Tiger vs Jack question...

[evoviiiyou]

Watching morning drive on the golf channel, I noticed a very interesting idea that Lee Trevino offered that has peaked my interest when comparing these two greats when comparing their achievements in tournament wins. Assign points to victories in a weighted manor then tally the points. Example, majors are worth 50points, The Players and WGC events (not sure what these events were called in Jacks era) are worth 35points, traditional PGA tour wins 25points, amateur national championships 20points, etc...

 

My question is has anyone ever done something like this over each career thus far for a result in total points accumulated?

[Frostfield]

Impossible

[lumberman2462]

I have to believe there is a really smart guy with a PhD in mathematics and Computer Sciences that can create an algorithym that could take the OWGRs and make them retroactive to the beginning of the PGA. It would take a lot of work and man hours and there would clearly be no financial benefit but it [i]would[/i] give us something to talk about for years here on GolfWrx....

The real problem I see is how to historically apply the divisor because some of the top names played so few tournaments back in the day.

[setter02]

Pfft, I can beat both of them on TW '14. Next...

[billh17]

lol this will give the haters and fanboys another thread to argue !

They were two of the greatest ,and i really see no reason to try to put one above the other. Like lumberman says,i'm sure someone
could come up with a program,but for what purpose? I am not sure of the ranking given to different tour stops,and some of them
are no longer used,or are new and weren't used back then. Would be an awful lot of variables involved.
I'm just happy that I was fortunate to have seen both of them in their prime,along with the other greats along the way.

[Dave230]

You should include major top 3s in a discussion too. Tiger would be happy to approve. Tiger said this week:

[color=#000000]"Jack's tournament records are incredible, not just his 18 majors (plus two U.S. amateurs) and 73 PGA TOUR wins, but [b]his 19 second-place finishes in the majors, which I think may be his most incredible stat[/b]."[/color]

[Boricua Golf]

I was watching Golf Central and they had the big four (adding Trevino), Jack, Arnold and Gary, and they were asked about Tiger, is he going to win again and is winning a Major?, they stated that he would if he did the right thing as for rehab and getting a consistent swing, they also stated that the competition these days is so much better and fierce that it will be a constant uphill battle for him to just get a win, let alone a Major, with guys like the current big four, Rory, Jason, Jordan and Ricky, not to mention the others that are just as good...I hope he wins, it would be great for him and his confidence and definitely for golf in general...I have never agreed with the world rankings to an extent, I understand that they are talking about the current best player in the game (back to the big 4), but if we are going by resume, then Jack should still be the number one player in the world and Tiger the number 2, just from the regular tour wins and Majors...Tiger is 416th or something like that in the current world rankings, makes no sense to me, but it is what it is, I know someone here will say something to the extent of what havehe done lately and I agree, but they are the best ever...for now...

[straightshot7]

Why don't you just add it up? Aren't there records of all their tournament wins?

I'd imagine Tiger's point title would be higher but then everyone would go back to the 18 majors anyways and the strength of field issue and how you can't compare across eras and we'd be right back where started.

It doesn't matter who was better. It will always be a debate.

It's pretty clear to me that in their primes Tiger was better.

But, Jack,as of now, had more longevity and more majors.

Basically a wash with a slight edge to Jack.

But there may be a Tiger miracle in the next 10 years that produces a few "random" green jackets for him.

[dlygrisse]

If you can figure this out I think you will find that Tiger's peak years are better, but Jack accumulates more points over his career. But it really depends on how you weight the majors and weight the other important events that don't necessarily sync up over different eras.

For example the Aussie Open was considered by some the 5th major during Jack's career, as many of the best players played every year, where as today it is insignificant for all intents and purposes. The Players was created mid career for Jack...the World Match play at Wentworth was a worthy tournament as well. Of course there were no WGC events in Jack's area....the Memorial, which Jack founded, did not start till late in Jack's career and that is without a doubt a big event today.......so it will be difficult to compare apples to apples.

