Jack vs Tiger (vs. Your Age)

[dfreuter415]

There have been a number of polls on "who is better" Jack Nicklaus or Tiger Woods. I have a theory that it is age related. Those under 35 never saw Jack in his prime, and thus would favor Tiger. Those over 55 tend to think that "older is better," and this group would favor Jack. Then there is the in-between group who is probably split.

I'm not asking for much of a response from those of you who respond, because that has been done to the point of overkill, (although a short response is always nice), I'm just looking to see how much of a factor age plays in people's opinion of "Who is Better: Jack or Tiger?"

[David in FL]

Believe it or not, though I'm generally characterized as a Tiger hater, I'm over. 55 and voted for Tiger in the original poll. Of course, there's still time for that to change as time moves on..... ;-)

[Gunther]

By jove, majority again. Damn, gotta start rethinking before I vote in these things.

[isukgolf]

While I still believe strongly that we are blessed to have both players, and given their era they were the best ... so I have them as tied ...

However, a tie is not an option ... I am over 55 and vote for Tiger, because I have the ability to look at more than 18 vs 14 ...

[Golfingdad]

I'm in the middle group, but have not voted.  I'm actually quite proud of the fact that I haven't voted in the big thread either ... even though I've made tons of arguments over there.

I just don't know.  I think, if forced, I might still lean towards Jack**, but I also recognize that Tiger's career isn't over yet.  We'll have to wait and see.

Not because 18>14 or any other such nonsense, but because of a much, much more thought out and sophisticated reason:  Just cuz.

[isukgolf]

I'm in the middle group, but have not voted.  I'm actually quite proud of the fact that I haven't voted in the big thread either ... even though I've made tons of arguments over there.

I just don't know.  I think, if forced, I might still lean towards Jack**, but I also recognize that Tiger's career isn't over yet.  We'll have to wait and see.

Not because 18>14 or any other such nonsense, but because of a much, much more thought out and sophisticated reason:  Just cuz.

So if it is not a 18>14 thing, then what else does Tiger need to do or not do?

[tefunk]

I don't think the age ranges seem appropriate in the poll... I wouldn't think anyone under 45 would have really seen Jack in his prime. I'm 36, born in '78. I don't think he was in his prime anymore by the time I was even born... Let alone by the time I had a clue who he was

[Golfingdad]

So if it is not a 18>14 thing, then what else does Tiger need to do or not do?  :-)

I dunno. Win 4 more majors maybe. Or win zero more majors. Or maybe just retire so I have the closure of comparing two complete careers. Mostly the last one, I think. ;)

[boogielicious]

Believe it or not, though I'm generally characterized as a Tiger hater, I'm over. 55 and voted for Tiger in the original poll.

Of course, there's still time for that to change as time moves on.....

Ha!  I still have six months before I move to the "old fart" part of the poll!

[Parker0065]

Interesting poll!

I like the idea of comparing age and how or when people took up the game. I'll use my Father in law as an example because he like so many average golfers never played or took up golf until he retired which happened to be right at the height of Tiger's dominance. My Father in law is(not quite as much since the fire hydrant incident) a huge Tiger fan. He never watched or followed golf back in the 60's/70's and although he's plenty old enough, never watched Nicklaus play. So I'm not surprised to see a lot of votes for Tiger from the over 35 crowd, it's who was winning as they got older and had more time/money to get into golf. It's no different in any other sport, the Patriots, Steelers, or Cowboys win 3 or 4 Superbowls and they instantly have fans from coast to coast selling jerseys like crazy!

I'm 48 and voted for Nicklaus, much like the 35 and under voted for Tiger. Nicklaus was who I grew up watching and idolizing like many of the junior players of that era that golf was their primary sport. I know people like to get all fired up about who was the greatest ever but I think it's more relevant to break it down into era's. Not just because the equipment was different but also because the world, travel, logistics, and standards of greatness were all different within each era.

Golf just like the rest of the world has gotten bigger, better(debatable), faster over the last +100 years which equates to each era having a different set of standards as to what was considered greatness! When Nicklaus got to 15 Majors(4 ahead of Hagen) most people that really followed golf thought that might stand for a 100 years. When he added 2 more in 1980 it was thought it may stand forever, yet 34 years later here we are with a guy within 4 that may or may not get there.

As far as Jack v.s. Tiger I will say Tiger had a huge advantage over Jack in popularity because Jack had to follow and dethrone "The King" Arnold Palmer. When I got into golf as a kid Jack was at his height and many people my fathers age were still huge Palmer fans and didn't give Jack a lot of love for taking down their guy! As for Tiger, there was no "Big Dog" to take down when he turned pro but he did spawn a whole generation of young guns that are now lighting it up, which outside of whether Tiger catches Jack or not may be Tiger's greatest legacy. He took golf into the era we are in now and earned his spot at the table as one of the greatest ever!

I guess it's fun to debate the greatest ever but I like to enjoy the accomplishments of each era so for myself it's a 5-way tie between Young Tom Morris, Walter Hagen, Ben Hogan, Jack Nicklaus, and Tiger Woods.

[Fourputt]

Although Tiger was probably better in his best years, I voted for Jack because of his longevity.  I really think that Tiger is washed up at 37, while Jack kept his game well into his 40's.  I'd love Tiger to prove me wrong, but he hasn't yet done so.  Run this poll 10 years from now and I may or may not have a different opinion.

[BrownCoast]

I'm under 35 years of age and I think Jack is/was the better golfer stat wise. golfers today, including Tiger cant hit fairways as well as they did in the past. They really dont need to with the advances in golf equipment. Todays equipment makes it easier to hit farther, straighter and to get out of trouble. However Tigers approach to  the game far exceeded Jacks. who is all around better...matter of opinion I guess. Tiger has more wins (there is also more tournaments to play these days with more money to be won therefore one can pick and choose a prime schedule) Jack has more majors (todays group of golfers seem to be more competitive thus making it harder to win). As i said given the equipment and the stats I think the edge goes to Jack!

Great poll by the way!