I have already posted my opinion on the G.O.A.T. debate, and I say that the stats put that argument to rest, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

If you are fresh to the blog and haven’t already seen the discussion, I will happily link proof to you of a couple of things I’ve already highlighted.

First, to set the competitive field debate to rest, a study of the ten peak years of both players found that it is nearly a statistical tie:

Percentage-wise, the eras are extremely close. Dividing the winners number by the total tournaments gives us 69% for the Nicklaus era and 71% for the Tiger era. To further clarify, if 100 tournaments were played in the Nicklaus era, you would likely see 69 different winners. In the Tiger era you would likely see 71 different winners over 100 tournaments…

Second, looking at this set of stats below, if you can claim that Tiger is greater than Jack was, then you really have no objectivity at all, because if you blanked out the names of both players and asked anyone in the world who had the greater career, no one would choose Tiger’s:

---

That picture is from a post I wrote about comparing the two, and if you want to see how Jack’s competition in the majors compares to Tiger’s (near the end of that post), it’s yet another comparison where Jack comes out ahead.

---

Two More Dubious “Tiger Records”

Now, there are a couple of things in which Tiger beats Jack, and these are the number of PGA Tour wins (Tiger over Jack) and the number of consecutive cuts made.

Both of these numbers have always annoyed me however, to be honest, and I’ll tell you why – I have a strong sense of fairness, I have been told, and I tend to believe it, because when I see something that I think is unfair, it bothers me to no end.

Imagine my mental state in the world in which we live… but let’s not get off track here!

Let’s look at consecutive cuts made – Tiger Woods holds the record with 142 consecutive cuts made.

Impressive – but hold on – I asked Google “how many of Tiger Woods’ 142 ‘consecutive cuts made’ include events with no 36 hole cut?”

The answer should be “Zero,” shouldn’t it?  If we’re talking about making a cut?

Well, I already knew it would be more than zero, but I was shocked to learn that:

Of Tiger Woods’ 142 consecutive cuts made, 31 events were “no-cut” tournaments, meaning they didn’t have a traditional 36-hole cut, so he actually made the cut in 111 events (142 – 31) that had cuts, but his streak includes 31 no-cut tournaments. This distinction is important because his record technically counts any event where he played past the second round. 

I’m sorry, but Tiger Woods did not make 142 consecutive cuts to set that record.  He made 111 actual cuts during that run, and I don’t care what rule the PGA Tour established to include 31 “no-cut” events in that streak.

I just can’t accept that record.  It is bogus.

I asked the same question for Jack Nicklaus:

Jack Nicklaus had a remarkable streak of 111 consecutive cuts made on the PGA Tour from 1970 to 1976, which included several no-cut events that counted toward his total, but sources differ on the precise number of no-cut events within that time, with one suggesting at least 11 no-cut events were part of that run, bringing his adjusted cut-making count down slightly to around 100 made cuts within that period, though the 111 figure is often cited for his overall streak. 

Byron Nelson:

Byron Nelson’s 113 consecutive “cuts made” streak technically includes no events that were explicitly no-cut tournaments in the modern sense, because the PGA Tour definition back then meant finishing in the top-20 to get paid, effectively making every tournament a “cut” event for him, which translates to 113 consecutive top-20 finishes, a feat unmatched in golf. 

Byron Nelson in my opinion still holds the record for consecutive cuts (events where he got paid, and you only get paid “making the cut”) at 113, with Tiger second at 111 and Jack 3rd at around 100 but definitely less than the other two players.

I am fine with that stat, but again, another “record” of Tiger Woods that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.  You can not count playing in a no-cut tournament as having made a cut.  I mean, the very name of the stat “consecutive cuts made” tells you this!

No-cut reduced-field events are no more than exhibitions, as far as I’m concerned.  If everyone is guaranteed four rounds and a payment at the end of the tournament, it is not the same animal as a full-field event with a 36 hole cut.

The second stat that has always bothered me is Tiger’s win total, which is artificially-inflated.  Hear me out.

I read an Instagram post from Brandel Chamblee today that set me off, because it confirmed what I’ve always hated about no-cut events, especially the reduced-field aspect of it.

I will link the Instagram post at the bottom of this post, but here is what caught my attention:

All one needs to do is look at Tiger’s win percentage in regular tour events ( 22%) or majors (15.7%) vs his win percentage in WGC Events (39%) to have some idea of why the WGC events didn’t resonate and why smaller so called “elite fields” won’t resonate with today’s fans.

I’ve always disliked no-cut and reduced-field events because they are, simply, less competitive.

You have greater odds of winning a reduced-field event than a regular field, simply because there are more players in full-field events and anyone can win in any given week.

That’s why you play – to see who wins.

So I took Tiger’s 18 wins in WCG events out of 46 in which he played, and if they had been regular events, he would only have won about 10 of those, going by his winning percentage in regular events – because of there being more players in regular events, he wouldn’t have won 18 of 46 of them as he did in the WCG events.

In this very instance, if you want to claim that “XYZ competed against fewer players than ABC,” you will have to admit that the player in question would be Tiger Woods, not Jack Nicklaus.

So even his 82 PGA Tour win co-record is skewed by the reduced-field events (mathematically, it’s likely around 74 if he plays regular events in lieu of WCG), and Sam Snead is still likely the record-holder at around 82 events, even if you take out the couple of them that were played in a team format similar to a Ryder Cup match.

So Tiger still likely beats Nicklaus in consecutive cuts made and total Tour wins, but not by the margin you think he did.  And in a fair world, Tiger doesn’t even hold the record for either stat.  Byron Nelson and Sam Snead do.

And Jack very simply beats Tiger in virtually every other metric you can point to.

I don’t hate Tiger Woods, nor do I love Jack Nicklaus – I base my opinions on the cold, hard facts of the data presented, and Jack Nicklaus, according to that data, is the G.O.A.T., hands down, with Tiger a clear but fairly distant second.

It’s not a popularity contest.  If it is, just say so, but the career numbers are obvious in who the G.O.A.T. is.

My own personal stat also counts in my figuring out the G.O.A.T. – the number of Tiger Woods’ surgeries and knee and back injuries that he incurred swinging a 13 oz golf club (double-figures), compared to the number of injuries and surgeries Jack Nicklaus had (0 and 0) from playing golf.