Greatest male player ever

[Finbarr Saunders]

Jack won 20 majors, his two amateur titles were classed as majors at the time

[tstephen]

[quote name='Finbarr Saunders' timestamp='1380315917' post='7921157']
Jack won 20 majors, his two amateur titles were classed as majors at the time
[/quote]

Greatest champion in golf during the era of the greatest champions.

[gusmahler]

[quote name='Finbarr Saunders' timestamp='1380315917' post='7921157']
Jack won 20 majors, his two amateur titles were classed as majors at the time
[/quote]Problem is, you can't just count them for one guy, but not for another. If Jack has 20, then Tiger has 17. If Jack has 18, then Tiger has 14.

[tstephen]

[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1380338214' post='7922541']
[quote name='Finbarr Saunders' timestamp='1380315917' post='7921157']
Jack won 20 majors, his two amateur titles were classed as majors at the time
[/quote]Problem is, you can't just count them for one guy, but not for another. If Jack has 20, then Tiger has 17. If Jack has 18, then Tiger has 14.
[/quote]

Golf channel post had someone call The Players a major for Tiger this year. Certainly, the US Am was no longer considered a major by the time it went to stroke play and then back to match well before Tiger won...so Jack 23, Tiger 16.

[redfirebird08]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380342068' post='7922737']
[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1380338214' post='7922541']
[quote name='Finbarr Saunders' timestamp='1380315917' post='7921157']
Jack won 20 majors, his two amateur titles were classed as majors at the time
[/quote]Problem is, you can't just count them for one guy, but not for another. If Jack has 20, then Tiger has 17. If Jack has 18, then Tiger has 14.
[/quote]

Golf channel post had someone call The Players a major for Tiger this year. Certainly, the US Am was no longer considered a major by the time it went to stroke play and then back to match well before Tiger won...so Jack 23, Tiger 16.
[/quote]

lol

[rjp322]

I really cant believe this thread is even still going on. I left it a long time ago. It is very clear people are not going to change their minds. I remember when tstepehn had like 40 posts when he first started posting here. Now he has over 500. However if the following is anything like the posts he has made previously since I left, I definitely missed out on alot of LOLs. Just reading back to the last page I see Brock is still killing it in this thread.

"[color=#282828]Golf channel post had someone call The Players a major for Tiger this year. Certainly, the US Am was no longer considered a major by the time it went to stroke play and then back to match well before Tiger won...so Jack 23, Tiger 16. "[/color]

[tstephen]

[quote name='rjp322' timestamp='1380385312' post='7923973']
I really cant believe this thread is even still going on. I left it a long time ago. It is very clear people are not going to change their minds. I remember when tstepehn had like 40 posts when he first started posting here. Now he has over 500. However if the following is anything like the posts he has made previously since I left, I definitely missed out on alot of LOLs. Just reading back to the last page I see Brock is still killing it in this thread.

"[color=#282828]Golf channel post had someone call The Players a major for Tiger this year. Certainly, the US Am was no longer considered a major by the time it went to stroke play and then back to match well before Tiger won...so Jack 23, Tiger 16. "[/color]
[/quote]

Brock is getting killed in this thread and because Brock is such a stickler for correct grammar a lot is 2 words.

[rjp322]

[url="http://www.golfwrx.com/126704/tiger-vs-jack-a-definitive-answer/"]http://www.golfwrx.com/126704/tiger-vs-jack-a-definitive-answer/[/url]

Debate over. Tiger GOAT and better than Jack

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='rjp322' timestamp='1380398270' post='7924585']
[url="http://www.golfwrx.com/126704/tiger-vs-jack-a-definitive-answer/"]http://www.golfwrx.c...initive-answer/[/url]

Debate over. Tiger GOAT and better than Jack
[/quote]

I agree that Tiger's the GOAT, but comparing individual scoring averages with different fields, different equipment, and essentially different courses (and the author is flat wrong when he says Augusta hasn't changed much) is a waste of time.

Tiger shot -19 at Torrey Pines to win the 2008 Buick Invitational. That included one round at the North Course, but it also included a Sunday where he just cruised, because he had as much as an 11 shot lead during the final round.

Five months later, he shot -1 at Torrey Pines to win the US Open. The course was made tougher by the USGA, but the difference was much, much less than the difference between Augusta in 1965 and Augusta in 2005. Like other courses, it has had to adapt to the changes in ball and club technology, so the guys don't all shoot 58.

