Greatest male player ever

[gusmahler]

FWIW, Tiger has pretty much clinched the points based PGA Player of the Year award for 2013. This is his 11th year winning it. That's the same number of PGA Player of the Year awards that Jack Nicklaus and Tom Watson won combined.

2013 will be the 10th time Tiger has won the money title (he's $3M ahead of second place going into the last tournament) and the 12th time leading the PGA in tournaments won. (Jack had 8 money titles and led the tour in titles won 5 times).

He also has a chance to win the Vardon trophy (low average) for the 9th time (he's leading by 0.2 strokes). That's 9 times more than Jack, for those keeping track.

And remember that 2013 is considered by almost everyone to be an "off-year" for Tiger.

[dlygrisse]

[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1379558695' post='7875291']
FWIW, Tiger has pretty much clinched the points based PGA Player of the Year award for 2013. This is his 11th year winning it. That's the same number of PGA Player of the Year awards that Jack Nicklaus and Tom Watson won combined.

2013 will be the 10th time Tiger has won the money title (he's $3M ahead of second place going into the last tournament) and the 12th time leading the PGA in tournaments won. (Jack had 8 money titles and led the tour in titles won 5 times).

He also has a chance to win the Vardon trophy (low average) for the 9th time (he's leading by 0.2 strokes). That's 9 times more than Jack, for those keeping track.

And remember that 2013 is considered by almost everyone to be an "off-year" for Tiger.
[/quote]

Jack led the tour in scoring average at least 8 times, but only won the Vardon trophy once because he was basically a part time player most of his career and rarely played enough rounds to qualify. Jack while generally playing about 16 tournaments a year never finished outside the top 4 on the money list for 17 straight years.

Not trying to diminish what Tiger has done, even this year, just saying give credit where credit is due. They were both the greatest of their generation, the two greatest of all time. The final measuring stick is majors won, Jack said it, Tiger said it. That should be good enough for us internet jockeys. 10 years from now if Tiger passes Jack then the argument is over, done, you win....but till then just accept the fact that Tiger is still in his 30's, working on his 4th swing change, struggling (for him) and needs to win 5 more majors (a hall of fame career in it's self). He might do it, he might not, that's why they play the tournaments.

[gusmahler]

Why should number of majors be "good enough for us internet jockeys" just because Jack and Tiger said it. They could be wrong. If a baseball player said you should consider who's the best solely based on batting average, RBIs, and HRs, sabermatricians would laugh.

IMO, it's absurd that Tiger could win 5 more POY awards and get to 100 tournament wins, but if he ends up at 17 or fewer majors, he'll be considered second best. Tiger's peak was insane. The length of his peak is possibly even more absurd. No one has had a peak 16 years long. Greats like Watson and Palmer were washed up this far into their career. Jack was a part-time player (who was still winning majors, of course). Surely that counts for something, right? Or is it all based on that single number?

[turtleback]

[quote name='dlygrisse' timestamp='1379561199' post='7875491']
[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1379558695' post='7875291']
FWIW, Tiger has pretty much clinched the points based PGA Player of the Year award for 2013. This is his 11th year winning it. That's the same number of PGA Player of the Year awards that Jack Nicklaus and Tom Watson won combined.

2013 will be the 10th time Tiger has won the money title (he's $3M ahead of second place going into the last tournament) and the 12th time leading the PGA in tournaments won. (Jack had 8 money titles and led the tour in titles won 5 times).

He also has a chance to win the Vardon trophy (low average) for the 9th time (he's leading by 0.2 strokes). That's 9 times more than Jack, for those keeping track.

And remember that 2013 is considered by almost everyone to be an "off-year" for Tiger.
[/quote]

Jack led the tour in scoring average at least 8 times, but only won the Vardon trophy once because he was basically a part time player most of his career and rarely played enough rounds to qualify. Jack while generally playing about 16 tournaments a year never finished outside the top 4 on the money list for 17 straight years.

Not trying to diminish what Tiger has done, even this year, just saying give credit where credit is due. They were both the greatest of their generation, the two greatest of all time. The final measuring stick is majors won, Jack said it, Tiger said it. That should be good enough for us internet jockeys. 10 years from now if Tiger passes Jack then the argument is over, done, you win....but till then just accept the fact that Tiger is still in his 30's, working on his 4th swing change, struggling (for him) and needs to win 5 more majors (a hall of fame career in it's self). He might do it, he might not, that's why they play the tournaments.
[/quote]

So we give Jack a pass on not winning any Vardons (and you are wrong about him winning one, he NEVER won one) because he voluntarily didn't play enough events, but the fact that Hogan had far fewer opportunities to win majors than Jack did, for reason completely out of his control, yet won majors at a higher percentage than Jack did gets completely ignored and Hogan gets writen right out of the GOAT discussion because he "only" won 9 majors.

