I may have left some reasons off the list but it doesn't change the fact that no other reasons have anything to do with statistics. They are emotional reasons, which means Jack ****.

I don't even know why I care anymore. Those who know the statistics and the context of those statistics all universally agree that Tiger is better than Jack. Everyone else's opinion shouldn't matter to me. But it's a shame that so many people can be wrong, and some of them are wrong based on things as petty as skin color. That is bothersome.

What's bothersome is you yelling RACISM when people don't agree with you

Haven't read much except OP, but it's accepted in golf circles GOAT stat is measured in MAJORS. Which is why Monty isn't rated extreme elite despise owning the euro tour and Ryder cup for so long.

GTFO "racist" . Against who? Blacks AND Asians? Cos he's both/neither anyway

Well if any nation is racially progressive it's New Zealand.

I'm not saying anyone who thinks Jack>Tiger is racist. I'm saying it's either that, or they are prejudiced against mathematics/statistics. Or they overly-romanticize the past.

Once again you are wrong. Check your history. They did try to Jack Proof Augusta.

They just couldn't. Again I'll conceed depth but as the smartest poster here has already stated for me.

The guys Jack faced at the top 10% were all beter than the guys now. Only player that can compare is Phil and he just squeaks into consideration.

The bar was set by Jack. Tiger said many times that Jack was the standard. Tiger would admit that he's number Two if he doesn't win 19.

But 18 again is only the begining seconds and thirds also speak to Jacks utter dominance plus he beat the **** out of Tiger at least once on one hip at 59 years of age.

Bo is the poster I'm talking about.

The guys Jack faced at the top 10% were all beter than the guys now. Only player that can compare is Phil and he just squeaks into consideration.

The guys Jack faced at the top 10% were all beter than the guys now. Only player that can compare is Phil and he just squeaks into consideration.

The guys Jack faced at the top 10% were all beter than the guys now. Only player that can compare is Phil and he just squeaks into consideration.

The guys Jack faced at the top 10% were all beter than the guys now. Only player that can compare is Phil and he just squeaks into consideration.

The guys Jack faced at the top 10% were all beter than the guys now. Only player that can compare is Phil and he just squeaks into consideration.

The guys Jack faced at the top 10% were all beter than the guys now. Only player that can compare is Phil and he just squeaks into consideration.

Awesome post.

I have to assume ARC is on one of his famous posting binges where he screams racism every other word? Sad, this forum doesn't deserve that.

BO

I know, it's a shame that even in 2011 and 2013 we had to hear his former caddy and colleagues (Sergio) both make racist remarks about him PUBLICLY.

Yep, racism not a factor in 2014 though. And not in private. I think civilization advanced a lot in the last year or so.

ARC the only stats that matter are major Wins Seconds and Thirds.

Jack AINEC!

Why is that multicolored posting thing a thing? This is the only set of forums I've seen people do that on.

Maybe if Jack didn't take second and third so often he'd have as good of a winning % as Tiger.

PHB exiled then, eh

This is obviously ridiculous (the statement not the colouring) its all much of a muchness, if anything there are more better players now as the europeans got stronger. Look out if the Korean men ever can suss out what their women have got

Lots of racism in nz. Gonna take a generation to get over azn invasion resentment

Nearly 5000 posts itt.

Everyone who has been persuaded by posts itt to change their opinion from Jack to Tiger or from Tiger to Jack, please raise your hand.

Does the fact that Davis Love won a major change the way you look at his career that much?

Yes. A major is the defining part of a guys career, as long as he crushes in general events (as opposed to a one hit wonder, with maybe one other career title)

Majors are huge, ESP masters

DL won what ....~25 times on tour? That's crushing. If he failed to ever win a major, we could say he falters on the toughest courses in the toughest fields when the heat goes on

Or it could just be variance. There was a greater than 5% chance that DLIII won no majors in his life and its a bit unfair to just say "eh, he falters on the toughest courses in the toughest fields when the heat goes on".

Also found a nice little Jack quote regarding strength of fields.

Nicklaus tried to answer this question himself. In his autobiography, "My Way," he says, "In 1930, there were perhaps ten golfers, pro or amateur, who might defeat Bob Jones when everything was right for them."

And, "After my first few years as a pro, there were maybe 30 guys who could beat me if I wasn't playing my best. If I were out there today (1996), that number would be tripled."

Jack claims that what we'll call the "depth of field" tripled between 1930 and 1970 and tripled again between 1970 and 1996. This is not a controversial opinion. Most golf writers agree. It became harder to win as the game grew in the 20th Century and fields grew larger and more talented.

And that was in 1996, think of how much deeper the fields have gotten since 1996 alone.

This article should really rustle the Jack GOATers feathers.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/8...to-tiger-woods

But what about this murder’s row of competition here NXT? I randomly picked 1975 since Jack won 2 majors that year, was the money leader, POY, Bob Jones Award, finished 7th and 3rd in the two majors he didn’t win. I mean it’s stacked with Gene Littler, Bob Murphy, Jerry McGee, Pat Fitzsimmons, Herry Heard, Mac McLendon, Don Bies, Gary Groh, Rod Funseth, John Schlee, Wally Armstrong, and the list goes on…..

Johnny Miller in his prime made 1975 a much harder year to win than at any time between 1996-2014.

Miller was an underachiever his entire career so I doubt this is true. Quick seasons that come to mind was Tiger and Vijay had incredible runs in the early 2000s

Yeah, but how gritty were those guys? Did you factor in how gritty they were?

Its not always racism as the reason people don't like a athlete or person.

Amazing that his caddy and sergio get the grief. Yet never any comment on Bubba driving around in the General Lee Car

For me two years ago I claimed Tiger the GOATas I assumed a few more majors. If he doesnt win another major than I got Jack. If that number means nothing than how about Ben Hogan as GOAT

I wasn't being serious

Not that this will change anyone's mind or even advance the discussion, but I wonder what would have happened had the roles been reversed, i.e. Jack was chasing Tiger and not the other way around.

For me, that's the end of the discussion. A bar was set and Tiger, at least based on the last six years, isn't going to clear it. Jack, on the other hand, only won one major after 1980, a period when, I assume, he was pretty busy building golf courses. So it begs the question, what if Tiger had finished his career with, say, 20 majors? Can anyone really say with any degree of certainty that Jack wouldn't have been bashing balls from dawn until dusk in his 40s to get to 21 had he been the chaser and not the chasee?

So people can bring up all the stats they want to prove Tiger is the GOAT. But it's kind of like that guy you play with who says "I would have shot 35 on the back nine had I not gone OB on 12 and three-putted four times."

At the end of the day, very few numbers really matter in golf. And one of them is 18.

(Sorry if this point has been made at any time in the last 2 million or so posts. I only started looking at this thread ((that I remember)) out of extreme boredom this week.)

Maybe Jack's sights would have been set on a higher major number if "majors" were actually a thing before 1960