or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Jack or Tiger: Who's the greatest
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Jack or Tiger: Who's the greatest - Page 177

Poll Results: Tiger or Jack: Who's the best?

 
  • 70% (1618)
    Tiger Woods is the man
  • 29% (692)
    Jack Nicklaus is my favorite
2310 Total Votes  
post #3169 of 4273
Quote:

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

 

There are a lot more good players today, but Jack definitely played against better competitors. You have to remember that most of those guys were playing every day to just be able to eat the next week. There were no sponsors paying for their every whim (they can all thank Arnold for that) and they had to win to make decent money. There was no guaranteed 125 man Tour card cutoff, it was 60. About a third of every field was made up on Monday in qualifying and they all had to rely on local caddies who they didn't know. No courtesy cars, no fresh balls piled on the range; they had to bring their own shag bag full of beatup balls. Those guys would cut off your nuts to make a check. Today's guys are so spoiled it is ridiculous. Just making the cut is all most of them want to do.

 

 

Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

 

 

If I follow your logic, you're saying that back in Jack's day the golfers were better because the purses were smaller?  I don't think that logic makes sense. If you were a damn good golfer, but the best you could hope for from playing golf professionally was eking out a living, and could make more money by working a 9-5 job, you'd likely choose the latter.  That means Jack wasn't competing against all those damn good golfers who went that route.

 

With today's purses and the other spoils you mention, a damn good golfer is more likely to be out on tour. Plus, as you also pointed out, there are more guys with a tour card which means *more* competition, not less.

 

 

I said they were better competitors. There is a difference. They were playing every week for their livlihood. Today, you are lucky to see 10 out of the top 30 even playing every week.

post #3170 of 4273

This sure will end this discussion: 

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/randall-mell/tiger-beats-jack-in-ultimate-match-play-final/

 

Woods is officially better than Nicklaus, it has been proven by the Golf Channel.

(j/k)

post #3171 of 4273

Winning majors is an awesome thing but when one looks at the total body of work I have to go with Tiger. Right now he only has 4 less than Jack and is number 2 on that list.   Both great players obviously.  Tiger has done some things that Jack didn't do and probably vice versa but Tiger probably wins that category over all imho.  Tiger's short game is a BIG plus on his side of the ledger.   Jack didn't focus enough on this part of the game evidently, something he admitted himself and if he had he might well have won at least two or three more majors, but he didn't of course.   Tiger isn't done playing by a long shot and he might have some more major wins left in him yet too,and even if he doesn't win another won he could still go down as the greatest anyway.  He has already surpassed Jack in total wins on the tour.  Tiger has done many amazing things and I wouldn't be surprised if he wins at least one or two more majors.  As Jack said, Tiger may have to learn how to win a major again, and to me, if anybody can do that, Tiger can.   

post #3172 of 4273

Tiger has been more widely recognized in terms of media exposure, although technically it is hard to say, like comparing Senna to Schumacher, different eras (mostly)

post #3173 of 4273
Quote:
Originally Posted by lewisgl View Post

Winning majors is an awesome thing but when one looks at the total body of work I have to go with Tiger. Right now he only has 4 less than Jack and is number 2 on that list.   Both great players obviously.  Tiger has done some things that Jack didn't do and probably vice versa but Tiger probably wins that category over all imho.  Tiger's short game is a BIG plus on his side of the ledger.   Jack didn't focus enough on this part of the game evidently, something he admitted himself and if he had he might well have won at least two or three more majors, but he didn't of course.   Tiger isn't done playing by a long shot and he might have some more major wins left in him yet too,and even if he doesn't win another won he could still go down as the greatest anyway.  He has already surpassed Jack in total wins on the tour.  Tiger has done many amazing things and I wouldn't be surprised if he wins at least one or two more majors.  As Jack said, Tiger may have to learn how to win a major again, and to me, if anybody can do that, Tiger can.   


If Tiger does not match of beat Nicklaus' majors record, very few will consider him to be a better golfer. And IMO he will not be.

post #3174 of 4273
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchott View Post


If Tiger does not match of beat Nicklaus' majors record, very few will consider him to be a better golfer.