[tstephen]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1380401660' post='7924757']
[quote name='rjp322' timestamp='1380398270' post='7924585']
[url="http://www.golfwrx.com/126704/tiger-vs-jack-a-definitive-answer/"]http://www.golfwrx.c...initive-answer/[/url]

Debate over. Tiger GOAT and better than Jack
[/quote]

I agree that Tiger's the GOAT, but comparing individual scoring averages with different fields, different equipment, and essentially different courses (and the author is flat wrong when he says Augusta hasn't changed much) is a waste of time.

Tiger shot -19 at Torrey Pines to win the 2008 Buick Invitational. That included one round at the North Course, but it also included a Sunday where he just cruised, because he had as much as an 11 shot lead during the final round.

Five months later, he shot -1 at Torrey Pines to win the US Open. The course was made tougher by the USGA, but the difference was much, much less than the difference between Augusta in 1965 and Augusta in 2005. Like other courses, it has had to adapt to the changes in ball and club technology, so the guys don't all shoot 58.
[/quote]

It has been over 30 years since The Masters have had the greens at a ridiculous speed. In 1955 Ben Hogan is hitting out of knee high rough in The US Open. The courses are longer but generally less tricky than 30-50 years ago. I have been lucky to play a few hundred rounds at Riviera and the greens have not been super hard and fast in 30 years there as well. Once again, Brock tries to build everything up in today's game.

I feel that the technology in both the equipment and swing analyzing is the cause of the inconsistency in Tiger and everyone else on tour. I commented on this before The Tour Championship regarding his competition and it is exactly what Tiger said after the final round, inconsistency is his biggest problem.

Advancements in technology are slowing down and may help a Jordan Spieth to play at the highest level consistently for a long time. Jack was #1 in the world from 1963 to 1977, #2 the following 2 years. A level of consistency Tiger will never achieve. And yes Brock there was not a world ranking from '63-'67 but a 2 year old would be able to determine Jack was #1 easily by the end of '63.

[turtleback]

[quote name='rjp322' timestamp='1380385312' post='7923973']
I really cant believe this thread is even still going on. I left it a long time ago. It is very clear people are not going to change their minds. I remember when tstepehn had like 40 posts when he first started posting here. Now he has over 500. However if the following is anything like the posts he has made previously since I left, I definitely missed out on alot of LOLs. Just reading back to the last page I see Brock is still killing it in this thread.

"[color=#282828]Golf channel post had someone call The Players a major for Tiger this year. Certainly, the US Am was no longer considered a major by the time it went to stroke play and then back to match well before Tiger won...so Jack 23, Tiger 16. "[/color]
[/quote]

It is pretty hard to have over 500 posts and only 20 likes. But tsteph is something special.

[tstephen]

Wow and how many times have you and Brock liked each other? I don't care about likes and little baby comments like you just made make you look pretty ridiculous. I am presenting an argument for my original stand I took for Jack being #1 in the modern era.

[tstephen]

[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1380422469' post='7925943']
[quote name='rjp322' timestamp='1380385312' post='7923973']
I really cant believe this thread is even still going on. I left it a long time ago. It is very clear people are not going to change their minds. I remember when tstepehn had like 40 posts when he first started posting here. Now he has over 500. However if the following is anything like the posts he has made previously since I left, I definitely missed out on alot of LOLs. Just reading back to the last page I see Brock is still killing it in this thread.

"[color=#282828]Golf channel post had someone call The Players a major for Tiger this year. Certainly, the US Am was no longer considered a major by the time it went to stroke play and then back to match well before Tiger won...so Jack 23, Tiger 16. "[/color]
[/quote]

It is pretty hard to have over 500 posts and only 20 likes. But tsteph is something special.
[/quote]

Ouch & I thought you liked me since you keep coming over to my thread.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380410773' post='7925221']
Jack was #1 in the world from 1963 to 1977, #2 the following 2 years. A level of consistency Tiger will never achieve. And yes Brock there was not a world ranking from '63-'67 but a 2 year old would be able to determine Jack was #1 easily by the end of '63.
[/quote]

I defer to your superior knowledge of the 2 year old intellect, but an adult would say Arnie was still #1 in 1963. Jack did manage to beat Dave Ragan in the Club Pro Invitational (AKA the PGA), but Arnie had 7 wins in 1963 to go with his 8 in 1962. Arnie also beat Jack in a playoff to win the '63 Western Open, which had a much tougher field than the Masters, British Open, and PGA.

IMO Jack was the best player in the world in 1965, 67, 72-3, and 75. That's it. I used to give him 1976 when I was in a charitable mood, but I've changed my mind since I found out that his money title that year was bogus.

