Greatest male player ever

[cdnglf]

I hate to throw his name out there because I really dislike the guy. But Bonds would have been in that discussion if not for the steroid issue. He obviously wouldn't have the obscene HR numbers, but hey still would have been good. And the SB's and gold gloves he would have added. He still squared the ball up better than anyone I've ever watched.

 

Sure. He was a great player before, but the post-ped numbers are out of a video game. 232 BB in a single season? OPS > 1.4? Unbelievable.

I don't put that much stock in gold glove awards though, especially during that era. If Bonds was really that good defensively, why was he playing left field?

 

Before he roided out, and while,he was in Pittsburgh, didn't Andy Van Slyke play center. Which would explain Bonds in left.

 

Yeah, the later numbers are ridiculous. But the juice didn't help him make such consistent quality contact.

 

Sure, he played with Van Slyke it Pittsburgh. But he didn't have the arm to play right, and they kept giving him gold gloves well into his thirties in SF.

The gold glove was a reputation award in the nineties. When Palmeiro won the GG in 1999, he started 128 games at DH, and 28 at 1B.

[Hawkeye77]

Say hey!

[llewol007]

I think GOAT Is not based on accolades alone but also the longevity of ones career so GOAT is Nicklaus. Ask any pro out there who has yet to win a major or even notch a tourney win. Yes you can argue different eras but why argue a point that will never and can never be fixed. I'm not comparing guys on equipment either because every one in hogan and Snead's era had the same equipment as did Nicklaus and Miller Era. It's nice to compare the eras but it really is one's opinion so take it as a discussion and don't defend players when you really don't need to.

[drewtaylor21]

I agree that it's unnecessary to say "Tiger and it's not close," as the 80+ pages of the thread indicate it is certainly a discussion! However, from age 21-30, Tiger clearly dominates. It's hardly neck and neck, as you say:

 

Tiger: 12 majors

Jack: 8 majors

 

Tiger: 54 total wins

Jack: 33 total wins

 

From age 31-40, yes, Jack is dominant, especially in the majors. Obviously the injury factor is significant as well, and can't be ignored. In their 30's, Tiger had 128 starts vs. Jack's 162, or the equivalent of over 2 extra years of competition.

 

Tiger: 2 majors

Jack: 9 majors

 

Tiger: 25 wins

Jack: 37 wins

 

I think the reason you see so many Tiger fans being demonstrative about who was better is because when you compare their peaks, Tiger sure looks like the better player. He has a much better scoring average, and much higher win %. Jack had incredible longevity and remained a force for a long time, which is a huge feat in its own right, but Tiger was better compared to his peers than anyone in history.

 

Thats the thing with the pro tiger side always what ifs and qualifiers.

 

Disagree that I'm using "what if's and qualifiers." If one guy played for 8 years out of 10 and the other played a full 10, don't you think that's worth noting? It's a minor point anyway. I fully concede that Jack dominates when comparing their decades from age 31-40.

 

What did you see when tiger was healthy in his 30s that led you to believe his win % would not drop? and his majors would not drop?

 

Well, considering he turned 30 in December of 2005, then proceeded to rattle of 4 of his best years ever, I saw quite a bit!

 

2006: 8/15 in wins (53%), 2 majors

2007: 7/16 wins (44%), 1 major

2008: 4/6 wins (67%), 1 major

2009: 6/17 wins (35%), 0 majors

 

We all know what happened in November of 2009, followed by injury after injury. I don't think he was ever fully healthy in 2012 or 2013, but still put up some solid numbers in the regular season events. I believed at the time (and still do) that if Tiger could build on a few fully healthy seasons, he would win at least another major. We never got to see that though, so I certainly agree that in his late 30's he was a shell of his old self in terms of performance.

 

His last major the 2008 US open required a careers worth of 40+ foot putts and good breaks. i knew he was on borrowed time after that and YE Yang took him down the following year, it really scarred him.Immediately tried to change his swing.Hes never contended since. Jack dominated over 20 years and tiger for about 10.Injuries or not one did it and the other didnt. You dont get credit for stuff you didnt do.

 

I'm not sure where in my post you think I'm giving Tiger credit for doing things he didn't do. I'm only looking at what both guys actually accomplished, the rest is all fantasy, so I think we are in agreement here.

