Drives me crazy that everyone tries to pin everyone down on some absolute judgement about which way they view the comparison to tiger v jack and then try and extrapolate that into some mismatch with other golfers. It is perfectly reason to argue majors are the measuring stick when it comes to tiger v jack but not when comparing Watson v Phil or whatever.

I get the Tiger lovers (I am unapologetically a Tiger fan and have been since amateur days) want tiger to be considered GOAT but perhaps the argument for Jack v Tiger should use the measuring stick of major. I think Tiger has put enough emphasis from day 1 on Jack's 18 that he would admittedly say that Jack is the gold standard in regards to majors. I would wager Tiger would say Jack is GOAT if he never gets to 18.

Contrary side applies to the Jack, there are other possible metrics than the 18 majors accept that. And you don't have to judge all of golfers based on majors, there is more to a career than just majors (lol John Daly). Additionally Tiger hitting some 100 wins would have to be a reasonable number to at least merit the true argument Jack v Tiger. I think Bo has a reasonable point on wins and majors that tiger doesn't lead either yet so not GOAT but if and when he does (seems super likely on wins and reasonable on majors) I think it's silly to ignore the legitimacy of the discussion.

The era discussion is moderately interesting and nearly impossible to quantify but the tour is undoubtedly deeper today than 40 years ago. How to measure the top 5 from each era is super difficult and maybe an interesting discussion on the side.

Anyways I know I'm asking a lot but please show some logic in the discussion.

Why?

Because it is LOGICAL

oh wait, no its not

anyone else watching this tavastock cup match? peter jacobson said of grame mcdowell, that he is someone you want on your side in a streetfight because he will come out on top. is mcdowell an mma enthusiast or some kind of irish bareknuckle boxer?

from his appearance(beer belly) the only thing he looks like he is beating down is a pint of Guinness.

Hypothetical (Can prob find plenty real examples)
Player A with 2 majors and 1 other win all time on tour
Player B with 1 major, 11 wins and Ryder Cup hero etc

Player A > B??

Don't think it's fair to use it as an absolute. Perfect example Andy North and US Opens and nothing else basically

Basically this is what the whole argument comes down to. Those on the Nicklaus side are forced to say A, while logic dictates B.

You still haven't explained why specifically the JN vs TW argument should use the majors only criteria, while you admit how useless it is for other comparisons.

That is the whole point or our laughter at only using 1 metric for grading a golfers performance.

How is it possible to rank players based on different criteria in the same list?

The upper echelon on the greats majors have always been the measuring stick for better or worse (and maybe incorrectly). That being said number 1 reason honestly why is because Tiger himself would agree with the premise. I also am not saying that majors are the only way to judge I'm saying you have to take In the body of work of a career. Ignoring the possibility that an argument can be made from the other side is just irrational even if its a weak argument.

Ok who is the greatest hitter of all time?

Ty Cobb or Pete Rose?

Im not so sure Tiger would say Jack is the GOAT right now. Im not sure Tiger would ever flat out say anyone is better is better than him. Tiger would avoid the question or say something like Jack had amazing career.

Ok at what point is your cutoff? I listed a career major list above to which BO agree those are his top 3. That is convenient bc I knew he would have a huge problem with some of the names further down the list.

So I guess once we get outside the top 3 contenders, its not only majors that matter?

Ok? So you recognize it's a poor way of measuring, but insist it's the way it should be measured, except for when you are not saying they are the only way to measure? Cool story bro?

Not trying to be a dick, you are just being a little inconsistent and wishy washy in your argument here.

The same goes for Jack or Arnie. Though I respect the fact that you never get to say you are the GOAT. That is reserved for others to debate on 2+2

Yeah was just referring to someone saying Tiger would say Jack is GOAT which I dont believe that is the case. You would have to ask players much further down the list to get an answer

The bottom line is most "TOTAL xxxxxxxx" arguments are usually terrible indicators regarding the BEST in many different things. Much like Total Putts is a pretty terrible measure of how good someone putted. Efficiency is much more important, thus why the Strokes Gained Putting stat is the go to putting stat now.

It's the same reason why Wins in a season is a terrible measure of the best pitcher in baseball.

It's why the person who has made the most FTs in NBA history is not the "GOAT FT Shooter".

It is also why Nick Faldo is not widely regarded as the best Ryder Cupper of all time despite holding the record for most total points(1.5 more than Monty)

My original point was don't let the argument be dictated by a single measuring stick; I see the merits of both sides of the argument which people seem to blatantly ignore.

I get my stance goes on both sides of the street but that is my point as well; I do tend to lean that for the top 3-5 or whatever that majors have a more significant impact on the conversation, but I don't disregard what 100+ wins would mean in a career etc.

When deep down he knows he must get to 19 majors or hes failed

This was a a poorly worded statement by me; I am not pushing for absolutes (my OP's entire point). Like I said in above post I think Majors have more weight the higher you are on the list. That being said the counter argument is somewhat interesting for the Tiger GOAT camp based on wins not majors, at what point is Jack the GOAT if Tiger's wins looked like (wins/majors) 77/8 vs 77/14 or would 77/6 still do it? I find it hard to believe the same camp would be pushing for Tiger GOAT as a 77/2 player.

Cliffs: Wins and Majors both matter, how much is the debatable point. If you feel Tiger is GOAT now at 77/14, would your opinion change at 77/6? I'd like to think it would have a impact on the argument, which is what I'm saying the absolute/polarized posters are missing. Opposite would be true in a 30/19 case

Anyone saying its not all about major championships, just ask Tiger. He'll tell you

That Tiger has set that as a goal doesn't mean failing to achieve that goal makes someone not GOAT. That's not how logic works.

If you asked Ty Cobb and Pete Rose what makes the greatest hitter, would you agree no matter which metric they agreed on between total hits and career batting average?

Would your head explode if they couldn't agree on a single metric or decide which one of them is the best, because it would render you completely helpless without 2 of the best telling you which metric to use?

In non-Tiger talk is Charlie Beljan's spot in the "Golfer's Toolbox" commercial the worst/most awkward celebrity spot in commercial history?

With all due respect, Tiger doesn't get to determine what metrics are used to determine the GOAT golfer.

I wonder if, after winning number 19, Tiger accidentally turns in a wrong scorecard to lose by a stroke, BO would then declare him identical to Jack because 18=18.

I bet he would. LOL BO.

LOL Wikipedia, but why does it count Bobby's Ams as majors and not Tiger's?

Bc BO authored that page and checks it every day to make sure nobody has changed it