 

 

I disagree. Very few consider Hank Aaron to be a better baseball player than Babe Ruth even though Aaron broke Ruth's home run record. You can easily make an argument that Jack is the greatest of all-time without being the best to ever pick up a club. Jack had better longevity than a lot of the other guys mentioned in this conversation for a variety of different reasons.

 

Jack did not play better golf at his peak than Jones (won the only calendar Grand Slam in history), Nelson (won 18 events including 11 in a row during the 1945 season), Hogan (won all 3 majors he entered in 1953 after almost dying in a 1949 car crash), or Woods (won 5 of 6 majors including 4 in a row). All four of them had higher peaks than Nicklaus, but Jack is the greatest of all-time because he played great golf over a longer period of time than those four guys.

post #3175 of 4273
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckAaron View Post

    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.  

Simply not true. I suggest you check out Arnold's playing record from 1960-1962.

post #3176 of 4273
Quote:
Originally Posted by arccar View Post

I really do not understand why people put all the weight on this topic on the majors. A typical golfer plays 20-25 events a year, with 4 of them being majors. So basically, in just considering major performance we are saying that 80% of their competitive playing career does not matter.

 

A guy could win 5 WGC events playing against 48 of the top 50 in the world, but they mean nothing. However, he could win the Masters against virtually the same guys and it means everything. Yes I know that major pressure is greater than a regular tour event and should be given a higher weight, but the other wins have to count for something.

 

When determining who the greatest of all time is in any sport, you have to take into account their entire career, not just major performance, not just performance in the playoffs, etc.

 

 

Tiger is a victim of his own standards. When someone in the media asked him about who the greatest ever is, he said, "Jack has 18, I have 14." And so the rest of us just go along with Tiger's logic. He holds himself to an insane standard that we don't even hold any of the other greats to. Much of Nelson's legend is built on his 1945 season where he won 11 in a row and 18 overall. Only one of those events was a major, but Nelson gets full credit for the rest of them (even though some were team events and many were very weak fields).

 

Tiger is the only golfer in history to manage multiple winning streaks of 6 or more and he did it in the modern era with extremely deep fields, but no one even gives a crap about it. He has won 17 WGC events, many featuring stronger fields than a lot of Jack's major victories, yet those WGC wins don't matter at all because he doesn't have 19 majors.

 

Johnny Miller said in the mid-1990's that he thought Tiger would win 50 Tour events and 12 majors. People laughed at him because of how much parity there was (and still is) in the modern era of professional golf. Johnny said at the time it could be the greatest career anyone ever had when you factor in the parity issue. Tiger has now won 76 Tour events and 14 majors...and he still has 10+ years left in the tank.

post #3177 of 4273

If Tiger were to retire tomorrow I feel Jack Nicklaus would have the best championship record of all time (obviously), but Tiger Woods would be the greatest golfer in the history of the sport.

post #3178 of 4273
look at Jacks 18 majors and came in second another 20 times! Loop at the competition Jack had! Palmer, Player, Trevino,Watson , and Floyd just to name a few! Jack said not long ago he played with 3 different sets of clubs too, just depending on what continent he was playing on! Greatest thing Jack has is class!!
post #3179 of 4273
I'm going with Tiger. No other athlete has dominated their sport for as long as he has. Plus he has at least another 5-10 years I'd say.
post #3180 of 4273

Definately Jack. If he were playing wiith todays equipment in his prime I believe he'd be longer than anyone on tour to include Tiger. I also believe his competition was a bit better that Tiger's has been. Don't thinkTiger ill break Jack's major record either. Even though he's still comparitively young you can see that either his skills or his desire is not what it was.

post #3181 of 4273

The problem is that you have named Jack competition.  Those top 10 or so guys were able to carve up all the majors between them because players 25-150 just were not as good as the guys out their today.   Compare people to their peers. Jack was clearly better than his cotemporaries but not by the margin that Tiger was. 

 

At this point the only interesting part is going to be when Tiger is sitting on 83 wins and 19 majors and people are trying to come up with reasons why he isn't the best ever as a tour golfer (lets not talk course design and the like.)