 

over time we realize ones peak was unsustainable and ones was longer and validated over twice as long. Also as per your scoring average being better for Tiger, I have news for you matt kuchar has had 3 season with better scoring than Jack.make your case how Kuch is better. Spieth has several seasons better than Jacks.

See how this goes? the pristine putting surfaces the players have today versus the conditions of 40 years ago are laughably comparable. 3 footers were adventures in the 60s-70s. Dave Pelz has followed this since then and will tell you the make % were lower.Not because the players were worse putters but because they had to have a pop or hit in their strokes because the ball wouldnt hold the line or even get there from 20 feet. no bouncing balls into concrete fairways from 280 out on par 5s.

Since Tiger last major at the same point in jacks career:

 

Tiger 0 majors 14 wins

Jack 8 majors 33 wins

 

Lets not mention his performance in the majors. he literally had several taken away from him by HOFers with generational performances during that span.

 

Now Tell me about how dominant tiger was on his peers when he hasnt done anything of significance in 10 years? this never happened in jacks careers. Id be with you if he maintained at least that pace its painfully obvious he didnt sniff that. having 2 or 3 peek years with 8 wins doesnt make up for dominating over 2 decades. your last sentence is actually pure opinion because weve seen the second act of his career now and we know this to be untrue

 

I believe the real challenge with any debate about sporting legends across generations is that we can only compare what they did against their peers. I believe that if you look at the numbers, they support Tiger being the most dominant player to have ever played the game. For me, that makes him the greatest player (and Jack the greatest major champion). That is certainly my opinion, and it's fine if you or anyone else disagrees!

 

With that said, here are some numbers for you that support what I believe to be fact: Statistically speaking, Tiger dominated his peers to a greater degree than anyone else in history. Unfortunately, these numbers only go back to 1970, but they include Jack's best years, and I personally don't think anyone else is seriously in the conversation, so this is the best I got!

 

 

Based on average z-score (standard deviations of strokes above/below tournament average) across PGA Tour tournaments in a single season, 1970-2015

 

Tiger owns 4 of the top 5 seasons, 6 of the top 10, 7 of the top 20. Jack owns 1 of the top 5, 4 of the top 10, and 8 of the top 20. To me that reads "Tiger was better, but Jack remained at the top longer during their respective careers." How do you interpret it?

[Hawkeye77]

Steiny came up with the algorithm for that!

 

Just kidding, interesting stuff.

[lowheel]

To me, you have to have seen the entirety (Or pretty close) of somebody's career in person to give a rounded view.

 

I get asked on nights out after a few beers 'Best Man United 11 of all time". Then get asked "No George Best, no Duncan Edwards?" Well no I never saw them play live. Everything from me is pretty much 1990 onwards (I was 8 in that year)

 

NBA, starting 5, Kidd, MJ, LeBron, Duncan, Hakeem. Second 5 Steph Curry, Kobe, Durant, Garnett, Shaq. I can't pick Magic, Bird, Wilt, Kareem, Oscar Robertson because I saw little if none of their career.

 

Only started watching NFL 2003, so for me the QB discussion is Brady, Peyton, Rogers. Favre could have an argument but only saw one good season with GB and the honeymoon with the Vikings.

 

Tennis, I have heated arguments with two of my best friends on a regular basis about Nadal or Federer (I'm Nadal if you care) Sampras gets the odd mention, Aggasi maybe. Stefi Graf would destroy Serena imo. But again, can't comment on Laver or Borg or McEnroe. Never saw them.

 

For somebody my age (34), nobody is going to get close to Tiger probably in my lifetime. The top 5 are Tiger (By a country mile), Phil, Els, Vijay and Duval. Only saw Faldo in 96 so 1 of the 6 doesn't cut it. Only saw Seve when he was spraying it all over the place at Oak Hill in '95 or burying images of his swing in the desert with Mack O'Grady.

 

Butch Harmon, when asked on Sky (Probably twice a year), says the same every time "Jack is the greatest champion, but Tiger is the best player I have ever seen" And he has seen them all with the exception of Bobby Jones.

 

Nadal? BAH! He may be the TENNIS GOD on red clay, but a mere mortal compared to THE FED everywhere else.