As to most majors won, Jack said a lot of things about how the GOAT should be determined, and only hit on most majors won when it appeared that he wasn't going to meet any of the other metrics he earlier thought were needed. And then he came out with his fantastically self-serving statement that the ONLY FAIR WAY to compare players of different eras is most majors, when all of the other contenders in other eras had far fewer opportunities to win majors than he did. People talk about how Jack has more class than Tiger and maybe he does. But when it comes to saying what it takes to be GOAT, at least Tiger sticks to what he has said from the beginning, he doesn't blow with the wind and try to change the metric to his advantage, the way Jack did repeatedly. So at least in this limited sense, Tiger has shown a lot more class than Jack.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1379558695' post='7875291']
FWIW, Tiger has pretty much clinched the points based PGA Player of the Year award for 2013. This is his 11th year winning it. That's the same number of PGA Player of the Year awards that Jack Nicklaus and Tom Watson won combined.

2013 will be the 10th time Tiger has won the money title (he's $3M ahead of second place going into the last tournament) and the 12th time leading the PGA in tournaments won. (Jack had 8 money titles and led the tour in titles won 5 times).

He also has a chance to win the Vardon trophy (low average) for the 9th time (he's leading by 0.2 strokes). That's 9 times more than Jack, for those keeping track.

And remember that 2013 is considered by almost everyone to be an "off-year" for Tiger.
[/quote]

Good stuff. Jack and his fans claim he led the tour in scoring 8 times (except tstephen, who has somehow claimed 9 scoring titles for Jack several times this thread), but Tiger has 10 *official* PGA Tour scoring titles (he didn't play enough rounds to win the Vardon in 2006, but won the Tour's scoring title, which required only 50 rounds), and if he counted them the way Jack does, he'd have 13, by including years he led either in actual or adjusted average, or didn't play enough rounds. His average in the injury-shortened 2008 season was an incredible 67.65. But then, the fewer rounds you play, the easier it is to have a low average, as Jack well knows.

The Vardon is not in the bag for this year, though. Tiger has only a slim lead over Stricker, who is playing as well as he has in his life, and the fact that Tiger hasn't taken even a practice swing at Atlanta as of Wednesday night indicates something is still wrong with his back.

As for POTY titles, it's amazing that he's on the verge of having as many as the next two guys combined. And contrary to popular belief, Jack was eligible for POTY his entire career. The reason he only won five times was because he was the clearly best golfer on tour only five years of his career, simple as that. Jack was among the best for nearly 20 years, but Arnie was better than him in the early 60's, Casper was better than him in the late 60's, Trevino and Miller were better than him in the early 70's, and Watson was better than him in the late 70's, with the exception of his five POTY seasons.

Incredibly, some people still think of Tiger as having a relatively brief peak. This is his [b][i]18th[/i][/b] season as a pro, and he's still dominating. Five wins (when only four other players have two), first in scoring and money, and he's farther ahead of #2 in the world rankings than Hunter Mahan is ahead of me.

Jack, with a well-deserved reputation for longevity, won zero times in his 18th season on tour, and was 71st on the money list. The last time he was even in the top ten in scoring, regardless of how many rounds he played, was his 15th season.

Jack won his 15th major at age 38. Tiger is a much better player at 37 than Jack was. If Jackophiles want Tiger to fail in his quest for 19 majors, they have to count on the tougher competition Tiger faces --- which they say doesn't exist.

[gusmahler]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1379593170' post='7876469']
His average in the injury-shortened 2008 season was an incredible 67.65.
[/quote]Tiger's 2008 was amazing. He led the PGA in tournaments won (4), was second in money, and led in the FedEx Cup standings. All of this despite playing only 6 tournaments because of injury. Six tournaments! The ones he didn't win, he finished 5th and 2nd (in the Masters).

I do have a point of contention with your post, though. You are cherry-picking by pointing out that Jack finished 71st in money in his 18th year. True, but so what? Tiger finished 128th in money in his 16th year.

I don't know what happened in Jack's 18th year (injury, I assume), but he finished 13th in money in his 19th year and won two majors. In fact, he finished between 10th and 16th in money each of his 19th through 23rd year. Just wanted to clarify that Jack wasn't finished after his 18th year, which is the impression some may get if they look at your post in isolation.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1379600225' post='7877021']
[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1379593170' post='7876469']
His average in the injury-shortened 2008 season was an incredible 67.65.
[/quote]Tiger's 2008 was amazing. He led the PGA in tournaments won (4), was second in money, and led in the FedEx Cup standings. All of this despite playing only 6 tournaments because of injury. Six tournaments! The ones he didn't win, he finished 5th and 2nd (in the Masters).

I do have a point of contention with your post, though. You are cherry-picking by pointing out that Jack finished 71st in money in his 18th year. True, but so what? Tiger finished 128th in money in his 16th year.

I don't know what happened in Jack's 18th year (injury, I assume), but he finished 13th in money in his 19th year and won two majors. In fact, he finished between 10th and 16th in money each of his 19th through 23rd year. Just wanted to clarify that Jack wasn't finished after his 18th year, which is the impression some may get if they look at your post in isolation.
[/quote]

Tiger actually played 7 events in 2008, and won five of them, counting Dubai.

