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 211

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

 
  • 69% (1628)
    Tiger Woods is the man
  • 30% (706)
    Jack Nicklaus is my favorite
2334 Total Votes  
post #3781 of 4468

For the small amount that it adds to the discussion…

 

Nicklaus confident Woods will break majors mark

post #3782 of 4468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post
 

I stayed out of this for a long time now, but I'm just going to say that I don't think it's possible or fair to say anyone is "the greatest of all time" only that they are/were the greatest in their era/time. Too many variables have changed from course layout to technology and there is no way to really quantify they level of competition each faces.

 

Impossible to disagree.  Yet: 

 

Tiger has changed the game in his time, just as Jack changed the game in his time but with many Hall of Famers coming at him,  Snead-Nelson-Hogan in their time (don't forget the short game wizard, way ahead of his time, Runyan), Bobby Jones in his, Francis Ouimet in his, Vardon, too, of course.  Am I leaving anyone out?  WHO HAVE BEEN THE GAME CHANGERS?  One might argue Tom Kite, who created the short game wedge (58* at first, short shaft), too. WHO ARE THE CURRENT, POTENTIAL HALL OF FAME PLAYERS, after Tiger? 

 

Runyan beat Snead in a Major, all the while Runyan being out driven 50+ yards, maybe even 100 yds. on occasion, if you believe the reports. Are there any Runyan's and Pavin's today?  Todays's short hitters with exquisite short games who have won majors?  Few and far between, if any.  What a shame.  Keep in mind that the difference between a 270-280 yd. driver. v. 300 yd. driver, means a 2 to 4 club difference on some approaches. 

 

IF the standard of greatness is wins and relevancy in the Majors, Jack is leading the pack of great players of all time.  Tiger may (should, might) break Jack's record, eventually (Jack's last at age 46) but Tiger hasn't done it yet; Tiger's competitiveness in Majors relative to Jack's v. the Field is in question,  It's a 2 man list; and what is wrong with that?  Nothing. 

 

 I again ask, Who are the potential Hall of Famers that Tiger has faced and beat? It's a very short list in comparison to the Nicklaus era.

 

Bust my chops, if you will. I am up to it and I will appreciate the retorts. I am not a studied authority by the longest shot. Inform me.  

 

Metrybill

post #3783 of 4468

Ok, I vowed never to enter thisthread again, but here goes:

 

Tiger Woods is 37. Right now he's playing against Phil Mickelson an Ernie Els, both HOFers who are still competetive on the PGA Tour. Vijay Singh will be a HOFer. Tiger played early when Greg Norman and Faldo were still competetive. HOFers. Of the younger crop of golfers, no one has a clue who will be a HOFer. We thought last year Rory McIlroy would be a shoo-in, but we'll wait and see. Jordan Spieth looks like the real deal. It's easy to point to how great the players of yesteryear were 30 years after they retire. Also, like everyone else has said, the competition is so much more diverse now that the days of 40+ wins and 6+ majors may be gone but for 1 or 2 golfers a generation. 

 

Short hitters with exquisite short games? How about Jim Furyk and Steve Stricker? Furyk was the shortest hitter in the field when he got a 59 a few weeks ago. Johnny Miller said during the Tour Championship telecast that Striker may be the best wedge player EVER. What about Mickelson? He could be in the circus with his short game prowess. And Tiger himself? His short game laps Nicklaus's by Jack's own admission. 

