You obviously don't know anything about golf. Didn't you know this is the equation used to calculate world golf rankings and FedEx points,

S/(EQxATxM)

where

S=score in round

EQ= the players emotional quotient as measured by the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT)

AT= average amount player tips at restaurants (other types of tipping not included)

M=number of marriages.

All true fans know this.

This is pretty good. Not sure why anyone would bother arguing with Leo at this point.

Phil has more wins in majors than Floyd and over twice the number of combined second and third place finishes.

Hard numbers matter except when they don't. Cool story.

Those are even back to back Leo posts. Not like he got backed into contradicting his first post, he just makes up his reasoning for being a TW hater as he goes along.

Would really love to see an intelligent conversation on the Jack v Tiger thing, because I think there are valid points on both side. Unfortunately it seems to be such a polarizing issue it turns into a trollfest and a shouting match between the extremes of the side.

Well on one side you have BO, leo, and lozen. On the other side are all of the good posters and all of the statistics. And one wonders why no legitimate discussion ever occurs.

There is only one stat on Jack's side, and that's without adjusting for era.

IOW, there is no conversation to be had. Tiger is the GOAT ainec.

Don't think its fair to put BO in same group as those 2, think Bo has some interesting perspectives and certainly isn't a Tiger fan but I do think he understands the argument (Maybe I'm crazy but I think he could post a fairly intelligent stance on the argument) and could certainly add to this discussion

Ha. This thread is basically unreadable when Tiger is in the field regardless of how he does. At a glance this week is no different. I'd like to place the blame on the taintsniffers because obsessing over a tool like Tiger is pretty sad (especially defending him for days on end, smh) but no doubt both "sides" are equally to blame. If I had any motivation I'd kick all the Tiger non-event posts over to Hamsterdam but that would require reading the posts, which I'd rather not.

I do follow the non-Tiger events just as regularly though and usually me and like two others keep the thread bumped on those weeks...

I think the argument really boils down to how much stock you put into 2nd and 3rd place finishes in majors over differing periods of time, and how heavily you weight the strength of the fields in their respective areas.

The strength of field argument isn't close. It is infinitely more difficult to win today than it was 40 years ago. Anyone who argues differently should not be taken seriously.

And then the top 3 finishes, while it certainly leans Jack today, is really a question of longevity. If you take off everything post 1986, looks like Jack finished in the top 3 of 56 out of about 115 majors. Basically 50%. Tiger has 30 top 3's in 60 majors so far.

From my perspective, matching the pace of Nicklaus in these categories, plus well outpacing him in terms of total wins, all at a time when the fields are dramatically better, means that TW is pretty clearly the GOAT.

The counter argument is pretty simple. It's that the top of fields were better 40 years ago, and that hard numbers are hard numbers and beating them is first criteria in being GOAT.

Easy solution: you and these "two others" start your own thread.

And you guys really don't post much on non tiger weeks like you're suggesting...

Inb4 "bitcho,..."

If the strength of field argument holds true, a 2nd place finish for jack = ~4th place finish for tiger.

The stats are crystal clear. There is basically only one stat in which Jack beats Tiger and that is total Majors.



For me the most amazing stat is the nearly HALF THE TIME tiger plays he ends up in top 3! That is incredible.

P.S. To be fair this includes all of Jack late career play which obviously drags down his % stats.

Holy sh|t you're dumb

Facts are wrong here also as I agree Tiger is the GOHT

And to the Phil wasted his talents. Great Family enjoying life and if not for Tiger might have been the .....

But I'm not a Tiger hater either, I just happen to think Jack is still the GOAT although with every win Tiger shrinks the gap. As I've said before, what I do hate is the media and general public portraying Tiger as the end all be all of the PGA Tour, which of course he is not.

I have tremendous respect for Tiger's game, even more respect for his golfing mind. Such as having the foresight to see that boulder in the desert was in fact a moveable obstruction. I however have little respect for him as a person, if it weren't for his significant charitable efforts that number would be zero. But, that means nothing when discussing GOATness. After all, MJ was a total prick to most same as Tiger.