[bscinstnct]

I have to believe there is a really smart guy with a PhD in mathematics and Computer Sciences that can create an algorithym that could take the OWGRs and make them retroactive to the beginning of the PGA. It would take a lot of work and man hours and there would clearly be no financial benefit but it would give us something to talk about for years here on GolfWrx....

 

The real problem I see is how to historically apply the divisor because some of the top names played so few tournaments back in the day.

 

 

 

The algo would go haywire when TW won four majors in a row : )

 

 

[evoviiiyou]

I have to believe there is a really smart guy with a PhD in mathematics and Computer Sciences that can create an algorithym that could take the OWGRs and make them retroactive to the beginning of the PGA. It would take a lot of work and man hours and there would clearly be no financial benefit but it would give us something to talk about for years here on GolfWrx....

 

The real problem I see is how to historically apply the divisor because some of the top names played so few tournaments back in the day.

 

 

 

The algo would go haywire when TW won four majors in a row : )

 

 

 

Hilarious! AHAHHAHAHAAHA

[Marco]

lol wth look at what chamblee said

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/chamblee-tiger-not-jack-greatest-golfer-all-time/

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='Marco' timestamp='1450399893' post='12733736']
lol wth look at what chamblee said

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/chamblee-tiger-not-jack-greatest-golfer-all-time/
[/quote]


Thanks for sharing, lets see...


“Longevity sanctifies an idea, a career, a relationship, a government,” Chamblee said. “In that regard, Jack Nicklaus’ career was so long – won major championships over 24 years, spanned three generations – but Tiger Woods dominated in a way that had never been done before, and will never be done again. So I think, at least in my estimation, that you’d have to give the edge to Tiger Woods as the greatest player of all time.”



Cant argue with that and

As Ive always maintained, that Brandel knows of what he speaks.; )

[BenHoganSlam1953]

[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1450400907' post='12733788']
[quote name='Marco' timestamp='1450399893' post='12733736']
lol wth look at what chamblee said

[url="http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/chamblee-tiger-not-jack-greatest-golfer-all-time/"]http://www.golfchann...olfer-all-time/[/url]
[/quote]


Thanks for sharing, lets see...


"Longevity sanctifies an idea, a career, a relationship, a government," Chamblee said. "In that regard, Jack Nicklaus' career was so long – won major championships over 24 years, spanned three generations – but Tiger Woods dominated in a way that had never been done before, and will never be done again. So I think, at least in my estimation, that you'd have to give the edge to Tiger Woods as the greatest player of all time."



Cant argue with that and

As Ive always maintained, that Brandel knows of what he speaks.; )
[/quote]

Let's put a twist on the whole debate. Many say that Tiger dominated at a time when the field was stronger than Jack and that even today the field is stronger than when Tiger peaked. So imagine in 10-20 years every golfer is getting better and we end up with 6-12 players at Tiger's level. Since they are all similar and at Tiger's level when he was peaking, none of them will be able to dominate like Tiger, but if even one of them achieves half of Tiger's career over the other Tigers, than technically, although the numbers suggest otherwise, that individual is the greatest of all time. Tiger just dominated a field, but this new person dominated a bunch of Tiger's.

I wonder if people would acknowledge this golfer as the best of all time?

[Hawkeye77]

[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1450400907' post='12733788']
[quote name='Marco' timestamp='1450399893' post='12733736']
lol wth look at what chamblee said

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/chamblee-tiger-not-jack-greatest-golfer-all-time/
[/quote]


Thanks for sharing, lets see...


“Longevity sanctifies an idea, a career, a relationship, a government,” Chamblee said. “In that regard, Jack Nicklaus’ career was so long – won major championships over 24 years, spanned three generations – but Tiger Woods dominated in a way that had never been done before, and will never be done again. So I think, at least in my estimation, that you’d have to give the edge to Tiger Woods as the greatest player of all time.”



Cant argue with that and

As Ive always maintained, that Brandel knows of what he speaks.; )
[/quote]

I don't believe for even a second that Brandel believes that, but he has plenty of selfish reasons to say something he doesn't believe.

