Greatest male player ever

[tradernick]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1375745685' post='7611620']
[quote name='tradernick' timestamp='1375721845' post='7608698']

If you open the door to an examination of the statistics, Tiger is far and away the best ever. Tiger's win rate, 79 out of 290 starts for 27%, blows Jack's rate away (73 out of 586 for 12.5%).
[/quote]

It's hardly fair to Jack to count events played way past his prime.

IMO Jack's prime was from 1962 to 1978. 1979 was the first year he didn't win anything, and he fell all the way to 71st on the money list.

Jack played 345 PGA events in 1962-78, and won 68 of them, for a winning percentage of 19.7%.
[/quote]

Actually, that's a good point. Fair enough. Having said that, the 7% is pretty big over ~300 starts. I'd like to see a chart of the top 10 all time on this list of win percentage. I have a feeling that it would look like the world ranking points list circa 2002 - that is, Tiger way out front and the rest bunched up way behind him.

Let's go to the next stat - scoring average. Take a look at Tiger from '96 to '09 vs Jack during the years you mentioned. [B]Big[/b] difference, right? What's that down to?

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tradernick' timestamp='1375749716' post='7612120']
[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1375745685' post='7611620']
[quote name='tradernick' timestamp='1375721845' post='7608698']
If you open the door to an examination of the statistics, Tiger is far and away the best ever. Tiger's win rate, 79 out of 290 starts for 27%, blows Jack's rate away (73 out of 586 for 12.5%).
[/quote]

It's hardly fair to Jack to count events played way past his prime.

IMO Jack's prime was from 1962 to 1978. 1979 was the first year he didn't win anything, and he fell all the way to 71st on the money list.

Jack played 345 PGA events in 1962-78, and won 68 of them, for a winning percentage of 19.7%.
[/quote]

Actually, that's a good point. Fair enough. Having said that, the 7% is pretty big over ~300 starts. I'd like to see a chart of the top 10 all time on this list of win percentage. I have a feeling that it would look like the world ranking points list circa 2002 - that is, Tiger way out front and the rest bunched up way behind him.

Let's go to the next stat - scoring average. Take a look at Tiger from '96 to '09 vs Jack during the years you mentioned. [b]Big[/b] difference, right? What's that down to?
[/quote]

IMO scoring average is not very useful for comparisons of anyone except players in the same event, and when weather is a factor, not even then. Just a couple of weeks ago, Phil was the only player to shoot under par at Muirfield, while the same week, in an official PGA event (the Sanderson Farms Championship), there were 45 players who finished -10 or better. It would have been absolutely hilarious to see what would have happened if the players had switched courses.

There is just no way to compare scores shot in different eras, even on the same course. Heck, even in the same year, when they play regular events at Pebble Beach or Torrey Pines, and then the US Open a few months later, the best players in the world score a lot higher than second tier players on the same course, but with an easier setup.

There are exceptions, but in most PGA events, if the scores start getting too low, they make the course harder the next year. If they aren't able to lengthen it, they may narrow the fairways, grow the rough, add bunkers, or make the pin placements tougher.

In discussions about Byron Nelson's 1945, guys always want to point to his scoring average that year (which was the all time record low before Tiger beat it), but I think it's just common sense that the tournament organizers made the course setups easier that year, to make up for the very weak fields. The PGA wants to see the fans come out, and the fans want to see birdies and eagles, not pars and bogeys.

The adjusted scoring average, which is what they use for the Vardon Trophy and the Byron Nelson Award, at least attempts to take field strength into account, but even that is flawed, because it doesn't care whether you are playing a par 72 or par 70 course. It's OK for comparing players who play a similar schedule in the same season, but there is no way I would consider it reliable across eras.

[Hawkeye77]

[quote name='rafer11' timestamp='1375748640' post='7611966']
[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1375678464' post='7606132']
Tiger didn't win a major today, nothing else is relevant to this thread.

5+ years. Even if he wins next week, that's one in 5 years. At this rate, nothing to debate for several years.
[/quote]

Why would there be a debate in a few years if Tiger gets to 18/19? The way you are talking about it JN is the GOAT, and if Tiger reaches 18/19 he is the GOAT. You talk about it as a debate-less topic, so if Tiger reaches that milestone, in your mind... where is the debate?
[/quote]

I assume the debate begins if he gets to 18. Never said I believe Tiger is greatest ever at 18. Will have to wait and see when and if he gets there what there is to consider. Not tough to understand.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1375758928' post='7613374']
[quote name='rafer11' timestamp='1375748640' post='7611966']
[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1375678464' post='7606132']
Tiger didn't win a major today, nothing else is relevant to this thread.