 

As for game-changers? Tiger Woods has done just as much to spread golf internationally and set the bar higher for competition than anyone in history, IMO. Maybe Bobby Jones bringing the wave of popularity to the US eclipses him. There were no legions of Korean and Taiwanese kids 5 years of age wearing Golden Bear apparel hitting balls 5 hour a day on the range back in 1970. Nicklaus was a golfer's golfer. Sports fans knew how much greater he was than the competition. Tiger Woods is a brand name like Nike or Coca-Cola. People who don't give a damn about golf will tune in to watch Tiger Woods. Tiger Woods is like the Beatles of golf. Like Michael Jordan. In 10 years when he has at least two more majors and another 20 wins, this thread will be funny...

post #3784 of 4468
There's always going to be disparity between Jack and Tiger with respect to the competitive field of players they faced. If you took the top ten money winners from 1962 to 1972 (other than Jack) and arrived at one scoring average amongst them all - and then do the same equation (leaving out Tiger) from say 2003 to 2013. So the question is who faced the tougher competitors Jack or Tiger.
post #3785 of 4468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulligan Jeff View Post

There's always going to be disparity between Jack and Tiger with respect to the competitive field of players they faced. If you took the top ten money winners from 1962 to 1972 (other than Jack) and arrived at one scoring average amongst them all - and then do the same equation (leaving out Tiger) from say 2003 to 2013. So the question is who faced the tougher competitors Jack or Tiger.

 

So what are the results of the money-list-to-scoring-average thing you cited? As I just recently said, that question has been asked - and debated - at several points in this thread.

post #3786 of 4468
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmoan2 View Post
 

As for game-changers? Tiger Woods has done just as much to spread golf internationally and set the bar higher for competition than anyone in history, IMO. Maybe Bobby Jones bringing the wave of popularity to the US eclipses him. There were no legions of Korean and Taiwanese kids 5 years of age wearing Golden Bear apparel hitting balls 5 hour a day on the range back in 1970. Nicklaus was a golfer's golfer. Sports fans knew how much greater he was than the competition. Tiger Woods is a brand name like Nike or Coca-Cola. People who don't give a damn about golf will tune in to watch Tiger Woods. Tiger Woods is like the Beatles of golf. Like Michael Jordan. In 10 years when he has at least two more majors and another 20 wins, this thread will be funny...

 

Of course there weren't any Korean's bowing to Jack, since they were still working their way into the 20th century in the 1960's.  There was no worldwide communications network like there was when Tiger hit the big time.  No internet, most radio and TV was strictly local, and not much at all in a country like South Korea outside of the major cities.  Quick and easy world travel was in its infancy, and prohibitively expensive for a population which was still farming with ox drawn plows no more than 10 years earlier.  Heck, most of South Korea's golf courses were financed by Japanese interests in the 80's because they wanted a place closer than the US or Australia to take a golfing vacation, and Korea had lots of the available land which was so lacking in Japan.  How is a Korean kid going to take up a game when there is no place to play?

 

All that said, it takes time to ramp up interest in a leisure time activity in a country where it's more important to just put food in your family's mouths.  And Korea is just one example.  If international communications had been as easy and widespread in Jack's time as they are today, he'd have been just as well known as Tiger is.  Again, it's comparing different eras, and there is just no way to make the data points match up.

post #3787 of 4468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

Of course there weren't any Korean's bowing to Jack, since they were still working their way into the 20th century in the 1960's.  There was no worldwide communications network like there was when Tiger hit the big time.  No internet, most radio and TV was strictly local, and not much at all in a country like South Korea outside of the major cities.  Quick and easy world travel was in its infancy, and prohibitively expensive for a population which was still farming with ox drawn plows no more than 10 years earlier.  Heck, most of South Korea's golf courses were financed by Japanese interests in the 80's because they wanted a place closer than the US or Australia to take a golfing vacation, and Korea had lots of the available land which was so lacking in Japan.  How is a Korean kid going to take up a game when there is no place to play?

 

All that said, it takes time to ramp up interest in a leisure time activity in a country where it's more important to just put food in your family's mouths.  And Korea is just one example.  If international communications had been as easy and widespread in Jack's time as they are today, he'd have been just as well known as Tiger is.  Again, it's comparing different eras, and there is just no way to make the data points match up.