[dlygrisse]

[quote name='BenHoganSlam1953' timestamp='1450409749' post='12734312'][quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1450400907' post='12733788']
[quote name='Marco' timestamp='1450399893' post='12733736']
lol wth look at what chamblee said

[url="http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/chamblee-tiger-not-jack-greatest-golfer-all-time/"]http://www.golfchann...olfer-all-time/[/url]
[/quote]


Thanks for sharing, lets see...


"Longevity sanctifies an idea, a career, a relationship, a government," Chamblee said. "In that regard, Jack Nicklaus' career was so long – won major championships over 24 years, spanned three generations – but Tiger Woods dominated in a way that had never been done before, and will never be done again. So I think, at least in my estimation, that you'd have to give the edge to Tiger Woods as the greatest player of all time."



Cant argue with that and

As Ive always maintained, that Brandel knows of what he speaks.; )
[/quote]

Let's put a twist on the whole debate. Many say that Tiger dominated at a time when the field was stronger than Jack and that even today the field is stronger than when Tiger peaked. So imagine in 10-20 years every golfer is getting better and we end up with 6-12 players at Tiger's level. Since they are all similar and at Tiger's level when he was peaking, none of them will be able to dominate like Tiger, but if even one of them achieves half of Tiger's career over the other Tigers, than technically, although the numbers suggest otherwise, that individual is the greatest of all time. Tiger just dominated a field, but this new person dominated a bunch of Tiger's.

I wonder if people would acknowledge this golfer as the best of all time?[/quote]nope. The only way to compare generations is to determine how much they dominated their era.

[Guia]

Lee was a great player but has a peanut for a brain. There has never been a way to compare players of different eras, there are too many variables. Competition grows with each generation, as well does equipment, agronomy, etc.

We seem to have a fascination with "who" or "what" is the best. Ridiculous, because it changes too rapidly to matter. Better to enjoy the now instead of the past.

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='Hawkeye77' timestamp='1450411667' post='12734430']
[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1450400907' post='12733788']
[quote name='Marco' timestamp='1450399893' post='12733736']
lol wth look at what chamblee said

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/chamblee-tiger-not-jack-greatest-golfer-all-time/
[/quote]


Thanks for sharing, lets see...


“Longevity sanctifies an idea, a career, a relationship, a government,” Chamblee said. “In that regard, Jack Nicklaus’ career was so long – won major championships over 24 years, spanned three generations – but Tiger Woods dominated in a way that had never been done before, and will never be done again. So I think, at least in my estimation, that you’d have to give the edge to Tiger Woods as the greatest player of all time.”



Cant argue with that and

As Ive always maintained, that Brandel knows of what he speaks.; )
[/quote]

I don't believe for even a second that Brandel believes that, but he has plenty of selfish reasons to say something he doesn't believe.
[/quote]



When Brandel is critcal of TW,

he is a great analyst.


When Brandel says TW is,

"The greatest player of all time"

People say, "I dont believe for even a second that Brandel believes that"?

; )

[Hawkeye77]

Ah, I've never thought or said he was a great analyst. He made a loud and obnoxious name for himself ripping on Woods for years and ultimately going too far, now he's just pandering a little and trying to work on his own image a bit. He's not fooling me! Plus, he's been on each side of this debate so many times you can't take him seriously any more.

[hell_is_chrome]

[quote name='Dave230' timestamp='1450368883' post='12731558']
You should include major top 3s in a discussion too. Tiger would be happy to approve. Tiger said this week:

[color=#000000]"Jack's tournament records are incredible, not just his 18 majors (plus two U.S. amateurs) and 73 PGA TOUR wins, but [b]his 19 second-place finishes in the majors, which I think may be his most incredible stat[/b]."[/color]
[/quote]

Agree. I've always thought that the number of 2nd and 3rd place finishes, the number of top 5's and top 10's for Jack were nearly as impressive as his number of wins. Hell, he finished in the top 10 in the Masters when he was 58 and didn't really even play golf anymore.