5+ years. Even if he wins next week, that's one in 5 years. At this rate, nothing to debate for several years.
[/quote]

Why would there be a debate in a few years if Tiger gets to 18/19? The way you are talking about it JN is the GOAT, and if Tiger reaches 18/19 he is the GOAT. You talk about it as a debate-less topic, so if Tiger reaches that milestone, in your mind... where is the debate?
[/quote]

I assume the debate begins if he gets to 18. Never said I believe Tiger is greatest ever at 18. Will have to wait and see when and if he gets there what there is to consider. Not tough to understand.
[/quote]

You're wrong about this win not being relevant. If for no other reason, it's relevant because it gives Tiger 79 career victories, which means that now he can't tie Jack's 18 majors without breaking Snead's all-time career wins record.

So as long as Jack has more majors, according to you, there is no debate. But if Tiger gets 18 majors, he will then be 1st and tied first for wins and majors, while Jack will be 3rd and tied first in those two stats. Tiger already has the all-time records for most money titles, scoring titles, POTYs, five-win seasons, etc.

THEN we can have a debate.

Too funny.

[rafer11]

[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1375758928' post='7613374']
[quote name='rafer11' timestamp='1375748640' post='7611966']
[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1375678464' post='7606132']
Tiger didn't win a major today, nothing else is relevant to this thread.

5+ years. Even if he wins next week, that's one in 5 years. At this rate, nothing to debate for several years.
[/quote]

Why would there be a debate in a few years if Tiger gets to 18/19? The way you are talking about it JN is the GOAT, and if Tiger reaches 18/19 he is the GOAT. You talk about it as a debate-less topic, so if Tiger reaches that milestone, in your mind... where is the debate?
[/quote]

I assume the debate begins if he gets to 18. Never said I believe Tiger is greatest ever at 18. Will have to wait and see when and if he gets there what there is to consider. Not tough to understand.
[/quote]

I thought you were trying to get a double standard where if Tiger is < 18 there is no debate, but if Tiger get > 18 then it somehow turns into a debate.

Sound to me like what you're saying is there is no debate unless they are tied at 18. If Tiger < 18 then JN GOAT, if Tiger > 18 then TW GOAT, if Tiger 18 then debate.

[tstephen]

There's a better chance Tiger will still be at 14 on his 40th BD than what Brock thinks which is 19. If Tiger is still at 14 on his 40th he will be in the Arnie & Tom Watson pile of not being able to win a major after their early 30's and like Tom & Arnie left looking up at the legacy of Jack.

[rafer11]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375760457' post='7613546']
There's a better chance Tiger will still be at 14 on his 40th BD than what Brock thinks which is 19. If Tiger is still at 14 on his 40th he will be in the Arnie & Tom Watson pile of not being able to win a major after their early 30's and like Tom & Arnie left looking up at the legacy of Jack.
[/quote]

Back at a 50% win rate this year, I think it'll be very unlikely that he doesn't get at least one more. His game looks good right now to keep up a 40%+ win rate for the next 5 years. I think it'd be extremely unlikely that he doesn't grab at least 1 more of those 20 majors if he keeps up that win rate.

[Hawkeye77]

I think you all have enough to worry about with Tiger's failure to win majors, without trying to pigeon hole my thoughts.

[tstephen]

[quote name='rafer11' timestamp='1375761164' post='7613632']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375760457' post='7613546']
There's a better chance Tiger will still be at 14 on his 40th BD than what Brock thinks which is 19. If Tiger is still at 14 on his 40th he will be in the Arnie &amp; Tom Watson pile of not being able to win a major after their early 30's and like Tom &amp; Arnie left looking up at the legacy of Jack.
[/quote]

Back at a 50% win rate this year, I think it'll be very unlikely that he doesn't get at least one more. His game looks good right now to keep up a 40%+ win rate for the next 5 years. I think it'd be extremely unlikely that he doesn't grab at least 1 more of those 20 majors if he keeps up that win rate.
[/quote]


Or the 9 majors he has before he turns 40.

[tradernick]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1375752728' post='7612536']

IMO scoring average is not very useful for comparisons of anyone except players in the same event, and when weather is a factor, not even then. Just a couple of weeks ago, Phil was the only player to shoot under par at Muirfield, while the same week, in an official PGA event (the Sanderson Farms Championship), there were 45 players who finished -10 or better. It would have been absolutely hilarious to see what would have happened if the players had switched courses.

