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 200

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

 
  • 69% (1634)
    Tiger Woods is the man
  • 30% (719)
    Jack Nicklaus is my favorite
2353 Total Votes  
post #3583 of 4685
Jack had tougher competition and its not even close. This alone is a huge factor. Then factor in tigers equiptment, yet still he could only beat jacks masters total by 1 stroke. That's a joke(not sure of they made it much longer in recent years). In golf it's all about majors, for tiger and jack regular tour events might as well be practice rounds. I know second place doesn't really matter,but jacks win + 2nd place finishes is one of the most impressive numbers in all of sports and I think it has to be considered. I think when you look at entire career jack goes down as GOAT, now lets say your life is on the line, tiger vs jack one round in their prime who you got?? That gets alil more dicey
post #3584 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machmood View Post

Jack had tougher competition and its not even close. This alone is a huge factor. Then factor in tigers equiptment, yet still he could only beat jacks masters total by 1 stroke. That's a joke(not sure of they made it much longer in recent years). In golf it's all about majors, for tiger and jack regular tour events might as well be practice rounds. I know second place doesn't really matter,but jacks win + 2nd place finishes is one of the most impressive numbers in all of sports and I think it has to be considered. I think when you look at entire career jack goes down as GOAT, now lets say your life is on the line, tiger vs jack one round in their prime who you got?? That gets alil more dicey

 

Go back to the other 200 pages of this thread where almost everything you are saying has been  pretty thoroughly debunked.

 

But see Erik, those 18>14 guys ae still out there.

 

As far as impressive, Tiger's 34 wins (14 majors, 18 WGCs and 2 Players) in events with fields more elite than almost any event Jack ever played in, is the really impressive thing.  As is his no-cut streak.  As are his 3 5+ consecutive PGA victory streaks.  As is his 4 majors in a row.  one of which Jack ever even came close to.  But you stick with Jack's 2nd places.

post #3585 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post
 

But see Erik, those 18>14 guys ae still out there.

 

I never said they weren't. I just that they weren't the majority.

post #3586 of 4685

Erik, can you please build a time machine so we can put an end to this debate?  We'll organize a match between '75 Jack and '00 Tiger.

 

This might help, just something I scribbled down

 

post #3587 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvmac View Post
 

Erik, can you please build a time machine so we can put an end to this debate?  We'll organize a match between '75 Jack and '00 Tiger.

 

 

That still wouldn't cut it. Tiger is used to modern equipment, and Jack was used to his stuff. You'd have to first travel back and give Jack modern equipment to use, then 1 year later, arrange the match. Don't forget the flux capacitor...

post #3588 of 4685

I already did that, but I'm waiting for the event to be televised so that I can bet big on the outcome and clean up, Back to the Future II style.

post #3589 of 4685

Don't know if this is revisionist history, or something that's been posted here before.  But Tiger scores it at 20>17, apparently.  Can't say that I disagree, since US Amateur titles should be in the discussion for GOAT.

 

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

 

Name Masters U.S. Open British Open PGA Championship Total
Nicklaus 6 4 (2) 3 5 20
Woods 4 3 (3) 3 4 17
Jones 0 4 (5) 3 (1) 0 13
Hagen 0 2 4 5 11
Ball 0 0 1 (8) 0 9
Hogan 2 4 1 2 9
Player 3 1 3 2 9
Palmer 4 1 (1) 2 0 8
Watson 2 1 5 0 8
Sarazen 1 2 1 3 7
Snead 3 0 1 3 7
Vardon 0 1 6 0 7
(Amateur titles in parentheses)
post #3590 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by nehemiah View Post

The better way is to consider everything, and that is what my point is and that is not a matter of opinion.
I consider everything, but let me ask you if you remember who won the most gold medals in men's swimming?

Who had the record before him?

Now, who got silver?

Most people remember gold, and not silver. Even if they won a lot of them.

I agree that this is a simplistic way to look at it, but history remembers the gold winners.

I also think, Tiger can do it.

Remember golf is now going to be an olympic sport. I'm certain it will attract many more capable golfers in the future. Many more records are ready to be broken.

Gold will be remembered. Who wins the most will be remembered.

If you don't believe me, try to remember who won the gold in 100m in 1984? No fair looking it up. a1_smile.gif
post #3591 of 4685
You guys think tiger had better competition?? Jack seemed to be going head to head with HOFs every major
post #3592 of 4685
How deep were the fields in jacks era?
post #3593 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post
 

Don't know if this is revisionist history, or something that's been posted here before.  But Tiger scores it at 20>17, apparently.  Can't say that I disagree, since US Amateur titles should be in the discussion for GOAT.

 

Jack called his U.S. Amateur wins "majors" for quite awhile and insisted he was at 20. Then Tiger got three of them and he started backing off calling his total 20 and going with 18 more often…

post #3594 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

I never said they weren't. I just that they weren't the majority.

 

Actually you said virtually no one. 

 

Quote:
 Originally Posted by iacas in 3454
 
To make it very simple, you're missing the point that virtually nobody truly applies a single metric when they determine, for themselves, who they feel the GOAT is.