 

By the way, tennis also has better player depth in this era than ever before. Why are Federer, Nadal and Djokovic hanging out in the penthouse of all time male careers and golf just has Tiger in the same span?

 

Nadal is 9-3 vs Federer in Grand slams. 5-0 French, 3-1 Australia, 1-2 Wimbledon. That's a 75% win percentage head to head vs his greatest 'rival'.

 

Nadal has beaten Federer in a Wimbledon final, Federer has NEVER beaten Nadal at Roland Garros.

 

Nadal is the only player IN THE HISTORY OF TENNIS to win 3 majors in one calendar year on 3 different surfaces.

 

The best modern tennis player is Rafa Nadal and it is not even close.

 

LOL good one. thanks for the laugh.

 

Fantastic insight there, some great comeback points and valid arguments.

 

I've got two more for you;

 

Since Nadal won his first slam at the French in 2004, he is ahead of Federer 16-15 in slams, i.e; when they are on tour full time concurrently

 

Nadal is one of two men in history to win at least two majors on 3 different surfaces. Hint, the other person to do it is not Roger Federer.

 

Your obsession with mutiple surfaces and moving goal posts is quite telling. Nadal just finished his best year in about 3 years and still got dusted 5 straight times by 36 year old federer including the aussie open final. Federer has figured out Rafa and you can tell rafa gets frustrated against fed now like fed used to get with rafa. They are 5 years apart and roger was 29 before rafa really took over but he never backed down and as proven by his record his resiliency has persevered.Djokovic has absolutely dominated Rafa in the last 5 years yet i still have rafa above him.if djoker catches him in majors and ends up tied with him its Djoker over rafa easily.

HEad 2 head when guys are 5 years apart isnt as telling as you believe it is. other wise Djoker>>>>rafa but we both know we cant say that yet. 80% of rafas tourney are won on clay, we can easily indisputably say rafa is the greatest clay player ever however not the best ever.

 

Here are some #s for you to digest as well

 

Since 2011:

 

djokovic 11 majors ( in his prime) djoker h2h rafa 19-7 / djoker h2h fed 16-9

nadal 7 majors ( in his prime) rafa h2h djoker 7-19 / rafa h2h fed 9-7

federer 3 majors ( past his prime 5& 6 years older than both) fed h2h djoker 9-16 / fed h2h rafa 7-9

 

Interesting how the guy 5-6 years older is hanging tough with both better than rafa hangs against those 2....

 

Djokovic has easiily been the best player the last 6-7 years.#s can be deceiving for rafa fans though...

[lowheel]

ala Koufax, Gale Sayers is always in my mind as one of the 5 greatest running backs of all time - lots of ways to look at it.

 

 

Jack!

 

Who was Better? Hank Aaron or Mickey Mantle.

 

Hank. But Willie Mays was better than both. And Trout may end up even better than that.

 

I hate to throw his name out there because I really dislike the guy. But Bonds would have been in that discussion if not for the steroid issue. He obviously wouldn't have the obscene HR numbers, but hey still would have been good. And the SB's and gold gloves he would have added. He still squared the ball up better than anyone I've ever watched.

 

Great hitter but below average oufielder with a noodle arm.No gold gloves for that guy.Guy juiced up and wore body armour covering the plate. Disgusting to watch

[lowheel]

I hate to throw his name out there because I really dislike the guy. But Bonds would have been in that discussion if not for the steroid issue. He obviously wouldn't have the obscene HR numbers, but hey still would have been good. And the SB's and gold gloves he would have added. He still squared the ball up better than anyone I've ever watched.

 

Sure. He was a great player before, but the post-ped numbers are out of a video game. 232 BB in a single season? OPS > 1.4? Unbelievable.

I don't put that much stock in gold glove awards though, especially during that era. If Bonds was really that good defensively, why was he playing left field?

 

Before he roided out, and while,he was in Pittsburgh, didn't Andy Van Slyke play center. Which would explain Bonds in left.

 

Yeah, the later numbers are ridiculous. But the juice didn't help him make such consistent quality contact.

 

Sure, he played with Van Slyke it Pittsburgh. But he didn't have the arm to play right, and they kept giving him gold gloves well into his thirties in SF.