There is just no way to compare scores shot in different eras, even on the same course. Heck, even in the same year, when they play regular events at Pebble Beach or Torrey Pines, and then the US Open a few months later, the best players in the world score a lot higher than second tier players on the same course, but with an easier setup.

There are exceptions, but in most PGA events, if the scores start getting too low, they make the course harder the next year. If they aren't able to lengthen it, they may narrow the fairways, grow the rough, add bunkers, or make the pin placements tougher.

In discussions about Byron Nelson's 1945, guys always want to point to his scoring average that year (which was the all time record low before Tiger beat it), but I think it's just common sense that the tournament organizers made the course setups easier that year, to make up for the very weak fields. The PGA wants to see the fans come out, and the fans want to see birdies and eagles, not pars and bogeys.

The adjusted scoring average, which is what they use for the Vardon Trophy and the Byron Nelson Award, at least attempts to take field strength into account, but even that is flawed, because it doesn't care whether you are playing a par 72 or par 70 course. It's OK for comparing players who play a similar schedule in the same season, but there is no way I would consider it reliable across eras.
[/quote]

I'd characterize a part of the above as assertion, but my main objection is simply that most of what you mentioned is easily evened out over time. I just don't believe for a second that the (massive, in relative terms) difference between Tiger's 'prime years' scoring average and that of any other player in history isn't indicative of a fundamental difference between him and those who came before him. In this sense, Tiger's limited schedule mitigates [b] against [/b] his having such a markedly lower average; obviously, playing more events gives a player a chance to smooth out anomalous events, like a bad streak or a minor injury that affects results.

In any case, I respect your opinion, and we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this point. My bias is probably evident; I consider Tiger to be the greatest golf phenom in the history of the game, and I believe he'll break Jack's record and go down as the greatest player of all time. Doesn't mean I like the guy personally but that's not what we're talking about.

[tstephen]

A lot of good players, especially in the early 2000's, changed their limited schedules to avoid Tiger. I don't know how this helps or hurts the Jack vs Tiger argument, but it is certainly one more point that shows the weakness of this recent era. With The FedEx Cup now and WGC events it has become harder for top players to avoid Tiger.

[redfirebird08]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375765608' post='7613958']
A lot of good players, especially in the early 2000's, changed their limited schedules to avoid Tiger. I don't know how this helps or hurts the Jack vs Tiger argument, but it is certainly one more point that shows the weakness of this recent era.
[/quote]

Who are you talking about? Tiger plays a very limited schedule (like Jack did) of only the best tournaments on the Tour. Kinda hard for those guys to skip WGC's, PLAYERS, FedEX Cup, Jack, Arnie, etc.

[rafer11]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375765608' post='7613958']
A lot of good players, especially in the early 2000's, changed their limited schedules to avoid Tiger. I don't know how this helps or hurts the Jack vs Tiger argument, but it is certainly one more point that shows the weakness of this recent era. With The FedEx Cup now and WGC events it has become harder for top players to avoid Tiger.
[/quote]

Yikes I'd love to see the proof for that one. Any one single article referring to it or any hard proof from some tournaments will be fine. Any one citation will be fine.

[tradernick]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375765608' post='7613958']
A lot of good players, especially in the early 2000's, changed their limited schedules to avoid Tiger.
[/quote]

Hmmm, really? I never heard that from any analyst and I've been following the tour very closely throughout Tiger's career. Do you have a citation or any other reference to support that claim? Early in his career, I thought the best players were looking to play with him so they could beat him.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tradernick' timestamp='1375765125' post='7613940']
[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1375752728' post='7612536']
IMO scoring average is not very useful for comparisons of anyone except players in the same event, and when weather is a factor, not even then. Just a couple of weeks ago, Phil was the only player to shoot under par at Muirfield, while the same week, in an official PGA event (the Sanderson Farms Championship), there were 45 players who finished -10 or better. It would have been absolutely hilarious to see what would have happened if the players had switched courses.

There is just no way to compare scores shot in different eras, even on the same course. Heck, even in the same year, when they play regular events at Pebble Beach or Torrey Pines, and then the US Open a few months later, the best players in the world score a lot higher than second tier players on the same course, but with an easier setup.

There are exceptions, but in most PGA events, if the scores start getting too low, they make the course harder the next year. If they aren't able to lengthen it, they may narrow the fairways, grow the rough, add bunkers, or make the pin placements tougher.

In discussions about Byron Nelson's 1945, guys always want to point to his scoring average that year (which was the all time record low before Tiger beat it), but I think it's just common sense that the tournament organizers made the course setups easier that year, to make up for the very weak fields. The PGA wants to see the fans come out, and the fans want to see birdies and eagles, not pars and bogeys.

