, 50 years ago was 1963. You often see guys claim that the ams were better than the pros in the Jones era, which is at least an understandable mistake, but you're the first guy I've ever heard say that Arnie, Jack, Gary, and Billy were not as good as the ams of their day.

Titanic Thompson made his money hustling pigeons. Compiling a great win percentage against insurance salesmen is fine, but it's a long way from Walter Hagen, another great hustler who didn't just claim he could win pro events, he proved it.

[tstephen]

Turtleback and myself would like to see the specific 15 check marks in favor of Tiger. Nevertheless, the check mark next to Jack is the only one that matters to Tiger. You guys just crack me up that you are all so ignorant and in denial that the only thing Tiger is playing for is the most majors. Had Tiger not screwed his pooch he might have past Jack already and announced he would retire at 40.

[tstephen]

Titanic Thompson was a low-life and really not that great of a golfer. He was athletic but his only talent was taking a group a stupid golfers(like Tiger's fans) and setting them up. A lot of descent pro-level players can become a 3 or 4 handicapper from their opposite side(I did) and he would lose bets right-handed then get several strokes lefty and basically steal money from these great am money gaming fools. So how would this even make him in the top 1000 ams of all-time? Brock and I agree on Titanic anyway.

[rafer11]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375141056' post='7564372']
Turtleback and myself would like to see the specific 15 check marks in favor of Tiger. Nevertheless, the check mark next to Jack is the only one that matters to Tiger. You guys just crack me up that you are all so ignorant and in denial that the only thing Tiger is playing for is the most majors. Had Tiger not screwed his pooch he might have past Jack already and announced he would retire at 40.
[/quote]

Tiger wants the RECORD. I'm sure Michael Jordan would have loved 12 rings, but because he only got 6 doesn't mean Bill Russell is better than him.

In the EXACT same way as MJ/Russell and Tiger/Jack... Is Vijay Singh and Young Tom Morris. Vijay may have one less major, but he's probably 10,000 times greater. Disagree?

[rhh7]

I think Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson, and Vijay Singh are the 3 greatest golfers of all time, in that order.