For anyone saying that the majors are the only measure of success in golf when it comes to analyzing Tiger, are you sticking to that with regards to everyone else? Do you want John Daly's career over Steve Stricker? Who are you going with given a pick out of Kenny Perry, Michael Campbell, Trevor Immelman, or Todd Hamilton?

I don't know

I think that the tiger vs jack death match yielding moe norman as a winner needs more love.

Do you need a Major to get into the HOF. Would you vote Stricker in with no Major?

The horizonal axis on that image is player ranking.
-vs a field of just the top 10 players
-vs a field of just the top 25 players
-vs a field of the top 144 players
-(1,3,5...287) is vs a field of every other player up till a field of 144. The last player would be ranked 287, the 2nd to last 285.
-(1,4,7...430) is vs a field of every 3rd player up till a field of 144.

Just a way of varying the "strength of field"

Thanks got it.

Muck is the nut low itt. Someone that poorly equipt to debate logically has to be a republican.

For those keeping score, that was an ad hominem attack.

So do the Tiger people give any weight at all the Nicklaus having so many more top 3 finishes in the majors or do they throw out everything that isn't a W?

what debate?

I was just stating my opinion

Haha indeed.

See my earlier post with all stats. Even adding 2nd and 3rds tiger win rate is far higher.

I expected you to post a convenient answer like this. I didn't know you would, but I expected you would.

The reason why I used the word "expect" is because I know that you don't know. The exercise is about you making a wild guess.

Unfortunately, like BO, you won't answer any question that undermines your position. So we're stuck with you making posts like "I still don't see infallible data". Yay, everyone loses!

wait, mucks = leo?

only way it makes sense

Tiger is definitely closer to the ideal man height. GOAT

Not making a wild guess about decades into the future is refusing to answer a question that undermines my position? LOL

Your earlier post would carry a lot of weight if it compared similar career periods.

I think Tiger has played 60 majors since the 97 Master's with 24 top 3's. Starting in 1962 when he won his first major Jack had 34 top 3's in his first 60 majors.

I don't have numbers for regular events handy but I would be interested to see what they say.

Yes, do you see why? 40 years isn't that much. 1973 was 40 years ago.

I really wish you would answer the question and give reasoning as to why.

Hint: There is a way you can answer it that doesn't undermine your position, but you'd still need to give reasoning as to why.

Has to be...

The babbling in this discussion reminds me of a quote from Star Wars Attack of the Clones. I should think you Jedi would have more respect for the difference between knowledge and wisdom.

BO

Jack Nicklaus was the JarJar Binks of golf.

tiger is mace windu

If you really want me to guess the answer is about the same

I posted this earlier, but it's worth restating in light of some of the posts I've been reading.

Jack's efficiency/winrate in majors through the first 66 he played: 14/66, 21.2%

Tiger has competed in 66 majors so far -- his efficiency/winrate: 14/66, 21.2%

In the only way we can directly and sensibly compare the two in terms of their major results, they are tied. Again, Tiger hasn't played in the number of majors Jack did (yet), so focusing on Jack's volume is fallacious, imho. Jack won Major #15 in his 75th attempt, so Tiger could still lose the next eight of them in a row and still be head to head with Jack percentage-wise.

We should then, obv, be looking at other stats and indicators other than 18 v. 14 when determining GOAT. Suppose Tiger is hit by a truck tomorrow and never wins another tournament, let alone major? Is it really rational to say, "not GOAT, didn't reach 83 PGA victories or 19 major victories, end of discussion."? I would understand if Tiger had only played a year on tour then retired, but the man has logged 17 or 18 years on tour, giving us plenty of stats and markers to use in determining his relative GOATness. It's just stonewalling on the part of the Jack partisans to say, "18, therefore GOAT, gfy." If they can offer some other meaningful stats/records/accomplishments, I am open to persuasion.

Depends on the strength of the field, but

/thread