I think Woods' achievement is the greater performance of golf, because (regardless of format) two of its titles (the Masters and the PGA) were attained against the world's absolute best, highest ranked, most accomplished and half of Jones' 1930 achievement was not. That's my plain answer.
The detailed answer is:
1. First, Woods ought to have nothing to prove (as pro or am) to say match play/stroke play is telling in Jones' favor. Woods has done plenty in match play to suggest otherwise in his first decade.
2. My (but maybe not your's) acknowledgement that if Woods had elected to stay an amateur and not turn pro in August of 1996, given the affluent family means that Jones enjoyed, relative to his time, we might well have seen more than one "Jones' slam there in 1997 - 2007. I guess I'm asking you if the 42 million Nike had ready for his entry into the 1996 Milwaukee Open was at all responsible for the way the dude was tearing it up those years...does he not win the US or British Open in 2000 by a gazillion if he's not winning a direct earning from the trade? I honestly don't know, but I suspect that he would have still been a great champion
3. Finally, I genuinely admire, and even defend, Jones and his legacy in many discussions and a few writings. Nobody has a finer amateur record than he; he was an absolute marvel of ability on the course and a humbled gentlemen off it. And probably no one did more to evangelize the delight and interest in American golf as did he. But he was no amateur, that is merely a legal fiction. While he took no prizes and was able to deny a visible profit from his playing... he was still the leading practitioner at his game, his name drew gate and monies, the clubs he played were desired and sold, the wealthiest boys treated him as an orchid, he did not cruise in steerage, he did not travel in the coach section...and the moment he retired there was magically in place a deal with Hollywood for the shorts and a deal with Spalding (?).
Jones looked like a pro, was friends with the pros, traveled with the better pros, drew like a name pro, won like a pro, enjoyed perks and allowances the pros commonly received. In every way, EXCEPT the actual taking of prize money, he was a professional golfer... Lest you think I'm merely being provocative or hyper-literal, it's really an editorial critique of us (then and now) and our need for these plus-factors to serve in meaningless social media lists and their nearly meaningless debates... somehow its not enough for Jones to merely be an astounding player with good comportment and an evident moral code, we have to sell it as he's beyond the ugly money of it, which I'm saying, was not the truth of this amateur. Golf, not law or engineering was his profession, certainly as a young man and you know that no one was hoping to play a round with him to hear his legal opinion on maritime boundary statutes or somesuch.
Again this isn't Jones' "fault," it's our ever-more-hyper-hyperbole cultural biopsy of the Info Age; I know Jones didn't do as he did with malice or to prove or disprove my point one hundred years hence... however his wishing to keep the nomenclature of amateur prevents us from seeing how he would have fared in the 10 PGAs against the top fields...and that desire to keep amateur status has me wondering why he never did take a Western Open, when for the leading pros that was just about a major in the Between World Wars period.
So there's the details of my plain open...that Woods' holding of all four professional majors at once is harder (regardless of format) because each of the four faced the world's BEST players, not just the best players who don't want or need the prize money or lucaratti that follows (then or now).