The adjusted scoring average, which is what they use for the Vardon Trophy and the Byron Nelson Award, at least attempts to take field strength into account, but even that is flawed, because it doesn't care whether you are playing a par 72 or par 70 course. It's OK for comparing players who play a similar schedule in the same season, but there is no way I would consider it reliable across eras.
[/quote]

I'd characterize a part of the above as assertion, but my main objection is simply that most of what you mentioned is easily evened out over time. I just don't believe for a second that the (massive, in relative terms) difference between Tiger's 'prime years' scoring average and that of any other player in history isn't indicative of a fundamental difference between him and those who came before him. In this sense, Tiger's limited schedule mitigates [b] against [/b] his having such a markedly lower average; obviously, playing more events gives a player a chance to smooth out anomalous events, like a bad streak or a minor injury that affects results.

In any case, I respect your opinion, and we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this point. My bias is probably evident; I consider Tiger to be the greatest golf phenom in the history of the game, and I believe he'll break Jack's record and go down as the greatest player of all time. Doesn't mean I like the guy personally but that's not what we're talking about.
[/quote]

Although I try to be fair, sometimes I can't control my pro-Jack bias. But thanks for being very civil in your disagreement.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375765608' post='7613958']
A lot of good players, especially in the early 2000's, changed their limited schedules to avoid Tiger. I don't know how this helps or hurts the Jack vs Tiger argument
[/quote]

I would say it has no effect, because nobody believes it.

[SurfDuffer]

[b][size=5]10[/size][/b][b][size=4] [/size][/b][color=#000000][size=2]Number of seasons Woods has accumulated at least five victories. … This is the most in PGA TOUR history. Sam Snead is second with eight, followed by Ben Hogan (7), Jack Nicklaus (7), Arnold Palmer (4) and Tom Watson (4).[/size][/color]

[SurfDuffer]

[b][size=5]$108,609,819[/size][/b][b][size=4] [/size][/b][color=#000000][size=2]Career earnings for Woods, which is by far No. 1. Phil Mickelson is second with $72,586,675. … Woods’ earnings is also $100 million more than the combined career earnings for Jack Nicklaus ($5,734,031) and Arnold Palmer ($1,861,857).[/size][/color]

[Ty_Webb]

I think it would be very interesting to see how many tournaments have been won by the respective people we are discussing where at least say 40 of the top 50 in the world are competing. I have a hunch (though I haven't done the numbers) that Tiger would be well out in front. I also think it's interesting that this idea will probably get shot down by people in Jack's corner on the basis that Jack had so many fewer opportunities to do that. Yet those same people are very happy to basically exclude Harry Vardon from this discussion in the same fashion. Vardon had the opportunity to basically play in one major per year. He played in the US Open three times, finishing 1st 2nd and tied 2nd, but he lost 5 years of the Open to WWI, having won the last one beforehand.

Vardon played in 26 major championships before he was 50 (it could have been two fewer than that depending on when in the year the 1920 Open and US Open were played. He won 7 of them. Jack played in 120 majors by the same age. He won 18 of them. If Harry Vardon had been able to play in 120 majors and won at the same rate, he would have won over 25 of them. It should also be noted that Vardon won those 7 majors with Braid and Taylor in the field. Taylor won 5 majors, having played in also 26 by his 50th year of age. Braid won 5 majors having played in only 21 of them by his 50th year. Ramp those numbers up too and you're looking at 3 guys with 20+ majors. That's a whole heck of a lot more than anyone Jack ever had to deal with. So, if we are in the business of judging like with like by saying it's unfair to include WGCs in Tiger's total, then we should be treating Harry Vardon as the greatest player ever. If on the other hand we think it's silly to inflate the numbers from years past to reflect how the game has changed, then I think Tiger is well out in front, with 32 victories in majors and WGCs versus Jack's 18.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1375790570' post='7614674']
I think it would be very interesting to see how many tournaments have been won by the respective people we are discussing where at least say 40 of the top 50 in the world are competing. I have a hunch (though I haven't done the numbers) that Tiger would be well out in front. I also think it's interesting that this idea will probably get shot down by people in Jack's corner on the basis that Jack had so many fewer opportunities to do that. Yet those same people are very happy to basically exclude Harry Vardon from this discussion in the same fashion. Vardon had the opportunity to basically play in one major per year. He played in the US Open three times, finishing 1st 2nd and tied 2nd, but he lost 5 years of the Open to WWI, having won the last one beforehand.

