Tiger at 32: 13 majors; 4 runner-up finishes; scoring records in all four majors. (Broke Masters scoring record held by Jack and Floyd by one stroke.)
Jack at 32: 11 majors; 11 runner-up finishes: scoring records in two majors (Broke Masters scoring record held by Hogan by three strokes.)
While I pick Tiger over Jack, by a goodly amount, there is a point in Jack's favor. Tiger turned pro at age 20. Jack, at age 22. Tiger has had two more years to win his majors than Jack did at the same age.
Then why doesn't he win majors when being around par is a good score? (Bethpage and to some extent So. Hills being the noted exceptions.)
Add Pebble to the exceptions list. 2nd place was 3 over par. And if you count SH, I think you must count the 1997 Masters. 2nd place there was 6 under, same as at last year's PGA.
Your average is called your average because you only get there about half the time. So 'only' putting average is not that easy to do. You only have about a 50% chance of it.
My point is that Tiger putted very poorly during those events. Poorly for him, that is. Yet he still nearly won anyway. He finished a stroke or two or three out of first place. If he had not putted so lousy -- which is very rare for him -- he wins, probably in landslides.
I would like to see a statistical analysis of Tiger's putting when he wins compared to when he doesn't. Because course setups and greens vary so much, you would have to compare it to the field. Bet the difference is huge.
btw, you are not right about averages. You can putt your average all the time (the perfect model of consistency)...or none of the time (I took 32 putts 10 times, and 28 putts 10 times).