The gold glove was a reputation award in the nineties. When Palmeiro won the GG in 1999, he started 128 games at DH, and 28 at 1B.

 

Pretty much laughable award for anyone who watched bonds play left field. reputation award at its finest.

[dlygrisse]

ala Koufax, Gale Sayers is always in my mind as one of the 5 greatest running backs of all time - lots of ways to look at it.

 

 

Jack!

 

Who was Better? Hank Aaron or Mickey Mantle.

 

Oooh, have a soft spot in my heart for Hank Aaron, tough one.

 

My point is Jack was kinda like Aaron. Just really good year after year. Mantle was great but he burned out fairly quickly because of injuries and lifestyle issues. Sound familiar"?

[lowheel]

drewtaylor21

 

I read the entirety of your post and i truly believe this stat chart that ive seen before means only one thing and and one thing only, that tiger was the greatest front runner ever however it doesnt mean hes the best player ever.Prime tiger on sunday turned 3 shot leads into 5-6 shot wins. however hes never come back to win a major. this confirms those #s. Jacks done it multiple times. Context matters. Secondly i never singled you out, just made a general statement vis a vis the new narrative to elevate tiger. If tiger missed 2 years like in your scenario that isnt a what if its a a known commodity because 2010-2011-2012-2013 performance in majors show tiger was different. his weekend scoring average was terrible. he averaged almost 75 for saturday/sunday rounds. he never threatened. thats the telling thing. Also in closing the world dominant came up alot in the post prime tiger era because he fell short of jacks record so we have to cut corners to validate his 8 shot win at the bridgestone as superior to another win in jacks era where he dusted afield by 6-7-8 which did happen regularly as well. If tiger was a dominant as you say why does he not have more top 10s in majors than phil or more top5s? i love tiger but again remove emotion and hype of 24/7 media (ie tiger week on golf channel) and look at the reality of the situation. respectfully thanks for the reply

[dlygrisse]

 

I agree that it's unnecessary to say "Tiger and it's not close," as the 80+ pages of the thread indicate it is certainly a discussion! However, from age 21-30, Tiger clearly dominates. It's hardly neck and neck, as you say:

 

Tiger: 12 majors

Jack: 8 majors

 

Tiger: 54 total wins

Jack: 33 total wins

 

From age 31-40, yes, Jack is dominant, especially in the majors. Obviously the injury factor is significant as well, and can't be ignored. In their 30's, Tiger had 128 starts vs. Jack's 162, or the equivalent of over 2 extra years of competition.

 

Tiger: 2 majors

Jack: 9 majors

 

Tiger: 25 wins

Jack: 37 wins

 

I think the reason you see so many Tiger fans being demonstrative about who was better is because when you compare their peaks, Tiger sure looks like the better player. He has a much better scoring average, and much higher win %. Jack had incredible longevity and remained a force for a long time, which is a huge feat in its own right, but Tiger was better compared to his peers than anyone in history.

 

Thats the thing with the pro tiger side always what ifs and qualifiers.

 

Disagree that I'm using "what if's and qualifiers." If one guy played for 8 years out of 10 and the other played a full 10, don't you think that's worth noting? It's a minor point anyway. I fully concede that Jack dominates when comparing their decades from age 31-40.

 

What did you see when tiger was healthy in his 30s that led you to believe his win % would not drop? and his majors would not drop?

 

Well, considering he turned 30 in December of 2005, then proceeded to rattle of 4 of his best years ever, I saw quite a bit!

 

2006: 8/15 in wins (53%), 2 majors

2007: 7/16 wins (44%), 1 major

2008: 4/6 wins (67%), 1 major

2009: 6/17 wins (35%), 0 majors

 

We all know what happened in November of 2009, followed by injury after injury. I don't think he was ever fully healthy in 2012 or 2013, but still put up some solid numbers in the regular season events. I believed at the time (and still do) that if Tiger could build on a few fully healthy seasons, he would win at least another major. We never got to see that though, so I certainly agree that in his late 30's he was a shell of his old self in terms of performance.