 

Now you are up to "not a majority", so I am making progress.  ;-)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Machmood View Post

You guys think tiger had better competition?? Jack seemed to be going head to head with HOFs every major

 

Operative word being "seemed".  It wasn't that often, and when he did he lost at least as many as he won.  Many of his wins are from his steely-eyed competition throwing up all over themselves.  It is all there in the 200 pages of this thread.

 

But let's see what the Great Man had to say in his 1996 autobiography right before Tiger hit the scene, about the relative competition in his era versus right before Tiger hit the scene, in his explanation why the age of superstars in golf was over and would not come again:

 

Quote:
 Whether for the above reasons or any others, the fact is that, to be able to hold onto their cards, and earn a decent living, the golfers in the middle of the pack today have had to become as good as the players at the top were when I started out thirty and more years ago, while those in the top have become the equals of superstars of my generation. - Jack Nicklaus

 

So in an era where Jack claimed that the top players in 1996 were the equals to the superstars of his era (i.e., Palmer, Casper, Trevino, Watson, Miller, et al) and therefore there wouldn't be any more superstars, Tiger burst onto the scene and put together almost 20 years of the most dominant golf ever seen.  Against those very top players that Jack said were the equals of the superstars of his era.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

Jack called his U.S. Amateur wins "majors" for quite awhile and insisted he was at 20. Then Tiger got three of them and he started backing off calling his total 20 and going with 18 more often…

 

Oh, but Jack would never do something so self-serving.  Would he?
post #3595 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post
 

Actually you said virtually no one.

 

Now you are up to "not a majority", so I am making progress.  ;-)

 

A few people here and there satisfy both conditions. :-D

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post
 

So in an era where Jack claimed that the top players in 1996 were the equals to the superstars of his era (i.e., Palmer, Casper, Trevino, Watson, Miller, et al) and therefore there wouldn't be any more superstars, Tiger burst onto the scene and put together almost 20 years of the most dominant golf ever seen.  Against those very top players that Jack said were the equals of the superstars of his era.

 

Tough to say who did it, honestly. I can't pin it on Jack, and I agree that he can sometimes be very pro-Jack (not that I truly have a problem with it). The media may have done that for him. They'll often say things like "18 professional majors" (adding in the "professional" part) as a way of distinguishing it from "big tournaments."

 

FWIW I give U.S. Am wins some weight, but fewer future stars seem to win them these days. I suppose, though, that speaks to the increased level of competition and even again to how well Tiger played to win three.

post #3596 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post


But let's see what the Great Man had to say in his 1996 autobiography right before Tiger hit the scene, about the relative competition in his era versus right before Tiger hit the scene, in his explanation why the age of superstars in golf was over and would not come again:


So in an era where Jack claimed that the top players in 1996 were the equals to the superstars of his era (i.e., Palmer, Casper, Trevino, Watson, Miller, et al) and therefore there wouldn't be any more superstars, Tiger burst onto the scene and put together almost 20 years of the most dominant golf ever seen.  Against those very top players that Jack said were the equals of the superstars of his era.

You can't have it both ways. You can't decry "most majors" as a viable metric because it came from Jack, but then argue that Tiger had far better competition "because Jack said so."
post #3597 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post

You can't have it both ways. You can't decry "most majors" as a viable metric because it came from Jack, but then argue that Tiger had far better competition "because Jack said so."

 

Why not? One makes Jack look good. The other makes him look worse.

 

If you're gonna attempt to push a perception in some direction, it's perfectly reasonable (to me) to assume that most of the time it will be in the direction of making you look good, not worse.

post #3598 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post


You can't have it both ways. You can't decry "most majors" as a viable metric because it came from Jack, but then argue that Tiger had far better competition "because Jack said so."

Two different points, Jack defining most majors as the metric to compare golfers greatness is a personal opinion, it's not for him or Tiger to define the metric.  It's no different than Barry Bonds claiming he was the GOAT because HR's should be the metric in baseball. 

 

Jack's comments about the fields they competed against are based on his observations on and off the course.  He's qualified to make the comments because he's played against and watched the current pro's enough to make such a determination.  Jack may be acting a bit humble in this case or not factoring equipment sufficiently into his position. 

 

Jack as an "expert" witness could testify to the quality of the fields they both played against but only give opinion on what he thought the metric for GOAT should be. 

post #3599 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machmood View Post

You guys think tiger had better competition?? Jack seemed to be going head to head with HOFs every major

 

Operative word being "seemed".  It wasn't that often, and when he did he lost at least as many as he won.  Many of his wins are from his steely-eyed competition throwing up all over themselves.  It is all there in the 200 pages of this thread.

 

 

And Tiger's weren't?  Really?  My memory has that as Tiger's motif during his good times.  When Tiger got out in front, the competition just wilted.  He intimidated the competition.  Not so any more.   

 

Jack was intimidating too.  But Jack could do it when coming from behind too, something Tiger has never quite gotten a handle on, at least in majors. Nobody is afraid of Tiger when he's 2 or 3 strokes back.  Any more, Tiger has to get a big lead on Thursday and Friday, then hang on by his fingernails through the weekend.  

post #3600 of 4685
Maybe this has already been pointed out but I can conceivably see some one checking both boxes in the poll.

Tiger is the Man - check...but Jack is my favourite - check.

I think the 'my favourite' part is what clouds the issue for many of the posters in this thread.
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