To the op: this scenario may be difficult. As someone else stated, the Australian Open was a bigger deal back in Jack's day. Has Tiger even played in it? Also, the WGC events didn't exist until, what, 1999? The Players didn't start until the mid-70's, same with The Memorial and Bay Hill. Different events were big in Jack's day, and some of the big events now didn't exist until midway through Jack's career or didn't exist at all. The majors though are consistent throughout the eras (post Bobby Jones at least).

[widow-maker]

You can't judge these players against each other unless they play in the same era. The equipment changes alone make golf a totally different game than it was. Heck, I hit the ball further at age 64 than I did when I was in my 20's. It's a different game

All you can do, is judge the accomplishments within their own era. Tiger and Jack are pretty close and obviously have the two greatest careers in history. Jack's a little longer, Tiger's a little more intense. Jack competed against more stars, but Tiger probably had to compete against deeper fields. It doesn't really matter. You play the course as you find it and you deal with the competition that you have. The challenge is basically the same though for all champion golfers.... you've got to beat the best players of that week on the back 9 on Sunday. Tiger and Jack are the best ever at doing that. We'll never know how they'd have done had they competed with one another.

[BenHoganSlam1953]

[quote name='hell_is_chrome' timestamp='1450444092' post='12735104']
[quote name='Dave230' timestamp='1450368883' post='12731558']
You should include major top 3s in a discussion too. Tiger would be happy to approve. Tiger said this week:

[color=#000000]"Jack's tournament records are incredible, not just his 18 majors (plus two U.S. amateurs) and 73 PGA TOUR wins, but [b]his 19 second-place finishes in the majors, which I think may be his most incredible stat[/b]."[/color]
[/quote]

Agree. I've always thought that the number of 2nd and 3rd place finishes, the number of top 5's and top 10's for Jack were nearly as impressive as his number of wins. Hell, he finished in the top 10 in the Masters when he was 58 and didn't really even play golf anymore.

To the op: this scenario may be difficult. As someone else stated, the Australian Open was a bigger deal back in Jack's day. Has Tiger even played in it? Also, the WGC events didn't exist until, what, 1999? The Players didn't start until the mid-70's, same with The Memorial and Bay Hill. Different events were big in Jack's day, and some of the big events now didn't exist until midway through Jack's career or didn't exist at all. The majors though are consistent throughout the eras (post Bobby Jones at least).
[/quote]

That's the thing. The Western Open was even considered a major up to when the Masters took over, and for a long time Jack had two more majors than he has today which would put the majors count at 20 versus Tiger's 17, but at some point someone decided that the U.S. Amateur no longer counts as a major in the middle of Jack's career. Even Sam Snead had more wins that currently credited, but at some point during his career (or after) numerous wins were discredited - even though they were acknowledged for so many years. So if Jack's and Tiger's U.S. Amateur are no longer majors why do we still credit Bobby Jones for the Grand Slam? They make the separation by now saying the professional grand slam which removes the U.S. Amateur and protects Bobby in history. The fact is that history is rewritten all the time. Enjoy the moments - then and now - they were all great on the course during their respective eras.

[farmer]

Consider Walter Hagen in this conversation. He won 12 majors, but also won five Western Opens, which was considered a major in his day. And, played with actual sticks.

[tiger1bearhawk2]

Brandel has never before to my knowledge said Tiger is the best ever, it's always been Jack is the best or Tiger is arguably the best of all time. I'm curious as to why the change. Obviously being a Tiger fan i would have known had he said it before so this quote kind of shocked me when i read it yesterday morning.

Some random person asks me who does Brandel think is the best all time is two days ago, i would have said "oh, he says its Jack". Now that has changed for reasons im not sure of.

[Soloman1]

I'm still trying to figure out how "piqued" my interest gets turned into "peaked" my interest...

[king_biscuit]

[quote name='Marco' timestamp='1450399893' post='12733736']
lol wth look at what chamblee said

[url="http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/chamblee-tiger-not-jack-greatest-golfer-all-time/"]http://www.golfchann...olfer-all-time/[/url]
[/quote]

This is an interesting quote from the comment:

"Tiger Woods dominated in a way that had never been done before, and will never be done again."