 

His last major the 2008 US open required a careers worth of 40+ foot putts and good breaks. i knew he was on borrowed time after that and YE Yang took him down the following year, it really scarred him.Immediately tried to change his swing.Hes never contended since. Jack dominated over 20 years and tiger for about 10.Injuries or not one did it and the other didnt. You dont get credit for stuff you didnt do.

 

I'm not sure where in my post you think I'm giving Tiger credit for doing things he didn't do. I'm only looking at what both guys actually accomplished, the rest is all fantasy, so I think we are in agreement here.

 

over time we realize ones peak was unsustainable and ones was longer and validated over twice as long. Also as per your scoring average being better for Tiger, I have news for you matt kuchar has had 3 season with better scoring than Jack.make your case how Kuch is better. Spieth has several seasons better than Jacks.

See how this goes? the pristine putting surfaces the players have today versus the conditions of 40 years ago are laughably comparable. 3 footers were adventures in the 60s-70s. Dave Pelz has followed this since then and will tell you the make % were lower.Not because the players were worse putters but because they had to have a pop or hit in their strokes because the ball wouldnt hold the line or even get there from 20 feet. no bouncing balls into concrete fairways from 280 out on par 5s.

Since Tiger last major at the same point in jacks career:

 

Tiger 0 majors 14 wins

Jack 8 majors 33 wins

 

Lets not mention his performance in the majors. he literally had several taken away from him by HOFers with generational performances during that span.

 

Now Tell me about how dominant tiger was on his peers when he hasnt done anything of significance in 10 years? this never happened in jacks careers. Id be with you if he maintained at least that pace its painfully obvious he didnt sniff that. having 2 or 3 peek years with 8 wins doesnt make up for dominating over 2 decades. your last sentence is actually pure opinion because weve seen the second act of his career now and we know this to be untrue

 

 

I believe the real challenge with any debate about sporting legends across generations is that we can only compare what they did against their peers. I believe that if you look at the numbers, they support Tiger being the most dominant player to have ever played the game. For me, that makes him the greatest player (and Jack the greatest major champion). That is certainly my opinion, and it's fine if you or anyone else disagrees!

 

With that said, here are some numbers for you that support what I believe to be fact: Statistically speaking, Tiger dominated his peers to a greater degree than anyone else in history. Unfortunately, these numbers only go back to 1970, but they include Jack's best years, and I personally don't think anyone else is seriously in the conversation, so this is the best I got!

 

 

Based on average z-score (standard deviations of strokes above/below tournament average) across PGA Tour tournaments in a single season, 1970-2015

 

Tiger owns 4 of the top 5 seasons, 6 of the top 10, 7 of the top 20. Jack owns 1 of the top 5, 4 of the top 10, and 8 of the top 20. To me that reads "Tiger was better, but Jack remained at the top longer during their respective careers." How do you interpret it?

 

Do this for Jacks entire career and he has even more top 20’s. Tiger 2000 is for sure better than anything Jack ever did. He was so dialed in that year it was stoooopid.

[drewtaylor21]

 

Tiger owns 4 of the top 5 seasons, 6 of the top 10, 7 of the top 20. Jack owns 1 of the top 5, 4 of the top 10, and 8 of the top 20. To me that reads "Tiger was better, but Jack remained at the top longer during their respective careers." How do you interpret it?

 

Do this for Jacks entire career and he has even more top 20’s. Tiger 2000 is for sure better than anything Jack ever did. He was so dialed in that year it was stoooopid.

 

Agreed, I was thinking about that as I posted it. Jack had at least two other seasons in the '60's that would likely have made the top 20 for all-time dominance. His greatness over a long period of time is certainly without equal.

[drewtaylor21]

drewtaylor21

 

I read the entirety of your post and i truly believe this stat chart that ive seen before means only one thing and and one thing only, that tiger was the greatest front runner ever however it doesnt mean hes the best player ever.Prime tiger on sunday turned 3 shot leads into 5-6 shot wins. however hes never come back to win a major. this confirms those #s. Jacks done it multiple times. Context matters. Secondly i never singled you out, just made a general statement vis a vis the new narrative to elevate tiger. If tiger missed 2 years like in your scenario that isnt a what if its a a known commodity because 2010-2011-2012-2013 performance in majors show tiger was different. his weekend scoring average was terrible. he averaged almost 75 for saturday/sunday rounds. he never threatened. thats the telling thing. Also in closing the world dominant came up alot in the post prime tiger era because he fell short of jacks record so we have to cut corners to validate his 8 shot win at the bridgestone as superior to another win in jacks era where he dusted afield by 6-7-8 which did happen regularly as well. If tiger was a dominant as you say why does he not have more top 10s in majors than phil or more top5s? i love tiger but again remove emotion and hype of 24/7 media (ie tiger week on golf channel) and look at the reality of the situation. respectfully thanks for the reply

 

Since that table is based purely on season-long scoring average, why do you say it makes Tiger the best front-runner? I don't really see the connection, but I could be missing your train of thought.