Vardon played in 26 major championships before he was 50 (it could have been two fewer than that depending on when in the year the 1920 Open and US Open were played. He won 7 of them. Jack played in 120 majors by the same age. He won 18 of them. If Harry Vardon had been able to play in 120 majors and won at the same rate, he would have won over 25 of them. It should also be noted that Vardon won those 7 majors with Braid and Taylor in the field. Taylor won 5 majors, having played in also 26 by his 50th year of age. Braid won 5 majors having played in only 21 of them by his 50th year. Ramp those numbers up too and you're looking at 3 guys with 20+ majors. That's a whole heck of a lot more than anyone Jack ever had to deal with. So, if we are in the business of judging like with like by saying it's unfair to include WGCs in Tiger's total, then we should be treating Harry Vardon as the greatest player ever. If on the other hand we think it's silly to inflate the numbers from years past to reflect how the game has changed, then I think Tiger is well out in front, with 32 victories in majors and WGCs versus Jack's 18.
[/quote]

You don't even need to include the WGCs, although I agree it's no more unfair to include them, than it is to ignore the fact that Vardon only had one major a year to play.

There will be 99 of the world's top 100 players in the field this week (Oosthuizen is injured). Jack never won a major with anything close to that. IMO the cutoff for a truly world class field is to have at least 60 of the top 100 in the world playing, and I doubt Jack won more than 8 or 9 events that met even that criterion. Some of his British Opens may have had barely 30 of the top 100.

Tiger has won at least 32, and possibly over 35 events with 60 of the top 100 to beat.

[redfirebird08]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1375792527' post='7614810']
[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1375790570' post='7614674']
I think it would be very interesting to see how many tournaments have been won by the respective people we are discussing where at least say 40 of the top 50 in the world are competing. I have a hunch (though I haven't done the numbers) that Tiger would be well out in front. I also think it's interesting that this idea will probably get shot down by people in Jack's corner on the basis that Jack had so many fewer opportunities to do that. Yet those same people are very happy to basically exclude Harry Vardon from this discussion in the same fashion. Vardon had the opportunity to basically play in one major per year. He played in the US Open three times, finishing 1st 2nd and tied 2nd, but he lost 5 years of the Open to WWI, having won the last one beforehand.

Vardon played in 26 major championships before he was 50 (it could have been two fewer than that depending on when in the year the 1920 Open and US Open were played. He won 7 of them. Jack played in 120 majors by the same age. He won 18 of them. If Harry Vardon had been able to play in 120 majors and won at the same rate, he would have won over 25 of them. It should also be noted that Vardon won those 7 majors with Braid and Taylor in the field. Taylor won 5 majors, having played in also 26 by his 50th year of age. Braid won 5 majors having played in only 21 of them by his 50th year. Ramp those numbers up too and you're looking at 3 guys with 20+ majors. That's a whole heck of a lot more than anyone Jack ever had to deal with. So, if we are in the business of judging like with like by saying it's unfair to include WGCs in Tiger's total, then we should be treating Harry Vardon as the greatest player ever. If on the other hand we think it's silly to inflate the numbers from years past to reflect how the game has changed, then I think Tiger is well out in front, with 32 victories in majors and WGCs versus Jack's 18.
[/quote]

You don't even need to include the WGCs, although I agree it's no more unfair to include them, than it is to ignore the fact that Vardon only had one major a year to play.

There will be 99 of the world's top 100 players in the field this week (Oosthuizen is injured). Jack never won a major with anything close to that. IMO the cutoff for a truly world class field is to have at least 60 of the top 100 in the world playing, and I doubt Jack won more than 8 or 9 events that met even that criterion. Some of his British Opens may have had barely 30 of the top 100.

Tiger has won at least 32, and possibly over 35 events with 60 of the top 100 to beat.
[/quote]

Isn't it 34? 14 majors, 18 WGC's, 2 PLAYERS. The PLAYERS has one of the strongest fields in golf every year. Jack won 3 of them and those were probably some of the deepest fields he beat in his career.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='redfirebird08' timestamp='1375794439' post='7614972']
[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1375792527' post='7614810']
[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1375790570' post='7614674']
I think it would be very interesting to see how many tournaments have been won by the respective people we are discussing where at least say 40 of the top 50 in the world are competing. I have a hunch (though I haven't done the numbers) that Tiger would be well out in front. I also think it's interesting that this idea will probably get shot down by people in Jack's corner on the basis that Jack had so many fewer opportunities to do that. Yet those same people are very happy to basically exclude Harry Vardon from this discussion in the same fashion. Vardon had the opportunity to basically play in one major per year. He played in the US Open three times, finishing 1st 2nd and tied 2nd, but he lost 5 years of the Open to WWI, having won the last one beforehand.

