Imagine Germany was tied for the most wins, but had appeared in the finals twice as much as the country they were tied with. That wouldn’t have merit as a tie-breaker in your eyes?
Fields are deeper than in Jack’s day, as I outlined above (there are probably several ways you could quantify that, all labor intensive). Here’s another number for you: average margin of victory in major victories:
Jack: 2.67 strokes (incl. 3 playoff wins, which might skew the results some)
Tiger: 4.61.
If Tiger retired from golf today, would he be the greatest ever? I say yes. As an example of dominance, Tiger has had at least 3 career winning streaks of 4 or more PGA tournaments. Nicklaus: 0. List of longest PGA Tour win streaks - Wikipedia
There are so many other reasons, but that list was impressive.
If Tiger maintains his current pace for 16 more years he’ll have 30 majors and 140 victories, give or take. I’d say Jack will be way back in the dust at that point.
IMO having a bunch of second places means nothing, or even is a negative- it means a whole bunch of times you were in a position to win on Sunday and didn’t. Woods’ few second places means when he had any chance at all to win, he usually did.
Due to the incredible ammount of money now available on the tour (thanks to Tiger), Woods doesn’t have to play in 40 tournaments a year. I don’t think he even plays 20. He does do some things that Jack never did, though, like play in Dubai and Europe and Asia once a year. Those wins don’t count on his totals, although the fields are every bit as good as the ones on the PGA tour.
Which pace is that.,The 8 of the last 9. If he comes close to that pace no discussion is possible,
Read this for some fun Tiger facts. (Click on “Biography” under “About Tiger” in the upper left hand heading.) Best ever? I think so. He’s done a hell of a lot in less than 12 full years as a pro.
I understood him to be referring to the current career pace; i.e. extrapolating what he has done so far for another 16 years.
It would, but I don’t think that’s an analogous situation.
They were the runner-up in a couple of world wars, too. Doesn’t say a lot for their standing now, does it? 
This is a mindset I just don’t understand. Second place is just as good as last?
So in the early 90s, the Buffalo Bills were no better than the Arizona Cardinals? That is obviously false.
Agreed, though Jack would still have 20+ more victories.
I concede that Tiger is on pace to be the best ever. He just isn’t there yet. Again I would point out the Mario Lemieux / Wayne Gretzky comparison.
If Tiger never comes close to Jack’s top 3 number, he needs to shatter the wins number. If Tiger ends up just edging Jack out by a couple major wins, then Jack’s huge lead in top 3 finishes would keep him above Tiger IMO.
For me, once Tiger gets to around 22 major wins, Jack’s top 3 number will become moot.
I don’t think Tiger is remotely capable of matching Jack’s top 3 number because Tiger is nowhere near as consistently great as Jack. If he were, he’d practically always finish in the top 3 like Jack did.
We don’t actually know anything about Jack’s second and third place finishes. You assume that he started Sunday in position to win, but how do you know he wasn’t way out of it when day four started, only to come storming back with a huge Sunday to fall just short? I think we can all agree that Tiger is almost incapable of doing that; generally speaking he’s either in it and wins it or is out of it and is a non-factor.
I would welcome any cites, as I’m actually curious.
Huh? Tiger would have 140, almost 70 more than Jack.
Tiger has won around 30% of the tournaments he has entered. Jack has won 12%. Who is more consistent?
Tiger has won 40% of the Masters he has played, 20% of the U.S. Opens, and 30% of the PGA’s and British Opens. He holds or shares the low score in relation to par in all four. * He has been the PGA player of the year nine times out of the eleven he has been eligible.* Not consistent? I must confess I don’t see it.
Yes he would. My bad.
Where is he in the tournaments he doesn’t win the other 70% of the time?
I don’t actually know; for all I know his top 3 and top 10 numbers are better than Jack’s. I can’t seem to find the numbers.
The only current numbers I’ve found for Tiger are top 3 majors, and in that stat he is decidedly lacking compared to Jack.
He plays in Dubai where he gets a king’s ransom just for an appearance fee. Then he wins there, too.
He made the cut for 7 years in a row,142 straight tourneys and he is not consistent?
He also takes some tournaments off because he’s all about the majors.
I’m not getting the “he’s inconsistent” argument either. Tiger really is the greatest. I suppose it can be debated, but I don’t see how it’d be relevant when it’s just not true.
He could hang it up right now and never play again and he’d still be the best ever.
Despite the fact that Jack has won more majors? Is this the New Math?
If they played each other, who do you think would win? Does that depends on the longevity of Tiger’s career?