Originally Posted by CanuckAaron
Arnold did a lot for golf for the middle class but Tiger's reach stretched across social class, race and ethnic boundaries on a global scale (which no doubt had to do with the state of modern communication). Tiger brought golf to inner cities and countries around the world that had never heard of golf. Arnold may have done that for a certain population but because of our residence in North America we tend to overestimate his effect on golf. Not to mention Palmer never dominated the way Tiger did. Arnold was as famous for how he looked as he was for golf.
Well no argument that tiger reached a bigger audience. With social media, bigger tv coverage and the always big push on endorsements, how couldn't he. Arnold has 62 tour wins that include 7 majors. To say he is known more for his looks is a little insulting.
It like saying in 40 years Tiger will be known for his temper tantrums, messy divorce and blaming his coaches for bad tournament results. I don't believe that to be the case.
I guess I never answered the original question, Jack or Tiger. IMO it's very hard to compare athletes of different generations. If you go off the "championships define greatness" then it Jack. If tiger breaks that record then you give it to him I guess.
I would argue that Jacks playing competitors were superior to Tigers. Tiger can hit shots that Jack probably never even thought about. Is that bc of superior technology in equipment and ball making? We will probably never know.
Give me Jack, for now.