 

I definitely agree that Tiger in 2010-2014 was a very different golfer, especially on the weekend of a major. It was tough to watch. That is why I put the importance I did on him being able to string together several years of fully healthy play. I think he needs to work his way back to having the mental strength to win a major (if such a thing is even possible). There seems to be a pattern with his level of comfort in front of the golfing world now, and it follows winning something small, a la Chevron World Challenge, contend on Tour, then win a Tour event, then contend in a major, then (potentially) win a major. I'm not sure anymore if we'll ever see him finish that last step, but I remain hopeful.

[mosesgolf]

I love how this turned into GOAT for tennis. :D

[Darth Putter]

I love how this turned into GOAT for tennis. :D

 

 

That one's nastier, because they are both still playing.

 

Anyone up for Man O'War vs. Secretariat? :D

[widow-maker]

I love how this turned into GOAT for tennis. :D

 

 

That one's nastier, because they are both still playing.

 

Anyone up for Man O'War vs. Secretariat? :D

I'll go out on a limb and say Big Red.... since that was the nickname for both horses.

[CHER2]

TW Fans will always say TW regardless of how you wanna argue it.

 

Same goes for Nicklaus fans.

 

I think a lot of it may be generational. At 27, my generation never saw Jack play. We did however see Tiger absolutely crush fields and change the sport of Golf.

 

If Tiger had Jack's health and longevity, who's to say what kind of record books would be rewritten. We'll never get to know that.

 

It's Tiger vs. Jack, MJ vs. Kobe, Joe Montana vs. Tom Brady, etc. - everyone has their opinion of which is the "GOAT" and typically there's no changing that view.

 

That being said - I'm going TW, Kobe, and TB12 :)

 

 

Not true. Tiger wins 4 more majors and I'll have to think hard about it.

 

Thats really the crust of the argument ive been making. Separate emotion from reason. Ive even commented in the past that if he even gets 2 or 3 more the argument can be made. its not a all or nothing position.

 

The thing to remember is that majors were everyone’s benchmark when it was very likely that Tiger would pass Jack. It’s only in the past few years when it’s started to look like Tiger most likely won’t reach 18 that all the other criteria started appearing.

 

I would be very interested to see if anyone can come up with posts from prior to 2008 that put more emphasis on these other criteria than the the major total.

 

They might actually be there, I just don’t remember seeing many.

 

I don't know about this board in particular but I can say that EXACT conversation was happening long ago prior to 2008 on other boards. Fans started talking about GOAT, eras, and fields when Tiger was dominating the early 2000's. Tiger hasn't done anything in majors since 2008 but my opinion of the whole argument hasn't changed much. Jack is the GOAT for majors and longevity but Tiger is the GOAT for a 10-15 year period of time. Nobody has ever played golf so well than from 1997 to 2008 IMO. That is a long enough period of time to qualify IMO when you have some of the greatest major winners of all time who won all of their majors within that same window of time...a decade or a little more.

 

Jones, Hogan, Watson, Palmer, Nelson, Seve, Faldo, Trevino, Mick, all won their majors in about 10 years or less. Players that had a major winning stretch outside of 17 years were Jack, Gary, and Vardon. Tiger, Hagen, Sarazen, and Snead were between 12-16 years.

[TreyWingbat]

Justin Thomas.

[CHER2]

Tiger Woods and it isnt close. Have had this discussion over and over with alot of people and the numbers are not close. The only category Jack leads in is majors won and that is because he has played more of them. Tiger has played against better competition (deeper fields his entire career and his win % is more than double Jacks if I recall correctly. So we are stuck with statistics that can't be compared due to different circumstances..