Vardon played in 26 major championships before he was 50 (it could have been two fewer than that depending on when in the year the 1920 Open and US Open were played. He won 7 of them. Jack played in 120 majors by the same age. He won 18 of them. If Harry Vardon had been able to play in 120 majors and won at the same rate, he would have won over 25 of them. It should also be noted that Vardon won those 7 majors with Braid and Taylor in the field. Taylor won 5 majors, having played in also 26 by his 50th year of age. Braid won 5 majors having played in only 21 of them by his 50th year. Ramp those numbers up too and you're looking at 3 guys with 20+ majors. That's a whole heck of a lot more than anyone Jack ever had to deal with. So, if we are in the business of judging like with like by saying it's unfair to include WGCs in Tiger's total, then we should be treating Harry Vardon as the greatest player ever. If on the other hand we think it's silly to inflate the numbers from years past to reflect how the game has changed, then I think Tiger is well out in front, with 32 victories in majors and WGCs versus Jack's 18.
[/quote]

You don't even need to include the WGCs, although I agree it's no more unfair to include them, than it is to ignore the fact that Vardon only had one major a year to play.

There will be 99 of the world's top 100 players in the field this week (Oosthuizen is injured). Jack never won a major with anything close to that. IMO the cutoff for a truly world class field is to have at least 60 of the top 100 in the world playing, and I doubt Jack won more than 8 or 9 events that met even that criterion. Some of his British Opens may have had barely 30 of the top 100.

Tiger has won at least 32, and possibly over 35 events with 60 of the top 100 to beat.
[/quote]

Isn't it 34? 14 majors, 18 WGC's, 2 PLAYERS. The PLAYERS has one of the strongest fields in golf every year. Jack won 3 of them and those were probably some of the deepest fields he beat in his career.
[/quote]

Yes, I would be pretty confident that Tiger-era Players Championships had 60 of the top 100. The top 50 in the world rankings are automatically exempt, plus anyone who won a PGA event in the last year, or a major in the last five years, plus the top 125 from the money list. There are enough international players playing on the PGA tour to almost guarantee that you'll get over 60, even if a few players decline their invitations.

In the Jack era, it's not so clear. I haven't found what the criteria were to make the field, but they didn't have world rankings, and they had very few international players winning any American tournaments, including majors, so it would be yet another almost all-American tournament, with just a few international players who were PGA members.

[turtleback]

[quote name='tradernick' timestamp='1375765125' post='7613940']
[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1375752728' post='7612536']
IMO scoring average is not very useful for comparisons of anyone except players in the same event, and when weather is a factor, not even then. Just a couple of weeks ago, Phil was the only player to shoot under par at Muirfield, while the same week, in an official PGA event (the Sanderson Farms Championship), there were 45 players who finished -10 or better. It would have been absolutely hilarious to see what would have happened if the players had switched courses.

There is just no way to compare scores shot in different eras, even on the same course. Heck, even in the same year, when they play regular events at Pebble Beach or Torrey Pines, and then the US Open a few months later, the best players in the world score a lot higher than second tier players on the same course, but with an easier setup.

There are exceptions, but in most PGA events, if the scores start getting too low, they make the course harder the next year. If they aren't able to lengthen it, they may narrow the fairways, grow the rough, add bunkers, or make the pin placements tougher.

In discussions about Byron Nelson's 1945, guys always want to point to his scoring average that year (which was the all time record low before Tiger beat it), but I think it's just common sense that the tournament organizers made the course setups easier that year, to make up for the very weak fields. The PGA wants to see the fans come out, and the fans want to see birdies and eagles, not pars and bogeys.

The adjusted scoring average, which is what they use for the Vardon Trophy and the Byron Nelson Award, at least attempts to take field strength into account, but even that is flawed, because it doesn't care whether you are playing a par 72 or par 70 course. It's OK for comparing players who play a similar schedule in the same season, but there is no way I would consider it reliable across eras.
[/quote]

I'd characterize a part of the above as assertion, but my main objection is simply that most of what you mentioned is easily evened out over time. I just don't believe for a second that the (massive, in relative terms) difference between Tiger's 'prime years' scoring average and that of any other player in history isn't indicative of a fundamental difference between him and those who came before him. In this sense, Tiger's limited schedule mitigates [b] against [/b] his having such a markedly lower average; obviously, playing more events gives a player a chance to smooth out anomalous events, like a bad streak or a minor injury that affects results.