 

I agree with everything you said 100%, except that there's no way to make the data points match up. There's always a statistical model to create for anything - I would just really worry about someone who tried that wasn't being paid top dollar. That's why we get to debate in these forums for fun. Which leads me to a few points:

 

1) Maybe Tiger being born in such an era makes him the most influential ever, with fate on his side. I would argue that Albert Pujols is just as great as Babe Ruth, but Ruth lived in an era where baseball was the ONLY national pastime. Now it's football, followed by basketball, and then baseball, IMO. Therefore, Ruth is the popular choice for the GOAT. Sometimes, fate is on your side. NOTE: I don't tend to agree with this line of reasoning, but it's worth saying.

 

2) This is something I haven't seen yet in this thread (pardon me for not reading ALL the entries!), but I think Tiger Woods being a black golfer makes him more influential than Jack in any era. If you view this as racist, I think you are being disingenuous and short-sighted. A black golfer with such skill and absolute dominance over the pretty much white sport (ok, Trevino and Seve and a few others, but let's be real here...) made him more than just the best golfer of the generation. Moreover, the hype that followed Tiger's junior and college career. Jack was a heck of a junior golfer, but he never won the Amateur Championship (which, BTW was a MAJOR until the 50s). Tiger won three. Speaking of three, he was on TV putting against Bob Hope when he was three. He was taking money from naval officers in skins games at 10 years old while Earl cheered him on. 

 

I think that the "Greatest of All Time" is kind of a fairy tale moniker that goes beyond just "who was the best in PGA Tour-sponsored events." I still think that would be Tiger, but there's more. It's almost like when Kareem was asked, upon retirement, who was the best basketball player he ever faced and he said "The Goat," referring to Earl Manigault, a playground legend from Harlem (ironic, GOAT, ha!). I think Tiger is the whole package. Gotta run!

post #3788 of 4468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulligan Jeff View Post

There's always going to be disparity between Jack and Tiger with respect to the competitive field of players they faced. If you took the top ten money winners from 1962 to 1972 (other than Jack) and arrived at one scoring average amongst them all - and then do the same equation (leaving out Tiger) from say 2003 to 2013. So the question is who faced the tougher competitors Jack or Tiger.

 

Does that prove who had the tougher competition, or does that prove who dominated more.

post #3789 of 4468
Quote:
Originally Posted by metrybill View Post
 

 

I again ask, Who are the potential Hall of Famers that Tiger has faced and beat? It's a very short list in comparison to the Nicklaus era.

Know way to know yet.

 

The number of Hall of Famers from an era is a poor indicator of the strength of the field anyway IMO. It can just as easily mean that a handful of players had it easy against a weak field as that a handful of players were really great against a strong field.

 

All-Stars from a weak league might not even make the starting lineup in a strong league.

post #3790 of 4468
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS256 View Post
 

Know way to know yet.

 

The number of Hall of Famers from an era is a poor indicator of the strength of the field anyway IMO. It can just as easily mean that a handful of players had it easy against a weak field as that a handful of players were really great against a strong field.

 

All-Stars from a weak league might not even make the starting lineup in a strong league.

I give myself an "F" on that one. :doh::doh:

post #3791 of 4468
I'm saying that's who had the tougher competition
post #3792 of 4468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulligan Jeff View Post

I'm saying that's who had the tougher competition

 

Who? The player who played against more HOF members?

 

Did you see and understand the post someone made above about how many of the players Tiger's played and playing against aren't even eligible for the HOF right now? And that if the competition is stronger all around right now, that HOF careers will be tougher to come by given the higher level of all golfers and the difficulty in standing out amongst them?

post #3793 of 4468
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

Who? The player who played against more HOF members?

 

Did you see and understand the post someone made above about how many of the players Tiger's played and playing against aren't even eligible for the HOF right now? And that if the competition is stronger all around right now, that HOF careers will be tougher to come by given the higher level of all golfers and the difficulty in standing out amongst them?

