Tied at 20 in majors, Tiger leads in wins, any other potential factors balance out or irrelevant, Tiger GOAT.

But until that time, Jack still leads.

BO

I'd love to watch BO investing in stocks. Can't speculate! Wait until the stocks reach their highs, then buy buy buy! We simply can't know until we know!

Sigh

Tiger wins Masters, Wells Fargo, Players, Memorial, US Open, AT&T National then Leoslayer ends it all.

Now what?

Yes, way more. This stat is way more important because it demonstrates consistency and chance to win. Finishing in the top-3 means you were in reasonable contention to win. Jack potentially could have won 34 out of 66 and that's just sick. 18 to 14 is meaningless -- as I've stated repeatedly already -- since in the first 66 attempts, they're both 14/66. But this stat paints a different picture in favor of the JackGOAT side. Still, strength of field, scoring ave gaps, etc., have to be ignored to really stay on the JackGOAT team.

I'd say both sides would have valid arguments and wouldn't begrudge either opinion. One of the reasons I'm so passionate in my beliefs is that I don't think it's even close at the moment.

Let me ask you one since you're so fond of it. Tiger plays another 10 years and wins zero tournaments. Who's the GOAT?

BO

How many 2nd and 3rd place finishes does he rack up???

LOLOLOLOL

"I DONT THINK IT'S EVEN CLOSE AT THE MOMENT"

I CANT GO ON.

GAME OVER

It's pretty pathetic that Jack was top 3 in so many majors but couldn't close out. What a choker of yesteryear.

Glad you are finally agreeing with us that Tiger is GOAT

You are really stubborn BO. The only category Jack is ahead of Tiger in is # of majors and thats simply because he has played more. Tiger crushes him in all other categories

Well then, as I've been saying, if he continues his pace through an entire career, he'll render any and all debates moot. We should wait and see if that happens instead of making a premature declaration.

BO

I read that as "premature ejaculation"

Man what would we do without Tiger? would we be sitting here debating who has it worse, Rory with his terrible new equipment and wisdom tooth apparently made of hydrogen cyanide, or Phil with his rheumatoid arthritis and 45% tax bracket costing him the opportunity to buy all of the Five Guys restaurants in the continental U.S.

Jack won his 18 majors with 29 strokes to spare.

Tiger won his 14 majors with 47 strokes to spare.

Maybe With those 18 extra strokes carried over Tiger can win some more majors.

I think maybe you should either accept the parameters of the debate or just stay out of it?

@BO and other JackGOATers

The problem with the "wait and see how his entire career pans out" argument is that from 1979-2005, Jack won five tournaments TOTAL, nothing after 1986. His era of domination was from 1962-1979, where he won 68 PGA tournaments and 15 majors. That era spans roughly the same as Tiger's 1996-present, and Tiger has 77 wins and 14 majors.

With regard to strength-of-field, scoring average gaps, etc.,Tiger's career -- if it ended today -- is better than that span of Jack's career considered most significant, but I will concede that it is f close.

Jack did go on to win 3 majors and 2 other tournaments post-'79, but (though yes, 3 majors is great) it's not the part of Jack's career that makes him great. The 1986 Masters is the stuff of legend, but that Jack is the last gasp of a great golfer, not a megaGOAT in his prime.

Iow, we have a very solid basis for comparison now between these two golfers, even were Tiger's career to end today, and it is completely fair and reasonable for someone to see Tiger's career as GOATer than Jack's on that basis. Besides, comparing Jack's 1979-2005 career to Tiger's 2014-2020? career only works in the favor of the TigerGOAT argument. It's still sick that Tiger will need to play for 4 or 5 years to match Jack's volume, though Tiger has won more already.

Jack Nicklaus from 1962-1979



Tiger Woods from 1996-present

I like how Tiger took a pot-shot at Jack the other day when he said he admired how many majors Jack has played in and thought he would never reach that "record". A subtle hint to the JackGOATers out there that Tiger hasn't played nearly as many majors.

Ever since I mentioned the exercise of Tiger GOATers trying to make an argument for Jack the other day, I have honestly been trying to fairly concoct an argument for Jack and I swear it starts and ends with "total majors". That's it. There is no real argument to be made beyond that. Everything else is in Tiger's favor by a long shot.

I feel like this belongs in the religion forum at this point. No one is going to convince anyone of anything. BO, while most probably disagree, has the right general view of this debate. Let's just give it time to work itself out.

^ Speak for yourself! I've learned a lot about both players and golf in general itt. Disagreements aren't the worse thing in the world. Last post from me though, for now:

Jack Nicklaus Majors winrate through 1986 Masters:

18/105 17.1%

For Tiger to reach 18/102 17.6%, he has to win 11.1% of the remaining majors from 2013-2021.

Even though we've already shown repeatedly itt that looking solely at majors is insufficient, let's say that's all that matters. To believe JackGOAT you'd have to believe it is not probable that Tiger wins one major every 2 years, 3 months over the next 9 years (heck, round it off -- decade), that Tiger is not likely to win 1 major per 9 attempts over the next decade.

LOL you cut off in 1979 when Jack won the US Open and PGA in 1980 and was T4 at The Open

Realistically hes doing you a favor. He said in his post that post that he won the 3 majors and 2 other tourneys but he didnt do near as well in all of the others he played

Definitely this. So much logical thinking lacking ITT

Bo,

I got a chuckle out of the subtleties of this post, especially enjoyed the straw man.

would you agree that major championship wins would ultimately hold the most value in determing the greatest?

Is Tiger's body of work as we stand today equal to or better than Jacks, even though Jack has won 4 more of the big ones than him?

Imo, Jack's PGA tour stats, even though Tiger is eclipsing most of them, still weigh greater over a period of time with his 18 majors.

This is a bad example, and i know ill get flamed but, for me, its like an exam where 50 percent of it is standard questions that are not very difficult and the other 50 are extremely hard, where only the elite will prosper.

Same thing with PGA tour wins vs majors. One is significantly easier to win, therefore I put major wins at the top of my list. All the other records that Tiger has broken of Jack's are great, wonderful. Show me you can win 5 more of the big ones and you'll make me a believer.

Until then, I'll stay with the guy that has proven he's the greatest by winning the biggest and most important tournaments in the world.

Not an answer to what I asked.

This discussion really has zero to do with whether players on the fringe of the HoF end up getting in or not. But, if he has four or five more good years and gets to 20 wins, I could see it.

Fields in Jack's day had a lot fewer people capable of finishing in the top-3 due to lack of strength at the back end.

This is fair but it is possible it might take Tiger 8, 10, 12 more years to get to his 19th major (or not get to it but still be playing well enough to keep us interested). Are we shelving the debate until then?