As for cherry picking, I mentioned Jack's 18th season because this is Tiger's 18th season, that's all. But Jack WAS finished that year as a dominant golfer. Actually, Watson had been the best player in the world for a few years by then, but after 1978, Jack was never in the top ten in scoring, and was in the top ten on the money list only once, and even that one year it was right at tenth. He won only five times in 8 years. His two-major 1980 was great, of course, but those were his only two wins in a three year period, so it was more Harrington-like than Jack-like.

Don't get me wrong, he wasn't too far out of the top ten in the world, and his major wins proved that he could be red hot for a week or two a year, but he was never the constant threat he had been in his prime.

[gusmahler]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1379602417' post='7877241']
Don't get me wrong, he wasn't too far out of the top ten in the world, and his major wins proved that he could be red hot for a week or two a year, but he was never the constant threat he had been in his prime.
[/quote]Excellent summary--still a very good golfer, no longer the best. While Tiger is still the best in his 18th year. And I wouldn't bet against him winning a few more PoYs in his 19th and beyond.

Completely different question, but I noticed this on Jack's Wikipedia page. He only won 10 senior tournaments, which really isn't that much. But 8 of those were majors. How does that happen? Did he only enter senior majors or something?

[tstephen]

One Tiger supporter says Jack has less class because of his redefining greatest criteria. Then there is the statement that it is pretty much only Tiger & Jack who think majors are THE measuring stick. Yet others go to favorable for Tiger statements by Trevino or Venturi. And Brock says I don't make sense. I am laughing once more.

[gusmahler]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1379607114' post='7877681']
One Tiger supporter says Jack has less class because of his redefining greatest criteria. Then there is the statement that it is pretty much only Tiger & Jack who think majors are THE measuring stick. Yet others go to favorable for Tiger statements by Trevino or Venturi. And Brock says I don't make sense. I am laughing once more.
[/quote]No, it's pretty clear. Jack and Tiger both say NOW that majors are all that counts.

What Jack detractors are saying is that Jack used to say that total wins counts, until he realized he couldn't match Snead's total wins. IIRC, Jack even attempted to add his Senior majors to his total. That's what they are talking about with Jack changing his criteria.

What I (and others) are saying on this page is that what Tiger and Jack think defines the best is relevant, but not the end all, be-all of defining greatness in a golfer. Using other criteria (such as money titles, number of titles, etc.) as well as intangibles such as peak, longevity, and consistency leads me to believe that Tiger's career > Jack's career, regardless of what Tiger or Jack thinks. This is my opinion only (and those who agree with me). After all, if majors are all that counted, why would Tiger even bother playing other tournaments? He'd play 4 majors a year and practice the rest of the year. The fact that he doesn't do that means that other tournaments must mean something to Tiger, even if he won't admit it.

[tstephen]

In tennis, if Nadal passes Federer he will be the greatest. Nobody cares about total non grand slam wins or winning percentage. Also, how is it possible in this sports era with a growing number of greats for the most recent greats to have the most majors?
Had Seve and Norman been born in the late 70's Tiger would have had 10x the competition he has gotten out of anyone younger than him. I won't even mention Watson or Trevino. I can't even imagine if Seve had the non-driver technology to use off the tee like Tiger or if Norman could play in his prime with the low spin modern balls. Game over Tiger.

[gusmahler]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1379616422' post='7878533']
In tennis, if Nadal passes Federer he will be the greatest. Nobody cares about total non grand slam wins or winning percentage. Also, how is it possible in this sports era with a growing number of greats for the most recent greats to have the most majors?
Had Seve and Norman been born in the late 70's Tiger would have had 10x the competition he has gotten out of anyone younger than him. I won't even mention Watson or Trevino. I can't even imagine if Seve had the non-driver technology to use off the tee like Tiger or if Norman could play in his prime with the low spin modern balls. Game over Tiger.
[/quote]Golf isn't tennis. Non major tennis tournaments aren't even covered by ESPN and the like. The general sports fan doesn't even care about them. No one knows how many total tourneys Nadal or Djoko or Sampras has and no one cares. Non-majors pay a mere fraction of what majors pay. (E.g., the prize pool at the Barcelona Open was 2M Euros. 4M at the Madrid Open. But the prize pool at the French Open was 10M Euros). That's why, in tennis, majors are so much more important than non-majors.

None of that is true for the PGA. Every golf tournament is on national network TV. Not just the majors. A run-of the mill PGA tournament pays 80% of what majors pay. The entire FedEx Cup series pays the same as majors. Majors aren't even the highest paying tourneys in golf (that would be the WGC events and the Players). So, unlike tennis, a non-major is, while not as big as winning a major, still a pretty big deal. (BTW, Tiger won 3 of the 4 highest paying tourneys in 2013.)

And this lack of competition meme is just crap. Vijay has more PGA wins that Seve and Greg Norman combined. And Phil has 8 more wins than Vijay. Vijay's 2004 year dwarfs anything that Seve or Norman or Watson or Trevino has ever done and is probably the best year anyone not named Tiger Woods has ever had. Both Vijay and Phil have more wins than Trevino and Phil has more wins than Tom Watson. If Tiger wasn't around, Phil probably would have had 5 or so Player of the Year awards and people would be calling him the next Watson. But he's overshadowed because, as good as Phil as, Tiger is much much better.