Five POTYs is very, very good. In fact, it's the third best in history, which should thrill someone who likes thirds as much as you do. But it pales next to Tiger's 11 POTYs. And it would have been 12 if he hadn't had to sit out half of 2008.

[tstephen]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1380426113' post='7926191']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380410773' post='7925221']
Jack was #1 in the world from 1963 to 1977, #2 the following 2 years. A level of consistency Tiger will never achieve. And yes Brock there was not a world ranking from '63-'67 but a 2 year old would be able to determine Jack was #1 easily by the end of '63.
[/quote]

I defer to your superior knowledge of the 2 year old intellect, but an adult would say Arnie was still #1 in 1963. Jack did manage to beat Dave Ragan in the Club Pro Invitational (AKA the PGA), but Arnie had 7 wins in 1963 to go with his 8 in 1962. Arnie also beat Jack in a playoff to win the '63 Western Open, which had a much tougher field than the Masters, British Open, and PGA.

IMO Jack was the best player in the world in 1965, 67, 72-3, and 75. That's it. I used to give him 1976 when I was in a charitable mood, but I've changed my mind since I found out that his money title that year was bogus.

Five POTYs is very, very good. In fact, it's the third best in history, which should thrill someone who likes thirds as much as you do. But it pales next to Tiger's 11 POTYs. And it would have been 12 if he hadn't had to sit out half of 2008.
[/quote]

So what if he was #2 behind Arnie in '63. You clearly remove him from #1 in '68 & '69 because of the money title but don't put him #1 in '64 when he was leading money winner. Miller had an awesome year in '74 and I was a big fan of Johnny. But when it came to the majors, Jack was an overwhelming favorite until Watson and then Seve reached their primes. Bottom line is Jack was never worse than #2 from 1963 to 1979 and won 2 majors in 1980. That is still by far the greatest consistent stretch of being on top of the golf world and will NEVER be matched by Tiger.

I am a Casper fan and have already argued that Jack's worst year on tour in 1969 was not any less of a year than Casper's. Furthermore, today's world golf ranking is based on McCormack's and Johnny was #2 behind Jack even after his great '74-'75 seasons.

[Jalmeida]

Nicklaus.

[gusmahler]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380410773' post='7925221']
Jack was #1 in the world from 1963 to 1977, #2 the following 2 years. A level of consistency Tiger will never achieve.
[/quote]Lol at Tiger not being consistent. He's the most consistent player ever. Tiger was #1 in 1997, 1999-2003, 2005--2007, 2009, 2013. The only reason he wasn't #1 in 2008 was injury. And we all know what happened in 2010-11. He was (arguably) #2 in 1998, 2004, and 2012.

Compare it to Jack. First, you're being extremely generous at him being #1 from 1963 to 1977, You're downright lying when you say he was #2 in 1979. He finished 71st in money that year. In comparison, Freddie Jacobson finished 71st in money in 2013. Is Jacobson the #2 golfer in the world right now?

Second, that's a 15 year period your talking about with Jack. That is amazing consistency and longevity. But not as amazing as Tiger. The period we're talking about for Tiger is 18 years. 18 years in unprecedented longevity. People like Palmer and Watson were just old guys "who used to be great" 18 years into their career. Tiger was an easy PoY in his 18th year.

Tiger is amazingly consistent and it's basically impossible to argue otherwise.

[gusmahler]

[bottom line is Jack was never worse than #2 from 1963 to 1979 and won 2 majors in 1980. That is still by far the greatest consistent stretch of being on top of the golf world and will NEVER be matched by Tiger.

I love how you nit up this thread by arguing that, even after someone else had a better 74-75, you think Jack was still better, but still casually include a year where Jack finished 71st in money as a year where Jack was #2.

 

Anyway, we're comparing the two most consistent golfers of all-time. Here are their money list rankings each year on tour. Jack was top 4 every year but 1. Tiger was every year but his 2 lost years (due to the Elin issue) and his first year, where he only played 2 months. Jack has eight #1s, Tiger has ten. I'd say they're pretty much equal. In other words, far from "NEVER" being matched by Tiger, Tiger has already (at least as an approximation), already matched it. He can surpass it by maintaining his quality next year.

 

[tstephen]

Jack was rebuilding his game in '79 but still had 3 top 10's in majors with a 2nd at The Open. In Mark McCormack's world rankings he was still #2 and that is what I based my comment regarding consistent consecutive years at the very top. If you were to add his performance in the majors to your money list comparison with Tiger it would favor Jack quite a bit over Tiger.

