Ofcourse, but golf logic will tell you if he doesn't finish with more major championships than Jack, then he's not the GOAT. I know you disagree and thats fine. Its all opinion anyways.

If it ends 18-18. Tiger is the GOAT.

If it ends Jack-18, Tiger-17. Jack is the GOAT.

Nah

Majors do matter, and probably matter more than any other stat. But it can't be the ONLY measuring stick.
I have a hard time measuring someone finished career to one that is still in progress. But if I were to, I still have Jack #1, Jones #2, and Tiger #3. You have to look at the entire body of work. Tournaments won, Majors won, competition, what other peers who competed with them say, raw and developed talent. It can't be just one thing.

I see you guys bringing stats and scoring average in the discussion. I don't see at all how that has any arguing merit. A lack of knowledge or historical perspective I guess. The equipment is far better. Balls, spined shafts, fitting trailers at your beck and call at every tournament. Perfect or near perfect greens, course conditions. Don't forget, you didn't have final round Sundays. You had to play 36 on Saturday up until the 70's. Today you get spa treatments! lol. Physical wear down has to be accounted for. So why bring up scoring average? Seems incompetent. Or lazy to actually think beyond one dimension.

Out of tens of thousands of players that called themselves touring professionals in the history of golf, I still put Tiger #3. So Don't give me the Tiger hating spiel cause you have nothing better to say.

Jones>Tiger

Expert trolling

And I would instantly die of a heart attack.

GOAT criteria

Major championships

non-major championships PGA tour wins WGC ( roughly 7 are worth a major)

other tournament wins,Euro, Asian etc. ( 15 are worth a major)

scoring average ( adjusted)

world ranking ( total number of weeks as #1)

this all has to be considered to determine GOAT.

It's fairly surprising that this needs to be explained to you, but it doesn't make much sense to move posts about a PGA event out of the "PGA event" thread thus leaving only Tiger posts when there is already a thread centered on Tiger in which such posts logically belong (and which at least a few of us deliberately avoid). That said, as long as I am the only preferring they were contained then it's not really worth the effort to take action.

As for taintsniffers, it's perfectly reasonable to think the fanbois are a pretty pathetic lot, but that's a belief I've held since well before I ever regged here. And debating one is like trying to convert a Mormon missionary to atheism. Good luck with that.

Jack's winrate is pretty sick when you take away his dead/overthehill years, but Tiger's winrate still betters if not destroys it.

*1962-1979 Jack was 68/357, 19%. Tiger has won 9 more than Jack in 73 fewer attempts.

To put it into perspective, it will take Tiger 4 or 5 more years (at 17ish PGA tournaments per year) to get to 357 PGA tournaments played.

I was wrong about Rory needing only a high finish to regain the top spot. He needs a win in Houston according to the first page of the OWGR site.

Also, if the OWGR didn't have the minimum divisor rule: 469.93/36=13.05.

Tiger - 13.05
Rory - 11.29
Rose - 7.11
Donald - 6.86
Sneds - 6.39
Oosth- 6.05
Scott - 5.82
Stricker - 5.74
Kuchar - 5.38
Bradley - 5.25

I haven't really followed the OWGR the last ten years, but then various players started overtaking each other. When was the last time Tiger reached the minimum divisor?

Just lol, so much wrong with this post. The fact that you have Tiger ranked 3 makes everything you said irrelevant because its just so lolololol

You just won the thread, Sir.

It's worth noting that there are many high-value, big-money tournaments in the contemporary golf era that draw essentially the same level of competition a major does -- the non-major majors, iow. Major's are prestigious first and foremost because they draw toughest, most competitive fields (why I personally don't count US Amateur as a major). A major isn't a major "just 'cuz we said so."

WGC, Player's Championship, FedEx Cup season-enders, etc. all draw the best of the best, and Tiger has won a pile of all the above. If someone had the time and energy, a better metric for determining GOAT would be to see how many tournaments Jack/Tiger have won against fields with at least 75% of the world's top 20 competing against them, perhaps taking size of field into account as well.

Courses set up infinitely easier back in the day which imo just offsets them using the equipment they did

Article from last year:

"His divisor hasn’t been above the minimum number since the week of June 17, 2007 – more than a half-decade ago."

Article also indicates he'd get to 40 sometime this summer.

Because Bobby Jones was a good ol' white boy and Tiger isn't.

I think it's muddy with Jones because he couldn't compete in the PGA as an amateur. And he created the Masters. So I guess they counted his wins against kids who sucked dick at golf.

!

Where's Moe Norman!

But, dude, that's the point. The same reasoning applies to Jack v. Tiger. How can you say the guy with the 28% winrate is worse than the guy with the 19%?

Tiger's Majors winrate for his first 66 attempts is 21.2% compared to Jack's of...

oh...

21.2% for his first 66 attempts.

lol

Both were/are 14/66 in majors, but again, Tiger's overall winrate is far superior. Tie break in Tiger's favor.

I was presenting arguments for both sides, just trying to get rid of these people arguing absolutes and not willing to look at other information.

One thing nobody ever talks about is how many WGC events Tiger has won. It has to be a lot. Jack didn't win any. Even if you only give Tiger 1/2 a major for all of the ones he's won he's still way past Jack.

The only side being absolutist are those who use one *albeit important* counting stat to argue Jack is GOAT.

As I said though, the majors comparison is a tie btwn Jack and Tiger in terms of efficiency. Anyone saying Tiger can't be considered GOAT -- when his efficiency in majors is = Jack's -- they are short-sighted, imo.

I heard Bobby Jones didn't even contend in the WGC's

http://www.fark.com/vidplayer/7660939


had to share this too damn funny.

A fun exercise would be if the Jack cornhole-sniffers took the other side and argued for Tiger, and the Tiger taint-sniffers argued for Jack.

Would be interesting to see which side puts up the best argument.

Jack taintsniffers are the worst. It's like trying to convert a mormon mission to atheism, arguing with 'em.