[tstephen]

I am pretty sure the endorsement money for winning a major is several times that of a non-major.
Seve is all-time win leader on euro tour and if you had watched Norman as much as I did in person you would know that he had more talent in his little finger than 27 of the guys playing this week at the tour championship.

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1379617881' post='7878641']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1379616422' post='7878533']
In tennis, if Nadal passes Federer he will be the greatest. Nobody cares about total non grand slam wins or winning percentage. Also, how is it possible in this sports era with a growing number of greats for the most recent greats to have the most majors?
Had Seve and Norman been born in the late 70's Tiger would have had 10x the competition he has gotten out of anyone younger than him. I won't even mention Watson or Trevino. I can't even imagine if Seve had the non-driver technology to use off the tee like Tiger or if Norman could play in his prime with the low spin modern balls. Game over Tiger.
[/quote]Golf isn't tennis. Non major tennis tournaments aren't even covered by ESPN and the like. The general sports fan doesn't even care about them. No one knows how many total tourneys Nadal or Djoko or Sampras has and no one cares. Non-majors pay a mere fraction of what majors pay. (E.g., the prize pool at the Barcelona Open was 2M Euros. 4M at the Madrid Open. But the prize pool at the French Open was 10M Euros). That's why, in tennis, majors are so much more important than non-majors.

None of that is true for the PGA. Every golf tournament is on national network TV. Not just the majors. A run-of the mill PGA tournament pays 80% of what majors pay. The entire FedEx Cup series pays the same as majors. Majors aren't even the highest paying tourneys in golf (that would be the WGC events and the Players). So, unlike tennis, a non-major is, while not as big as winning a major, still a pretty big deal. (BTW, Tiger won 3 of the 4 highest paying tourneys in 2013.)

And this lack of competition meme is just crap. Vijay has more PGA wins that Seve and Greg Norman combined. And Phil has 8 more wins than Vijay. Vijay's 2004 year dwarfs anything that Seve or Norman or Watson or Trevino has ever done and is probably the best year anyone not named Tiger Woods has ever had. Both Vijay and Phil have more wins than Trevino and Phil has more wins than Tom Watson. If Tiger wasn't around, Phil probably would have had 5 or so Player of the Year awards and people would be calling him the next Watson. But he's overshadowed because, as good as Phil as, Tiger is much much better.
[/quote]

I wish you the best of luck gus, but arguing with tstephen is like trying to push water uphill. Throw facts at him as much as you like and he'll dodge and dive and claim none of them hit. If he went paintballing, he'd be the guy with a bottle of turpentine and a rag to wash the paint off. I think he's just trolling.

That said, great post.

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1379622132' post='7879055']
I am pretty sure the endorsement money for winning a major is several times that of a non-major.
Seve is all-time win leader on euro tour and if you had watched Norman as much as I did in person you would know that he had more talent in his little finger than 27 of the guys playing this week at the tour championship.
[/quote]

You know it's funny. A lot of people think that Norman was unlucky. Take for example that Bob Tway holed that bunker shot in the PGA. Yes that was unlucky, but how many shots did Norman take to play the back nine that day? You watched him so much, I'm sure you know. Where was that talent then? And what on earth happened to it in April 1996 that Sunday at Augusta? Norman won two majors and in winning both of them played other worldly golf. But he also lost a lot and a fair chunk of that wasn't so much people going past him.

Take the Open in 1993. Faldo had the lead I think going into the final round and shot 67. Norman shot 64 and beat him. That's someone going past you. 1996 at Augusta, Norman had a 6 shot lead and shot 78. 78! Faldo shot 67 and won. By 5. Yes Faldo went past him, but there was an awful lot of reverse going on from Greg right there.

[gusmahler]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1379622132' post='7879055']
I am pretty sure the endorsement money for winning a major is several times that of a non-major.
[/quote]Yeah, I bet Lucas Glover is rolling in the endorsement money.

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1379622132' post='7879055']
Seve is all-time win leader on euro tour and if you had watched Norman as much as I did in person you would know that he had more talent in his little finger than 27 of the guys playing this week at the tour championship.
[/quote]What if games are pointless. My point was that people keep saying Tiger doesn't have the competition that Jack have. He didn't have a Watson or Trevino. Fact is that Tiger's peak overlaps with those of two HOFers (Phil and Vijay) and 2 possible HOFers (Furyk and Love). Tiger has had competition.

[mr smith]

[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1379573651' post='7876017']
[quote name='dlygrisse' timestamp='1379561199' post='7875491']
[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1379558695' post='7875291']
FWIW, Tiger has pretty much clinched the points based PGA Player of the Year award for 2013. This is his 11th year winning it. That's the same number of PGA Player of the Year awards that Jack Nicklaus and Tom Watson won combined.

2013 will be the 10th time Tiger has won the money title (he's $3M ahead of second place going into the last tournament) and the 12th time leading the PGA in tournaments won. (Jack had 8 money titles and led the tour in titles won 5 times).

He also has a chance to win the Vardon trophy (low average) for the 9th time (he's leading by 0.2 strokes). That's 9 times more than Jack, for those keeping track.