So if Tiger's 2014 is Jack's 1980 will Tiger win his 4th US Open and runaway from the field in the PGA?

I also need to comment on Golfwrx latest story regarding Jack vs Tiger comparing their performance over the years at The Masters. I have all along said that Tiger will win 1-2 more majors at The Masters since it is a home field for him, and it was for Jack, too. But 6 > 4 and someone needs to remind the author of this story that fact.

[rjp322]

I seriously have no idea how you guys keep arguing here. It is very clear that some people are going to ignore the facts since their opinion is so strong, probably wrong, but nonetheless very strong. Just let time play out and see what Tiger does. As of right now at ages of 37 in their career, I think you would have to have something seriously wrong with you to argue that Tiger isnt the GOAT. Every single stat of his is better than Jacks and they are tied in majors. Besides that hes got more wins more money titles more POTYs, just more everything. So if somebody won't admit to that, there is 0 point in arguing with them since it is very very clear they struggle with understanding basic logic

[tstephen]

So the argument is really POTY awards vs majors. So once again Tiger's greatest competition and easily #2 of his era Phil has nothing to show for all of you Tiger fanatics. Phil has been on tour for 21 year and taking Tiger out of the equation is 0 for 10 in POTY.

[deasy55]

[quote name='rjp322' timestamp='1380466798' post='7927345']
I seriously have no idea how you guys keep arguing here. It is very clear that some people are going to ignore the facts since their opinion is so strong, probably wrong, but nonetheless very strong. Just let time play out and see what Tiger does. As of right now at ages of 37 in their career, I think you would have to have something seriously wrong with you to argue that Tiger isnt the GOAT. Every single stat of his is better than Jacks and they are tied in majors. Besides that hes got more wins more money titles more POTYs, just more everything. So if somebody won't admit to that, there is 0 point in arguing with them since it is very very clear they struggle with understanding basic logic
[/quote]

Using same logic:

Spieth currently has 1 PGA Tour win.
At same age Tiger had 0


Conclusion,
Spieth is GOAT

[tstephen]

[quote name='deasy55' timestamp='1380467337' post='7927395']
[quote name='rjp322' timestamp='1380466798' post='7927345']
I seriously have no idea how you guys keep arguing here. It is very clear that some people are going to ignore the facts since their opinion is so strong, probably wrong, but nonetheless very strong. Just let time play out and see what Tiger does. As of right now at ages of 37 in their career, I think you would have to have something seriously wrong with you to argue that Tiger isnt the GOAT. Every single stat of his is better than Jacks and they are tied in majors. Besides that hes got more wins more money titles more POTYs, just more everything. So if somebody won't admit to that, there is 0 point in arguing with them since it is very very clear they struggle with understanding basic logic
[/quote]

Using same logic:

Spieth currently has 1 PGA Tour win.
At same age Tiger had 0


Conclusion,
Spieth is GOAT
[/quote]

Watch out, the Tiger guys will throw 3 > 2 US Juniors at you.

[rjp322]

[quote name='deasy55' timestamp='1380467337' post='7927395']
[quote name='rjp322' timestamp='1380466798' post='7927345']
I seriously have no idea how you guys keep arguing here. It is very clear that some people are going to ignore the facts since their opinion is so strong, probably wrong, but nonetheless very strong. Just let time play out and see what Tiger does. As of right now at ages of 37 in their career, I think you would have to have something seriously wrong with you to argue that Tiger isnt the GOAT. Every single stat of his is better than Jacks and they are tied in majors. Besides that hes got more wins more money titles more POTYs, just more everything. So if somebody won't admit to that, there is 0 point in arguing with them since it is very very clear they struggle with understanding basic logic
[/quote]

Using same logic:

Spieth currently has 1 PGA Tour win.
At same age Tiger had 0


Conclusion,
Spieth is GOAT
[/quote]

Not at all. Once again logic was failed to be used here. Obviously there needs to be a good enough sample size to compare. Considering Spieth has only played in like 30 professional tourneys or whatever and Tiger had a much better amateur career you can clearly see why you are wrong. Didn't think this would need to be spelled out for you guys. Starts are obviously what you go by but at age 37 the numbers are very comparable so it is easier to just say age 37