In any case, I respect your opinion, and we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this point. My bias is probably evident; I consider Tiger to be the greatest golf phenom in the history of the game, and I believe he'll break Jack's record and go down as the greatest player of all time. Doesn't mean I like the guy personally but that's not what we're talking about.
[/quote]

I think if you are going to use scoring average in ANY way to distinguish between golfers in different eras then the correct way to do it would be to see which player had a greater advantage over his contemporaries in scoring average. A guy with a 67 scoring average where the next 10 guys are between 67.1 and 68 is not nearly as impressive as a guy with a 68 scoring average where no one else averages less than 70.

In 2000 Tiger's scoring average was 1.46 strokes better than the next best guy. In 2007 he was 1.5 strokes ahead of the #2 guy. In 2009 he was 1.24 strokes ahead of the #2 guy. These are the only times since 1980 that anyone has led by more than a stroke. Rarely did anyone n that period lead by even .5 strokes. I don't have the data to see if anyone in any era has led by more than a stroke.

[turtleback]

[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1375790570' post='7614674']
I think it would be very interesting to see how many tournaments have been won by the respective people we are discussing where at least say 40 of the top 50 in the world are competing. I have a hunch (though I haven't done the numbers) that Tiger would be well out in front. I also think it's interesting that this idea will probably get shot down by people in Jack's corner on the basis that Jack had so many fewer opportunities to do that. Yet those same people are very happy to basically exclude Harry Vardon from this discussion in the same fashion. Vardon had the opportunity to basically play in one major per year. He played in the US Open three times, finishing 1st 2nd and tied 2nd, but he lost 5 years of the Open to WWI, having won the last one beforehand.

Vardon played in 26 major championships before he was 50 (it could have been two fewer than that depending on when in the year the 1920 Open and US Open were played. He won 7 of them. Jack played in 120 majors by the same age. He won 18 of them. If Harry Vardon had been able to play in 120 majors and won at the same rate, he would have won over 25 of them. It should also be noted that Vardon won those 7 majors with Braid and Taylor in the field. Taylor won 5 majors, having played in also 26 by his 50th year of age. Braid won 5 majors having played in only 21 of them by his 50th year. Ramp those numbers up too and you're looking at 3 guys with 20+ majors. That's a whole heck of a lot more than anyone Jack ever had to deal with. So, if we are in the business of judging like with like by saying it's unfair to include WGCs in Tiger's total, then we should be treating Harry Vardon as the greatest player ever. If on the other hand we think it's silly to inflate the numbers from years past to reflect how the game has changed, then I think Tiger is well out in front, with 32 victories in majors and WGCs versus Jack's 18.
[/quote]

Careful, you will make heads explode.

[Hawkeye77]

[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1375812746' post='7617326']
[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1375790570' post='7614674']
I think it would be very interesting to see how many tournaments have been won by the respective people we are discussing where at least say 40 of the top 50 in the world are competing. I have a hunch (though I haven't done the numbers) that Tiger would be well out in front. I also think it's interesting that this idea will probably get shot down by people in Jack's corner on the basis that Jack had so many fewer opportunities to do that. Yet those same people are very happy to basically exclude Harry Vardon from this discussion in the same fashion. Vardon had the opportunity to basically play in one major per year. He played in the US Open three times, finishing 1st 2nd and tied 2nd, but he lost 5 years of the Open to WWI, having won the last one beforehand.

Vardon played in 26 major championships before he was 50 (it could have been two fewer than that depending on when in the year the 1920 Open and US Open were played. He won 7 of them. Jack played in 120 majors by the same age. He won 18 of them. If Harry Vardon had been able to play in 120 majors and won at the same rate, he would have won over 25 of them. It should also be noted that Vardon won those 7 majors with Braid and Taylor in the field. Taylor won 5 majors, having played in also 26 by his 50th year of age. Braid won 5 majors having played in only 21 of them by his 50th year. Ramp those numbers up too and you're looking at 3 guys with 20+ majors. That's a whole heck of a lot more than anyone Jack ever had to deal with. So, if we are in the business of judging like with like by saying it's unfair to include WGCs in Tiger's total, then we should be treating Harry Vardon as the greatest player ever. If on the other hand we think it's silly to inflate the numbers from years past to reflect how the game has changed, then I think Tiger is well out in front, with 32 victories in majors and WGCs versus Jack's 18.
[/quote]

Careful, you will make heads explode.
[/quote]

Hermione Granger would say, "Extrapolas Ridiculoso!"