 

Originally Posted by David B View Post

look at Jacks 18 majors and came in second another 20 times! Loop at the competition Jack had! Palmer, Player, Trevino,Watson , and Floyd just to name a few! Jack said not long ago he played with 3 different sets of clubs too, just depending on what continent he was playing on! Greatest thing Jack has is class!!
post #3182 of 4273
Quote:
Originally Posted by x129 View Post

The problem is that you have named Jack competition.  Those top 10 or so guys were able to carve up all the majors between them because players 25-150 just were not as good as the guys out their today.   Compare people to their peers. Jack was clearly better than his cotemporaries but not by the margin that Tiger was. 

 

At this point the only interesting part is going to be when Tiger is sitting on 83 wins and 19 majors and people are trying to come up with reasons why he isn't the best ever as a tour golfer (lets not talk course design and the like.)

 

If he does that there won't be a debate. Until then...

 

Tiger is the most dominant, intimidating golfer I have ever seen. The intimidation part is just as much a reflection on the competition.

post #3183 of 4273

If people use the Major wins as the yard stick, there can can only be one choice, and that is Jack unless Tiger can tie or surpass him.    A lot of folks don't see Major Wins as the yard stick and most of them seem to go with Tiger.  It would be great to get the opinions of their peers and see how they vote.   That would be the best answer I think and I have a feeling the majority or them would vote for Jack.  Tiger himself has admitted the importance of winning 19 majors..   Jack has 18 majors and a lot of seconds.  Tiger had one of the greatest years ever in 2000 and is one of the best closers al time but he hasn't ever come from behind to win a major.  It is a tough call and it will be argued about until the end of time probably, that is unless Tiger wins 19 majors or more.   

post #3184 of 4273
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by x129 View Post

The problem is that you have named Jack competition.  Those top 10 or so guys were able to carve up all the majors between them because players 25-150 just were not as good as the guys out their today.   Compare people to their peers. Jack was clearly better than his cotemporaries but not by the margin that Tiger was. 

 

At this point the only interesting part is going to be when Tiger is sitting on 83 wins and 19 majors and people are trying to come up with reasons why he isn't the best ever as a tour golfer (lets not talk course design and the like.)

 

If he does that there won't be a debate. Until then...

 

Tiger is the most dominant, intimidating golfer I have ever seen. The intimidation part is just as much a reflection on the competition.

 

The only qualifier I can add to that is that Jack was even intimidating when starting the final round 3 strokes back.  If Tiger has an Achilles heel, that would be it.  He just doesn't seem to overtake very well, certainly has done nothing like like some of Jack's famous Sunday charges.  Tiger can win most stare-downs when he is looking at the competition from the front, but he doesn't make those loud footsteps as he comes up from behind you.

post #3185 of 4273
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchott View Post


If Tiger does not match of beat Nicklaus' majors record, very few will consider him to be a better golfer. And IMO he will not be.

 

That is a good argument.   I actually voted for Jack because of his 18  Major wins.   It is hard to argue with that because the tour pros want to win a major more than any other tournament.  You can ask any of those guys and pretty much all of them will tell you they want to win the major the most.  They want their name on the claret jug or a green jacket, or the PGA or US Open the most.  The other wins are very nice but history remembers the majors the most by far.  That is why Jack gets a lot of votes, and rightly so.  

post #3186 of 4273

I saw them both and I give the edge to Jack.

a) Jack faced more "Hall of Fame" competition

b) Jack's demeanor and composure on the course is so much better than the f-bombing Tiger that it deserves mention. Some will not agree, that it is in the equation of "Who is better," but I say that Jack is a role model for anyone who aspires to play, while Tiger's conduct is boorish.

c) And, as so many have stated, "The sign of a true champion is how they perform in the Majors.  Let's see - Jack 18 major victories and 19 seconds.  Tiger 14 major vctories and 6 seconds.  Jack finished second to Arnie, Gary, Lee Trevino, Johnny Miller, Tom Watson and Seve. Tiger finished second to Rich Beem, Zach Johnson, Trevor Immelman, and Y.E. Yang.

 

The only thing in Tiger's favor is that his career still has a number of years remaining.

 

http://web.tigerwoods.com/onTour/tigerVsJack/whenFinishedSecond

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tour Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Jack or Tiger: Who's the greatest