[rjp322]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380467500' post='7927407']
[quote name='deasy55' timestamp='1380467337' post='7927395']
[quote name='rjp322' timestamp='1380466798' post='7927345']
I seriously have no idea how you guys keep arguing here. It is very clear that some people are going to ignore the facts since their opinion is so strong, probably wrong, but nonetheless very strong. Just let time play out and see what Tiger does. As of right now at ages of 37 in their career, I think you would have to have something seriously wrong with you to argue that Tiger isnt the GOAT. Every single stat of his is better than Jacks and they are tied in majors. Besides that hes got more wins more money titles more POTYs, just more everything. So if somebody won't admit to that, there is 0 point in arguing with them since it is very very clear they struggle with understanding basic logic
[/quote]

Using same logic:

Spieth currently has 1 PGA Tour win.
At same age Tiger had 0


Conclusion,
Spieth is GOAT
[/quote]

Watch out, the Tiger guys will throw 3 > 2 US Juniors at you.
[/quote]

You mean like you throw the 18 > 14 at us? LOL

[gusmahler]

Jack was rebuilding his game in '79 but still had 3 top 10's in majors with a 2nd at The Open. In Mark McCormack's world rankings he was still #2 and that is what I based my comment regarding consistent consecutive years at the very top. If you were to add his performance in the majors to your money list comparison with Tiger it would favor Jack quite a bit over Tiger.

INo, if you include performance in majors, Jack would be one ahead 15 > 14. Wins are what matters, not top 3s or top 10s.

 

I was merely rebutting what you said, Jack's consistency would never be matched by Tiger. How much closer does this table have to be? Even if you argue that Jack is ahead because he had a 1 year slump while Tiger had 2 year slump, everything else is as close as you can get. Yet you think that Jack is "far ahead" in consistency. In this 18 year sample, Jack is ahead 5 times, Tiger is ahead 6 times, and they tied 7 times. Their careers up to now have been basically identical with the exception being that Tiger's peak (4 consecutive majors) is far ahead of Jack's peak.

 

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380465387' post='7927255']
Jack was rebuilding his game in '79 but still had 3 top 10's in majors with a 2nd at The Open. In Mark McCormack's world rankings he was still #2 and that is what I based my comment regarding consistent consecutive years at the very top. If you were to add his performance in the majors to your money list comparison with Tiger it would favor Jack quite a bit over Tiger.[/quote]

McCormack's rankings were a joke. It would be like Mark Steinberg publishing rankings that had Tiger second in 2010. It's like when your mom taped your crayon drawing to the refrigerator. Touching, but hardly objective.

Jack had no wins in 1979, and was 71st on the money list. I don't know where his 72.49 scoring average put him, but it was probably worse than 100th, since his 70.36 was out of the top ten in 1977, and there are about 140 spots between those two averages this year. And you think he was the second best golfer in the world that year?

Three top tens in majors is nice, but it's not enough to get into the discussion for best player, if that's all he's got.

Jason Day had the best average finish in majors this year. He had a MUCH better 2013 than Jack's 1979. 11th in scoring, 12th in money, and a better record in the majors. T2-3-T8-T32 for Day, T2-4-T9-T65 for Jack.

Day is currently ranked 16th in the world. Coincidentally, I made a post a week or two ago, where I said that Jack was not in the top ten in 1979, but was not too far out of it.

[tstephen]

Rory was in the top 2 world golf rankings with Tiger longer than anyone else this year and he sure had a great year. Did he have the 6th best year? No, but his potential is still at least top 6 and Jack obviously proved his potential was top 2 in 1979 when he won 2 majors the following year setting the scoring record at The US Open and blowing away the field in The PGA. And thanks to gusmahler for saying wins are everything in majors since....you got it 18 > 14 and always will!

[rjp322]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380470663' post='7927595']
Rory was in the top 2 world golf rankings with Tiger longer than anyone else this year and he sure had a great year. Did he have the 6th best year? No, but his potential is still at least top 6 and Jack obviously proved his potential was top 2 in 1979 when he won 2 majors the following year setting the scoring record at The US Open and blowing away the field in The PGA.And thanks to gusmahler for saying wins are everything in majors since....you got it 18 > 14 and always will!
[/quote]

Then Tigers been in the top 2 for every single year of his career if you are going to try to play the "potential" card. He is still Tiger Woods.

[TWshoot67]

Tigers career is still going Jacks is over. Tiger has already broke just about every record in golf. So I will wait to say who's the best ever male player ever, but I'm leaning towards Tiger. I just went through every page of this thread and was amazed at how many posts one guy can have in 1 Topic/ Thread, but got to give credit where credit is do..... tstephen with 455 +/- posts in one thread has to be an all time winner for total posts in one thread and I'm sure we can add another post or 100 by the time this thread closes. Shows how bored I was today counting a guys post count...lol