 

Oh great swami I've lured you in lol - that's why I say there will always be disparity between the careers of Jack and Tiger. HOF, scoring average among their competition, persimmon woods, cavity back irons, titanium head drivers, graphite shafts, high speed cameras, launch monitors - where does it end. You do the best you can with the tools and technology available at the time. Has the competition gotten tougher through the years? Absolutely. But when its all said and done you still have to get the ball in the hole and score well to win. 

post #3794 of 4468

  The question is a complete no-brainer. Jack is, hands down, the greatest professional golfer that ever walked a course. Anybody who plays the game knows that great golf is played between the ears and Jack's complete unflappability would disarm Tiger. Did you ever see Jack Nicklaus blow up on a  course? Tiger has more natural talent and all the tools but he hasn't got the head to beat Jack.

   As far as greater competition at the time, how many multiple major championship winners has Tiger had to compete against.( I settled for 4 or more to have real presence on my list.) Ernie Els at 4 and Phil Mickelson at 5. During his playing years Jack competed for majors against Gary Player at 9, Tom Watson at 8, Arnold Palmer at 7, Lee Trevino at 6; Seve Ballesteros at 5, and  Ray Floyd at 4. To put it more succinctly, Tiger's big competitors 9, Jack's 39. I think that suggests that Jack had the tougher "row to hoe" when it came to competing for major titles.

Tiger is a greatest golfer of his time but he's no Jack Nicklaus.

post #3795 of 4468
Quote:
Originally Posted by seaweeble View Post
 

  The question is a complete no-brainer. Jack is, hands down, the greatest professional golfer that ever walked a course. Anybody who plays the game knows that great golf is played between the ears and Jack's complete unflappability would disarm Tiger. Did you ever see Jack Nicklaus blow up on a  course? Tiger has more natural talent and all the tools but he hasn't got the head to beat Jack.

   As far as greater competition at the time, how many multiple major championship winners has Tiger had to compete against.( I settled for 4 or more to have real presence on my list.) Ernie Els at 4 and Phil Mickelson at 5. During his playing years Jack competed for majors against Gary Player at 9, Tom Watson at 8, Arnold Palmer at 7, Lee Trevino at 6; Seve Ballesteros at 5, and  Ray Floyd at 4. To put it more succinctly, Tiger's big competitors 9, Jack's 39. I think that suggests that Jack had the tougher "row to hoe" when it came to competing for major titles.

Tiger is a greatest golfer of his time but he's no Jack Nicklaus.

 

I read this the other day and it sealed the deal for me:

 

Allow me To "Once and For All to Put to Death the Myth that Jack Nicklaus is the Greatest Player in the History of the Game of Golf" for Good!

World Wide Wins - Tiger 88, Jack 79.
PGA Tour Wins- Tiger 77, Jack 73.
European Tour Wins- Tiger 8, Jack 0.
Player of the Year- Tiger 10, Jack 5.
PGA Tour Money Titles- Tiger 9, Jack 8.
Vardon Trophy Scoring Titles- Tiger 8, Jack 0!
Most Wins per Season Titles- Tiger 11, Jack 5.
Most Wins in a Season - Tiger 9, Jack 7.
Most Consecutive Cuts Made in a Row- Tiger 142, Jack 109.
Missed Cuts- Tiger 10, Jack 88
Career Scoring Avg- Tiger 68.75, Jack 70.28 (Thru age 36 for Both)
Major Championships- Tiger 14 of 60, Jack 18 of 112 (thru age 49 only)
World Golf Championships- Tiger 18 of 45. Jack Nothing Comparable at all.

post #3796 of 4468
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
post #3797 of 4468
Nobody comes close to Tiger when talking about mental toughness - 14 majors, 3 US Amateurs. To climb back to #1 in the world after his personal collapse a couple years ago, nobody comes close.
post #3798 of 4468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulligan Jeff View Post

Nobody comes close to Tiger when talking about mental toughness - 14 majors, 3 US Amateurs. To climb back to #1 in the world after his personal collapse a couple years ago, nobody comes close.

 

If he was all that tough he'd have resisted the temptations which led to the collapse.  He's clearly not as tough as you seem to think.

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