 

% wins means zero. Only if you want to compare Jacks win % at the same age as Tiger. Jack refused to play the senior tour due to pride. As a result he played way too long on the PGA tour and destroyed his win percentage let alone cuts missed. But we will never know as Jack played way too long and Tiger is shot and won't be able to play way too long.

 

Jack missed one senior tour major from 1990 to 1998...only 4 years after his last PGA tour major. He is currently 2nd in all time senior majors to Langer. To say that he refused to play seems a little strange unless it just non major events. IMO his senior totals just add to his legend. He won 2 US AMS, 18 PGA majors and 8 Senior majors. That's just a long and prosperous career from start to finish IMO from amateur to senior.

[cdnglf]

TW Fans will always say TW regardless of how you wanna argue it.

 

Same goes for Nicklaus fans.

 

I think a lot of it may be generational. At 27, my generation never saw Jack play. We did however see Tiger absolutely crush fields and change the sport of Golf.

 

If Tiger had Jack's health and longevity, who's to say what kind of record books would be rewritten. We'll never get to know that.

 

It's Tiger vs. Jack, MJ vs. Kobe, Joe Montana vs. Tom Brady, etc. - everyone has their opinion of which is the "GOAT" and typically there's no changing that view.

 

That being said - I'm going TW, Kobe, and TB12 :)

 

 

Not true. Tiger wins 4 more majors and I'll have to think hard about it.

 

Thats really the crust of the argument ive been making. Separate emotion from reason. Ive even commented in the past that if he even gets 2 or 3 more the argument can be made. its not a all or nothing position.

 

The thing to remember is that majors were everyone’s benchmark when it was very likely that Tiger would pass Jack. It’s only in the past few years when it’s started to look like Tiger most likely won’t reach 18 that all the other criteria started appearing.

 

I would be very interested to see if anyone can come up with posts from prior to 2008 that put more emphasis on these other criteria than the the major total.

 

They might actually be there, I just don’t remember seeing many.

 

I don't know about this board in particular but I can say that EXACT conversation was happening long ago prior to 2008 on other boards. Fans started talking about GOAT, eras, and fields when Tiger was dominating the early 2000's. Tiger hasn't done anything in majors since 2008 but my opinion of the whole argument hasn't changed much. Jack is the GOAT for majors and longevity but Tiger is the GOAT for a 10-15 year period of time. Nobody has ever played golf so well than from 1997 to 2008 IMO. That is a long enough period of time to qualify IMO when you have some of the greatest major winners of all time who won all of their majors within that same window of time...a decade or a little more.

 

Jones, Hogan, Watson, Palmer, Nelson, Seve, Faldo, Trevino, Mick, all won their majors in about 10 years or less. Players that had a major winning stretch outside of 17 years were Jack, Gary, and Vardon. Tiger, Hagen, Sarazen, and Snead were between 12-16 years.

 

Tiger has said he had two numbers in mind: Jack's 18, and Sam Snead's 82 (which was actually 81 when Tiger was growing up).

Part of the reason the focus was on 18 prior to 2008 is because that looked like the number Tiger would reach first. Of course, that didn't happen. But he did win an additional 14 PGA Tour events (including a second Players), which moved him well past Jack. That changed the GOAT discussion significantly.

[CHER2]

Obviously the tour win record is much easier. One more year like 2013 will get him there. The major record is hard to fathom when you consider NO player has won as many majors as he needs now past his current age. One could maybe expect 1 or two more majors at most at his age. Of course Tiger has placed an emphasis on fitness that was not always there in golf so it's not inconceivable. It's still very very highly unlikely that he takes the major record.

[Hawkeye77]

Obviously the tour win record is much easier. One more year like 2013 will get him there. The major record is hard to fathom when you consider NO player has won as many majors as he needs now past his current age. One could maybe expect 1 or two more majors at most at his age. Of course Tiger has placed an emphasis on fitness that was not always there in golf so it's not inconceivable. It's still very very highly unlikely that he takes the major record.

 

So right back to the same things covered over and over?

[Darth Putter]

We can get this settled right now. Jack needs to publicly call out Tiger and dare him to show up at the first tee at Augusta National at high noon on Friday.