Now why should it never be done again? The only answer to that question is that Tiger caught the tour in a record down time as far as elite talent and that the probability of that happening again for a top golfer is very unlikely. That quote does not elevate Tiger's career, but rather marginalizes it. Meaning that tiger dominated for a period like no other, but it would be impossible to repeat because another golfer is very unlikely to catch such a week field to beat up weekly. He actually has a good point, because if you look at VJ and Phil's record in the mid 90s compared to Tiger's dominate era, they were also destroying those same fields (May, DiMarco, Fiori, Lehman, etc.); and they were mid card guys while Norman, Faldo, Langer, etc., were still at the top of their games.

[Finbarr Saunders]

People will need to stop bringing Jacks name into this type of discussion. Jack is the greatest of all time, what we have to do now is find out who is the second best

[Forged4ever]

[quote name='lumberman2462' timestamp='1450364583' post='12731250']
I have to believe there is a really smart guy with a PhD in mathematics and Computer Sciences that can create an algorithym that could take the OWGRs and make them retroactive to the beginning of the PGA. It would take a lot of work and man hours and there would clearly be no financial benefit but it [i]would[/i] give us something to talk about for years here on GolfWrx....

The real problem I see is how to historically apply the divisor because some of the top names played so few tournaments back in the day.
[/quote]Thanks for that intro Lumbs

I got ya covered Bro!

I did it this afternoon during IV's-

Jack wins!!!

And yes, for those wondering, I applied the historical divisor so as to compensate for those Years that Big Dog didn't Play the full schedule-

However, though docs get the credit for having all of the intellectual muscle, it was a nurse who explained to me that it is not simply the application of the all critical divisor to the equation, but taking the differential of the phi value, hence giving a true weighted value of relativity to the tourneys played and just as important, a value is applied to those skipped, which is factored into the final divisor, giving you the net change over a period of time, which is equal to the weighted average of that event(tourney), giving you the true mean value of the event(ie., track difficulty, depth of field, propensity of beautiful golf groupies present, etc.), which then allows the divisor to be most accurately applied, with 99.999999 certainty(yep, Six Sigma came into play. What, ya don't think that I've got a little intellectual muscle? Don't let the meds fool ya, I got game )-

Thank you Michelle, I couldn't have done it without ya

Okey Dokey, lock 'er up Gents

Y'all are welcome!!

It's on me, Merry Frickin Christmas

All the Best,
RP

[NoTalentLefty]

It is hard to compare eras. But never seen anything like Tiger's play. He destroyed fields like no one before him playing the same type of equipment as the field. Also larger group of good golfers who could compete. That is increasing as the world of golf gets larger by the East Asian surge especially.
Saying all this, the bottom line is still majors. Jack is the greatest champion in the game of golf.
I would say had Tiger stayed healthy and didn't have his women problems , he should have passed Jack. Though the health issue took years away and the wife issue took only about a year.
Did Tiger bring some of his health issues on to himself by his intense training?
Johnny Miller said about his own game that he himself destroyed his swing by beefing up in the late 70s by working around his ranch. So it is very possible that Tiger did it to himself as well.

[Shilgy]

Funny how now guys on here want to say the Tiger era was weak because he dominated. Shows the immense...we'll call it dislike...of Tiger. The era he came up in was just 10 years after Jack's stunning 1986 Masters win. No one thought it was because the era was weak then. And immediately following Jack's win we had the era of the Shark, and Faldo, and Strange and Phil. And no one thought it was weak, in fact it was so competitive that everyone thought domination would not happen again because there was so much talent. To the point where Strange famously told Tiger "you'll learn" when Tiger turned pro and said "second sucks". So now the era is weak because Tiger dominated it? In other sports we celebrate the dynasties but somehow in this one relatively short era we say the champion was no good the competition must have sucked . Unbelievable.