And remember that 2013 is considered by almost everyone to be an "off-year" for Tiger.
[/quote]

Jack led the tour in scoring average at least 8 times, but only won the Vardon trophy once because he was basically a part time player most of his career and rarely played enough rounds to qualify. Jack while generally playing about 16 tournaments a year never finished outside the top 4 on the money list for 17 straight years.

Not trying to diminish what Tiger has done, even this year, just saying give credit where credit is due. They were both the greatest of their generation, the two greatest of all time. The final measuring stick is majors won, Jack said it, Tiger said it. That should be good enough for us internet jockeys. 10 years from now if Tiger passes Jack then the argument is over, done, you win....but till then just accept the fact that Tiger is still in his 30's, working on his 4th swing change, struggling (for him) and needs to win 5 more majors (a hall of fame career in it's self). He might do it, he might not, that's why they play the tournaments.
[/quote]

So we give Jack a pass on not winning any Vardons (and you are wrong about him winning one, he NEVER won one) because he voluntarily didn't play enough events, but the fact that Hogan had far fewer opportunities to win majors than Jack did, for reason completely out of his control, yet won majors at a higher percentage than Jack did gets completely ignored and Hogan gets writen right out of the GOAT discussion because he "only" won 9 majors.

As to most majors won, Jack said a lot of things about how the GOAT should be determined, and only hit on most majors won when it appeared that he wasn't going to meet any of the other metrics he earlier thought were needed. And then he came out with his fantastically self-serving statement that the ONLY FAIR WAY to compare players of different eras is most majors, when all of the other contenders in other eras had far fewer opportunities to win majors than he did. People talk about how Jack has more class than Tiger and maybe he does. But when it comes to saying what it takes to be GOAT, at least Tiger sticks to what he has said from the beginning, he doesn't blow with the wind and try to change the metric to his advantage, the way Jack did repeatedly. So at least in this limited sense, Tiger has shown a lot more class than Jack.
[/quote]
This whole debate has got way out of hand. Tiger is the best there is, and the best that ever was. The GOAT. Period. The real debate should be about who was the best before tiger, or BT for short. I agree that Hogan is disregarded out of hand based on majors, as are other greats like Trevino and Seve. Jack was a super consistent grinder whose longevity allowed him to build a great major record, but during his injury shortened prime Hogan was a far more dominant player. If you go on youtube you wont find hundreds of hits for Nicklaus swing. Hogans swing is the most viewed amd most amalysed swing of all time. Almost every swing guru has posted numerous articles about Hogan and his swing, Hogan is the benchmark to which all swings are compared. He has a mystique about him that has become almost mythical. Nicklaus is lauded for his record, but he is not as revered by players and teachers as Hogan.

I also agree that Jack wasnt the all round nice guy back in his playing days that he portrays himself to be now. Im old enough to remember a sour ball, win at all costs competitive animal.

[tstephen]

1977 British Open loss to Watson. Jack same age as Tiger now. Please, give me a break. Tiger will never have anyone not named Bob May perform like that against him and if he did lose a battle like that one would he even show 1/1,000,000 the class Jack demonstrated? Seve showed as much class in the '86 Masters.

[gusmahler]

We're talking about the "greatest" golfer ever. Not the classiest.

[rhh7]

My personal opinion is that Tiger Woods, Phil Mickleson, and Vijay Singh are the 3 greatest players in professional golf history.

[gusmahler]

[quote name='dlygrisse' timestamp='1379561199' post='7875491']
Jack led the tour in scoring average at least 8 times, but only won the Vardon trophy once because he was basically a part time player most of his career and rarely played enough rounds to qualify. Jack [b]while generally playing about 16 tournaments a year[/b] never finished outside the top 4 on the money list for 17 straight years.
[/quote]The bolded is false. The first 13 years of his career, Jack never played fewer than 18 tournaments. Then he played 16, 16, then 18. He played 22 or more tournaments in a year 7 times. I assume the reason he didn't win the Vardon was because the requirement used to be 80 rounds per year, not the 60 it is now. Though that still doesn't make sense because he led in scoring in both 1964 and 1965 and played 26 and 24 tourneys those years. Unless he missed 11 or more cuts those two years (doubtful because I've read he only missed 9 cuts during his prime), he should have easily gotten to 80 rounds those years.

Through the first 18 years of his career, Jack averaged 19.8 tournaments per year. Tiger has averaged 16.4

[tstephen]

[quote name='rhh7' timestamp='1379633982' post='7879999']
My personal opinion is that Tiger Woods, Phil Mickleson, and Vijay Singh are the 3 greatest players in professional golf history.
[/quote]

If the driver was required 10 times a round they would not be in golf's top 100.

I am a big Vijay fan and I am so glad that he is finally moving on to The Champions Tour. Given your world where golf was invented in 1993, how is Vijay better or greater than Ernie?