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1375786575' post='7614476']
[b][size=5]10[/size][/b][b][size=4] [/size][/b][color=#000000][size=2]Number of seasons Woods has accumulated at least five victories. … This is the most in PGA TOUR history. Sam Snead is second with eight, followed by Ben Hogan (7), Jack Nicklaus (7), Arnold Palmer (4) and Tom Watson (4).[/size][/color]
[/quote]

Monetary inflation is a much more difficult concept than simply realizing that Vardon and Hagen only had one or two majors to play each year, with a world war eliminating even those for several years. There's not a guy on this board who can tell you the Consumer Price Index of 1965 without looking it up. And yet, the same guys who wouldn't take your post seriously for a nanosecond, don't even bat an eye at comparing Jack's major total to Vardon's and Hagen's.

Which is how you know their support of Jack is religious, not rational. They start with their conclusion, and reject any data that contradicts it.

[bwrichmond]

[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1375822055' post='7618368']
[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1375812746' post='7617326']
[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1375790570' post='7614674']
I think it would be very interesting to see how many tournaments have been won by the respective people we are discussing where at least say 40 of the top 50 in the world are competing. I have a hunch (though I haven't done the numbers) that Tiger would be well out in front. I also think it's interesting that this idea will probably get shot down by people in Jack's corner on the basis that Jack had so many fewer opportunities to do that. Yet those same people are very happy to basically exclude Harry Vardon from this discussion in the same fashion. Vardon had the opportunity to basically play in one major per year. He played in the US Open three times, finishing 1st 2nd and tied 2nd, but he lost 5 years of the Open to WWI, having won the last one beforehand.

Vardon played in 26 major championships before he was 50 (it could have been two fewer than that depending on when in the year the 1920 Open and US Open were played. He won 7 of them. Jack played in 120 majors by the same age. He won 18 of them. If Harry Vardon had been able to play in 120 majors and won at the same rate, he would have won over 25 of them. It should also be noted that Vardon won those 7 majors with Braid and Taylor in the field. Taylor won 5 majors, having played in also 26 by his 50th year of age. Braid won 5 majors having played in only 21 of them by his 50th year. Ramp those numbers up too and you're looking at 3 guys with 20+ majors. That's a whole heck of a lot more than anyone Jack ever had to deal with. So, if we are in the business of judging like with like by saying it's unfair to include WGCs in Tiger's total, then we should be treating Harry Vardon as the greatest player ever. If on the other hand we think it's silly to inflate the numbers from years past to reflect how the game has changed, then I think Tiger is well out in front, with 32 victories in majors and WGCs versus Jack's 18.
[/quote]

Careful, you will make heads explode.
[/quote]

Hermione Granger would say, "Extrapolas Ridiculoso!"
[/quote]

Well... It only took 1795 posts, but we officially have Harry Potter as an entrant to the greatest male player ever thread...

[Joe85]

1A. Jones
1B. Hogan
2. Nicklaus
3. Woods


At the end of his career though I see Tiger as eclipsing the three I currently have above him. I will also say that I think Nicklaus (at 2) and Hogan just above him could interchange, just that I see Hogan as a touch better with what he did after his terrible injury and the loss of years due to WWII.

[tstephen]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1375872291' post='7622100']
[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1375786575' post='7614476']
[b][size=5]10[/size][/b][b][size=4] [/size][/b][color=#000000][size=2]Number of seasons Woods has accumulated at least five victories. … This is the most in PGA TOUR history. Sam Snead is second with eight, followed by Ben Hogan (7), Jack Nicklaus (7), Arnold Palmer (4) and Tom Watson (4).[/size][/color]
[/quote]

Monetary inflation is a much more difficult concept than simply realizing that Vardon and Hagen only had one or two majors to play each year, with a world war eliminating even those for several years. There's not a guy on this board who can tell you the Consumer Price Index of 1965 without looking it up. And yet, the same guys who wouldn't take your post seriously for a nanosecond, don't even bat an eye at comparing Jack's major total to Vardon's and Hagen's.

Which is how you know their support of Jack is religious, not rational. They start with their conclusion, and reject any data that contradicts it.
[/quote]

Jones was the smart one then staying amateur and having 4 majors to play. He was also the generous one giving the professional game it's fourth major championship.

[bscinstnct]

LV has an opinion on the subject

[url="http://www.eonline.com/news/445811/lindsey-vonn-tweets-tiger-woods-is-greatest-of-all-time-golfer-shares-sweet-victory-moment-with-son?cmpid=par-121113-outbrain-paid-links"]http://www.eonline.com/news/445811/lindsey-vonn-tweets-tiger-woods-is-greatest-of-all-time-golfer-shares-sweet-victory-moment-with-son?cmpid=par-121113-outbrain-paid-links[/url]