Perhaps the best post so far on the topic.

Currently Jack has 20/18 majors and 73 wins. Tiger has 17/14 majors and 77 wins. Jack has won the most majors and is third in wins. Tiger is second in majors and second in wins. So for the time being, Tiger is not leading either category, that's an issue for GOAT consideration. How can you be the GOAT in an individual sport without leading either category?

Let's look at tennis, another individual sport with majors. For many years Roy Emerson was considered the GOAT, and he led with 12 singles majors. Then along comes Pete Sampras and beats that number with 14, people then consider Sampras the GOAT. But now Roger Federer has surpasses both with 17, he now seems to be considered the GOAT.

Is it mere coincidence that the leader in majors for decades now is considered the GOAT? I think not. And while the above numbers are pretty standard info, does anybody off the top of their heads know the overall singles titles for any of those three? I don't, but the majors just matter that much.

Tiger is 3/4 majors short of Jack, that's a large percentage when the goal is 18/20. When Federer only had 10 or 11, was he considered the GOAT? Hell no, everybody knew he had to reach Sampras' numbers to get the nod.

Now, I will admit if Tiger doesn't win another major but reaches 100 wins, that could definitely make up the difference. But for the time being he's way farther behind Jack's major total than he is ahead of Jack's win total.

And lest we forget, Tiger's career is still going strong. He very well might pass every number in the book and be the unquestioned GOAT. But he cannot be anointed such until he actually does so.

Tiger is an incredible talent with gaudy numbers, but those numbers are still short of Jack. For now.

BO

BO, focusing on career volume totals and not on efficiency, especially when accounting for the fact that the field is what, a stroke and a half better per person now in comparison to Tiger than it was for Jack, is just a casual fan move. Every stat except for volume says Tiger is better. And the only reason the volume doesn't say that is because Tiger still has 10-15 years left in his career.

Not hating on your post btw; I do value your opinion when you lay it out like that. (why am I typing this out? BO has me on ignore. lol)

BO,

Not going to argue with you because your mind is set on one stat, but who do you take in their prime over ~250 holes if your life depends on getting it right?

True
but really can't compare players of different eras.


Tiger best of his era. second best Phil and Vijay and not even close
jack best of his era better then Arnie,Trevino,Player
Tom Watson best in his era marginally over Seve,Faldo, Norman ,floyd,Kite

Doesn't he have a very violent, very outside-in swing?

In what way has he wasted his talent? Or are you just making stuff up? You can't say crap like this without qualifying it.

"All Jack's records"? Such as... total wins, win %, major win %..... etc.

Oh you just mean that one record that White people like Brandel Chamblee keep trumpeting.

Wow. Tiger ****s all over Jack's fat face here. Anyone who reads this and can't figure out who was better just sucks at life. End of story.

Because I'm trying to have a fair, non-antagonistic discussion on this I clicked the show post buttons for both!

OK, if Tiger continues to be better then by career's end he will be the GOAT without question. But you can't extrapolate numbers through his projected career, he has to actually achieve the numbers over enough time.

Moe Norman. And that's an honest answer. Neither Jack nor Tiger could touch him in his prime. But of course he never really did anything on the PGA Tour.

Just another reason why numbers over an entire career have to happen to be the GOAT.

BO

BO, why can't you extrapolate?

Should Sandy Koufax not be in the MLB hall of fame?

Say Jack Nicklaus had to go serve in some war for 3 years in his prime. You don't unofficially extrapolate "what could have been"?

I'm a tennis fan as well as golf. Tennis is focused even more around the majors then golf and there is less variance in tennis. Not really sure what this adds but I think it's the main reason most grand slams is considered GOAT in tennis.

It's just the closest comparison by far to golf in terms of what we're discussing.

Actually had to look it up, but the top three in men's singles titles are Connors, Lendl, and McEnroe. Federer is currently fourth, one behind McEnroe. And obviously none of the top three are GOAT material.

Am wondering what kind of numbers the PBA Tour would produce as far as majors, wins, and GOATs. Think Walter Ray Williams is tops in wins.

BO

It's not an honest answer, it's a non answer.