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1379634677' post='7880099']
[quote name='dlygrisse' timestamp='1379561199' post='7875491']
Jack led the tour in scoring average at least 8 times, but only won the Vardon trophy once because he was basically a part time player most of his career and rarely played enough rounds to qualify. Jack [b]while generally playing about 16 tournaments a year[/b] never finished outside the top 4 on the money list for 17 straight years.
[/quote]The bolded is false. The first 13 years of his career, Jack never played fewer than 18 tournaments. Then he played 16, 16, then 18. He played 22 or more tournaments in a year 7 times. I assume the reason he didn't win the Vardon was because the requirement used to be 80 rounds per year, not the 60 it is now. Though that still doesn't make sense because he led in scoring in both 1964 and 1965 and played 26 and 24 tourneys those years. Unless he missed 11 or more cuts those two years (doubtful because I've read he only missed 9 cuts during his prime), he should have easily gotten to 80 rounds those years.

Through the first 18 years of his career, Jack averaged 19.8 tournaments per year. Tiger has averaged 16.4
[/quote]

I think I've explained this before in this thread, but it's so long that I can't blame anybody for not finding it.

The PGA of America controlled the tour players from its founding in 1916, until the touring pros split off in 1968. For most of the history of the PGA, the tour pros all had winter jobs as club pros --- even top stars like Snead and Hogan had the titles, if not the duties. So there were a lot of policies that seem silly to us today, that favored club pros.

For one thing, the fields in the PGA championship were 2/3 club pros. They would have 110 or so club pros, and 50-odd touring pros. So along with the small-field Masters and the almost American-less British Open, the PGA Championship may have had weaker fields than some of the regular tour events, even in the 60's.

The other thing was that touring pros had to fulfill a bunch of stupid requirements to get Class A status. The process took five years, and until they did it, they were not eligible for the Vardon Trophy or Ryder Cup, which is why Jack didn't win the Vardon in 1964-5, and why he wasn't on a Ryder Cup team until 1969 (however, he was eligible for POTY during his first five years).

After that, though, it was on him. The minimum number of rounds may have been higher then, but it was in accord with the standards of the time, and it didn't keep other top pros like Palmer, Casper, Trevino, and Watson from winning multiple Vardon Trophies, so it was entirely Jack's decision to play fewer rounds than required. And he used that extra time to practice at the major venues weeks in advance, in an era when he was just about the only player who did that. It gave him a big advantage over his peers at the majors. IMO, Jack was the smartest golfer ever.

So I accept that he won two scoring titles, sort of. I don't accept the other six scoring titles he has awarded himself on his website, let alone the ninth that tstephen claims for him.

And by the way, I have never seen independent confirmation of any of those imaginary titles. The source for every claim I've seen about Jack's scoring titles, including his entry in Wikipedia, is Jack's own website. I'm not saying he's deliberately lying, but he may be mistaken, because it's not enough to just compare his scoring average to the official Vardon winner. If Jack is going to ignore the minimum rounds requirement, then you have to compare his scoring average to everybody else who may have only played a few events that year, and I know of no official source for those statistics --- the PGA tour website only goes back to 1980.

[tstephen]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1379602417' post='7877241']
[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1379600225' post='7877021']
[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1379593170' post='7876469']
His average in the injury-shortened 2008 season was an incredible 67.65.
[/quote]Tiger's 2008 was amazing. He led the PGA in tournaments won (4), was second in money, and led in the FedEx Cup standings. All of this despite playing only 6 tournaments because of injury. Six tournaments! The ones he didn't win, he finished 5th and 2nd (in the Masters).

I do have a point of contention with your post, though. You are cherry-picking by pointing out that Jack finished 71st in money in his 18th year. True, but so what? Tiger finished 128th in money in his 16th year.

I don't know what happened in Jack's 18th year (injury, I assume), but he finished 13th in money in his 19th year and won two majors. In fact, he finished between 10th and 16th in money each of his 19th through 23rd year. Just wanted to clarify that Jack wasn't finished after his 18th year, which is the impression some may get if they look at your post in isolation.
[/quote]

Tiger actually played 7 events in 2008, and won five of them, counting Dubai.

As for cherry picking, I mentioned Jack's 18th season because this is Tiger's 18th season, that's all. But Jack WAS finished that year as a dominant golfer. Actually, Watson had been the best player in the world for a few years by then, but after 1978, Jack was never in the top ten in scoring, and was in the top ten on the money list only once, and even that one year it was right at tenth. He won only five times in 8 years. His two-major 1980 was great, of course, but those were his only two wins in a three year period, so it was more Harrington-like than Jack-like.

Don't get me wrong, he wasn't too far out of the top ten in the world, and his major wins proved that he could be red hot for a week or two a year, but he was never the constant threat he had been in his prime.
[/quote]

I like Billy Casper and put him ahead of Locke & Thompson in the classic top 10. You keep saying Billy was better than Jack in the late 60's. Casper had 11 tour wins 67-69, and in majors 1 2nd, 2 4ths, and 1 6th. Jack had 10 tour wins and in majors 1 win, 3 2nds, 1 3rd, 1 5th, and 1 6th. In 6 consecutive majors he finished 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 2nd, 2nd. Even throwing in '66 and '70 giving Casper 2 majors, Jack had 3. 8 more wins for Billy vs 6 for Jack. So whoop-de-do, Billy had 4 more wins than Jack with '66 and '70 added to the equation helping Billy out big time, plus the 2 added majors. Jack had twice the wins in majors, and more than twice as many top 3s. Dude, you are killing me, I am laughing my butt off.

