Okay, I'll bite. Are you oppressed ARC? Do you seriously think race has jack **** to do with the debate? Stop bringing it up. Just because you can't understand that Jack lovers still have "one last stat" to hang onto doesn't mean it has to be for some other reason other than 'Jack being the greatest is how they've seen it their whole lives'. If you can't see that, then lol. Just wait for Tiger to pass Jack and everyone will agree, even those hanging on so dearly.

Race. Get the **** out of here.

Could you re-post exactly which stats make such a clear and compelling case? You guys keep talking about these stats in a general sense but really lack specifics.

The only things I've seen here are win rates that compare Jack's long decline to Tiger's peak, and compression of the scoring average among the field (which can have just as much to do with equipment and course changes as the overall fields getting better).

Tiger has more victories, and two majors by huge margins. Jack had much more consistency in the majors (10 more top 3's in the same number of attempts).

Tiger is playing really well right now so it is easy to project him passing 18 and maybe 20+, but there's always a possibility of another injury, other life changes, regression, putting yips, and plenty of other things that could derail his career really quickly.

PHB thinks it's stupid to focus on majors. Jack, Tiger, Rory just about any other great great of the game publicly disagree with that, but PHB thinks that their opinion means nothing because he, mister everyman viewing public who just learned the game 2 years ago decides he wants to use some other criteria to judge. Really, it would be racist not to use his criteria (what else could it possibly be?). Maybe Tiger is also a racist for focusing on majors instead of regular tour stops, but that doesn't matter we're not here to judge his morals are we.

I think there are a ton of stats in the 2 threads here, just have to go back and read all posts but they have definitely been provided

Not really. When I read the thread all the arguments were based on the flawed assumption that comparing win rate stats between the two can be done as apples to apples. I didn't see anyone comparing Jack's win rates, scoring averages or anything else through the same age or number of tournaments.

Regardless if the case is so clear and obvious it shouldn't be much effort for one of the people who are so certain about the statistical case existing to summarize it.

Here is your summary. Tiger = GOAT

That's fine. I'm really not trying to diminish what Watson did all that much, it really is quite amazing for a 60 year old to be competitive against that field. Really, really amazing. Just too flukesy in my opinion to go down as one of the greatest sporting events.

For what it's worth, I was on vacation when it was happening, and sat in my room watching it on a laptop instead of going out, because I was so into it and rooting for TW. And at the time I thought if he pulled it off it would be one of GOAT sporting events. Looking back on it now, my opinion has changed.

I don't know what your beef is with the compressed scoring average, or why you are so hung up on what exactly causes them, but the numbers don't lie. It is much harder to win an event where the difference between the best and worst is only 3 shots/round compared to when the difference is 5 shots/round.

Tiger vs Jack cliffs

Jack had 64, in 330 starts, at age 37. 19.4%
Tiger has 77 wins, in 284 starts, at age 37. 27.1%

At age 50, in 499 starts, Jack's winning % was 14.6%
For Tiger's win % to drop to 14.6% by age 50, he needs to play another 243 events and not win a single one of them.

Jack won his 14th major in his 56th professional attempt. Jack won 14 of his first 60.
Tiger won his 14th major in his 46th professional attempt, and has won 14 of his first 60.

Jack won his 15th major in his 67th professional major. Tiger just needs a win at or before next years US Open to be ahead/on pace.

Tiger's World Golf Championship Record

Unreal, outside of the match play he has only finished outside the top 10 twice.

Forget that these events have insanely strong fields, close to majors today, and WAY stronger that majors of past generations, you couldn't any regular PGA Tour events that Jack dominated this badly.

Jack is 12-10 in playoffs. Tiger is 15-2.

So here you have Tiger, who has basically equaled or bested everything Jack has done at the same age, against arguably much stronger fields.

...

Your Boss you are correct in that is what the response is going to be. Its going to have nothing to do with Jack being responsible for losing 10 times

The WGC records are unreal. Best fields of the year every year, and just pure domination.

I definitely disagree regarding the wgc field being way stronger than past majors, maybe the masters but not the others. There's just not enough players in the field for that to be the case. Tiger's win % being about 35-40% higher through the same age is a compelling argument.

Also sounds like if jack had run better in his playoffs the win rates would be a lot closer

fyp

Yes, playing better golf is quite a good argument when it comes to figuring out who is better at golf.

Yes, playing worse golf is not a very good argument for being better at golf than someone else.

Stop with the "you just learned the game 2 years ago" crap. It's meaningless. Things I didn't just learn 2 years ago: math, variance, etc.

And I'm sorry that Jack, Tiger, and Rory each underestimate variance. I really am. Or wait... these 3 guys publicly play up the majors... I wonder why?

Jack: Has the most.
Tiger: Is on pace for the most.
Rory: Just started and is on a good pace for many.

I guess Nick Faldo is really awesome at golf and Greg Norman sucks? People who dodn't focus on the majors: People who understand variance better and want to look at the whole picture.

As far as numbers go, NXT has posted them all. Read them. Stop ignoring them or goal-post shifting to make Jack seem better.

Phil Hellmuth plays up his WSOP bracelets, but he kinda sucks at poker and routinely backs down from cash challenges from the game's best.

Not enough players in the field is just not true.

Adding players to the field(especially once you get outside the top 70-80 in the world like the WGCs) has diminishing returns.

Again I will reference the Tiger vs different field sizes/strength chart.


As you move from just the top 10 players to the top 25 players his winrate decreases, from 29% to 21%. A decrease of ~28% by just adding in the next 15 best players.

Now look at the drop from the top 25 to vs the top 144 best players. It goes from 21% to 14%, a decrease of 33% but it took adding 119 players to accomplish that.

And last but not least look at him vs the top 144 compared to vs EVERY PLAYER in the data set(a total of 2004 players). His win % only goes from 14% down to 12%.

So at some point, the amount of people in the field becomes irrelevant. Generally around the point where the people you are adding have almost a 0% shot of beating the best in the field over 4 rounds.

There was infinitely more "dead money" in the majors in generations past and the scoring average gap does a decent job of illustrating that. 3 shots from top to bottom now, vs 5+ when Jack was playing. Once you start getting 4 to 5 shots worse PER ROUND, your chances of beating people over 4 rounds goes to about 0% and your addition to the field is basically worthless.

I already did agree that Tiger's win rate was a compelling argument. Still a little confused why sample size and variance should be considered when it comes to performance in majors but not when it comes to playoffs.

Well majors have dozens of players. Playoffs have 2 or just a few.

I don't know why Jack performed so poorly in playoffs. You'd think an elite player could win a sudden death tournament against 1 shmuck who is worse than him. Just on intimidation alone.

Don't forget the first two Fedex Playoff events - extremely strong fields, and enough players (125 and 100).

GOAT and it's not even close. Not sure what more evidence you need.

Lol at poulter..
"BITCH! "

GOLF FORUM POTY YOU ANIMALS!!!!

Molder will SHIP it.

lock it down now.

Once again you made a pretty compelling argument overall. I would point out that this is a pretty big drop and the 74 players from 70-144 probably are a bigger part of it than the 45 players from 25-70. So there is a point of diminishing returns but it's pretty far past where they cut the fields for the WGCs. Can't really say you've convinced me that the WGC fields are stronger than the 70's US Open or PGA but I guess it's not a slam dunk the other way either

4 more majors would do it