It would be like me saying Vijay dominated Tiger 17 wins to 12 2003 to 2005. Actually that would be much closer to the non-biased truth.

[tstephen]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1379639275' post='7880505']
[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1379634677' post='7880099']
[quote name='dlygrisse' timestamp='1379561199' post='7875491']
Jack led the tour in scoring average at least 8 times, but only won the Vardon trophy once because he was basically a part time player most of his career and rarely played enough rounds to qualify. Jack [b]while generally playing about 16 tournaments a year[/b] never finished outside the top 4 on the money list for 17 straight years.
[/quote]The bolded is false. The first 13 years of his career, Jack never played fewer than 18 tournaments. Then he played 16, 16, then 18. He played 22 or more tournaments in a year 7 times. I assume the reason he didn't win the Vardon was because the requirement used to be 80 rounds per year, not the 60 it is now. Though that still doesn't make sense because he led in scoring in both 1964 and 1965 and played 26 and 24 tourneys those years. Unless he missed 11 or more cuts those two years (doubtful because I've read he only missed 9 cuts during his prime), he should have easily gotten to 80 rounds those years.

Through the first 18 years of his career, Jack averaged 19.8 tournaments per year. Tiger has averaged 16.4
[/quote]

I think I've explained this before in this thread, but it's so long that I can't blame anybody for not finding it.

The PGA of America controlled the tour players from its founding in 1916, until the touring pros split off in 1968. For most of the history of the PGA, the tour pros all had winter jobs as club pros --- even top stars like Snead and Hogan had the titles, if not the duties. So there were a lot of policies that seem silly to us today, that favored club pros.

For one thing, the fields in the PGA championship were 2/3 club pros. They would have 110 or so club pros, and 50-odd touring pros. So along with the small-field Masters and the almost American-less British Open, the PGA Championship may have had weaker fields than some of the regular tour events, even in the 60's.

The other thing was that touring pros had to fulfill a bunch of stupid requirements to get Class A status. The process took five years, and until they did it, they were not eligible for the Vardon Trophy or Ryder Cup, which is why Jack didn't win the Vardon in 1964-5, and why he wasn't on a Ryder Cup team until 1969 (however, he was eligible for POTY during his first five years).

After that, though, it was on him. The minimum number of rounds may have been higher then, but it was in accord with the standards of the time, and it didn't keep other top pros like Palmer, Casper, Trevino, and Watson from winning multiple Vardon Trophies, so it was entirely Jack's decision to play fewer rounds than required. And he used that extra time to practice at the major venues weeks in advance, in an era when he was just about the only player who did that. It gave him a big advantage over his peers at the majors. IMO, Jack was the smartest golfer ever.

So I accept that he won two scoring titles, sort of. I don't accept the other six scoring titles he has awarded himself on his website, let alone the ninth that tstephen claims for him.

And by the way, I have never seen independent confirmation of any of those imaginary titles. The source for every claim I've seen about Jack's scoring titles, including his entry in Wikipedia, is Jack's own website. I'm not saying he's deliberately lying, but he may be mistaken, because it's not enough to just compare his scoring average to the official Vardon winner. If Jack is going to ignore the minimum rounds requirement, then you have to compare his scoring average to everybody else who may have only played a few events that year, and I know of no official source for those statistics --- the PGA tour website only goes back to 1980.
[/quote]

Brock - Hello, the club pros were rabbits and had to Monday qualify to play. You make it sound like they were fully exempt.

[rhh7]

I also love Ernie Els, like him as a man, and admire the beauty of his golf swing. But Vijay has 34 PGA Tour wins, to 19 for Ernie, over almost the identical time frame. Just my personal opinion, I think the pool of competitive golfers has grown exponentially stronger these past several decades. We may never see any of today's young stars reach 20 career PGA Tour victories...much less 34, or 42, or 79.

[dlygrisse]

If you want to talk about pure dominance in an era, Bobby Jones in a 5-7 year period was probably the dominant player ever. Better than Jack, Hogan, Vardon or Tiger. But when you retire at the age of 28 you can only rack up so many titles.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1379640736' post='7880649']
I like Billy Casper and put him ahead of Locke & Thompson in the classic top 10. You keep saying Billy was better than Jack in the late 60's. Casper had 11 tour wins 67-69, and in majors 1 2nd, 2 4ths, and 1 6th. Jack had 10 tour wins and in majors 1 win, 3 2nds, 1 3rd, 1 5th, and 1 6th. In 6 consecutive majors he finished 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 2nd, 2nd. Even throwing in '66 and '70 giving Casper 2 majors, Jack had 3. 8 more wins for Billy vs 6 for Jack. So whoop-de-do, Billy had 4 more wins than Jack with '66 and '70 added to the equation helping Billy out big time, plus the 2 added majors. Jack had twice the wins in majors, and more than twice as many top 3s. Dude, you are killing me, I am laughing my butt off.
[/quote]

"Late 60's" is not meant to be precise, but yes, I'm calling it 1966 through 1970. During those seasons:

Casper won 19 PGA events, Jack won 16 (actually, 14, since the British Open was so weak that it wasn't even considered an official event at the time).

Casper won two Vardon Trophies, Jack was never even in the top ten.

Casper won 3 POTYs, Jack won 1. Two of Casper's POTYs were official, and I'm awarding him a third imaginary one, just like you and Jack award imaginary scoring titles. Casper would have been a shoo-in for a third POTY in 1968, with six wins, the Vardon, and the money title, but the PGAofA threw a snit over the tour players spliltting off, and didn't award one. The Tour didn't start their own POTY until 1990.

Casper won two money titles, Jack won 1.

Casper had more wins than anyone else for the season 3 times, Jack did it once.

Casper won a Masters and US Open, and so did Jack. Jack also won two British Opens, when it was a low-paying, weak-field event. Casper, who won his first US Open in 1959, never even bothered playing the Open until 1968, and only played it five times total, out of the 50 years he played majors.

But you go ahead and keep counting up Jack's top threes.

[dlygrisse]

[quote name='mr smith' timestamp='1379629833' post='7879689']
[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1379573651' post='7876017']
[quote name='dlygrisse' timestamp='1379561199' post='7875491']
[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1379558695' post='7875291']
FWIW, Tiger has pretty much clinched the points based PGA Player of the Year award for 2013. This is his 11th year winning it. That's the same number of PGA Player of the Year awards that Jack Nicklaus and Tom Watson won combined.

2013 will be the 10th time Tiger has won the money title (he's $3M ahead of second place going into the last tournament) and the 12th time leading the PGA in tournaments won. (Jack had 8 money titles and led the tour in titles won 5 times).

He also has a chance to win the Vardon trophy (low average) for the 9th time (he's leading by 0.2 strokes). That's 9 times more than Jack, for those keeping track.

And remember that 2013 is considered by almost everyone to be an "off-year" for Tiger.
[/quote]

Jack led the tour in scoring average at least 8 times, but only won the Vardon trophy once because he was basically a part time player most of his career and rarely played enough rounds to qualify. Jack while generally playing about 16 tournaments a year never finished outside the top 4 on the money list for 17 straight years.

Not trying to diminish what Tiger has done, even this year, just saying give credit where credit is due. They were both the greatest of their generation, the two greatest of all time. The final measuring stick is majors won, Jack said it, Tiger said it. That should be good enough for us internet jockeys. 10 years from now if Tiger passes Jack then the argument is over, done, you win....but till then just accept the fact that Tiger is still in his 30's, working on his 4th swing change, struggling (for him) and needs to win 5 more majors (a hall of fame career in it's self). He might do it, he might not, that's why they play the tournaments.
[/quote]

So we give Jack a pass on not winning any Vardons (and you are wrong about him winning one, he NEVER won one) because he voluntarily didn't play enough events, but the fact that Hogan had far fewer opportunities to win majors than Jack did, for reason completely out of his control, yet won majors at a higher percentage than Jack did gets completely ignored and Hogan gets writen right out of the GOAT discussion because he "only" won 9 majors.

As to most majors won, Jack said a lot of things about how the GOAT should be determined, and only hit on most majors won when it appeared that he wasn't going to meet any of the other metrics he earlier thought were needed. And then he came out with his fantastically self-serving statement that the ONLY FAIR WAY to compare players of different eras is most majors, when all of the other contenders in other eras had far fewer opportunities to win majors than he did. People talk about how Jack has more class than Tiger and maybe he does. But when it comes to saying what it takes to be GOAT, at least Tiger sticks to what he has said from the beginning, he doesn't blow with the wind and try to change the metric to his advantage, the way Jack did repeatedly. So at least in this limited sense, Tiger has shown a lot more class than Jack.
[/quote]
This whole debate has got way out of hand. Tiger is the best there is, and the best that ever was. The GOAT.[b] Period[/b]. The real debate should be about who was the best before tiger, or BT for short. I agree that Hogan is disregarded out of hand based on majors, as are other greats like Trevino and Seve. Jack was a super consistent grinder whose longevity allowed him to build a great major record, but during his injury shortened prime Hogan was a far more dominant player. If you go on youtube you wont find hundreds of hits for Nicklaus swing. Hogans swing is the most viewed amd most amalysed swing of all time. Almost every swing guru has posted numerous articles about Hogan and his swing, Hogan is the benchmark to which all swings are compared. He has a mystique about him that has become almost mythical. Nicklaus is lauded for his record, but he is not as revered by players and teachers as Hogan.

I also agree that Jack wasnt the all round nice guy back in his playing days that he portrays himself to be now. Im old enough to remember a sour ball, win at all costs competitive animal.
[/quote]Not period. Question mark.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1379640897' post='7880665']

Brock - Hello, the club pros were rabbits and had to Monday qualify to play. You make it sound like they were fully exempt.
[/quote]

"There were only 56 touring pros in the starting field of 168 players at San Antonio. One day a writer asked me about this ratio, and I said, 'It's absurd and unfortunate.' Only a third of the players at the PGA were regular tour competitors—or, in other words, the best players in the world. " --- Jack Nicklaus, commenting on the 1968 PGA Championship