Tiger (Age 39) vs Jack (Age 39)

'61.

I counted his amateur record as well to be precise.

Tiger's missed cut % would reduce some. The amateur events aren't significant enough to sway the argument one way or another.

Sounds about right, but most of my rates are determined by events, neither Jack or Tiger participated in a significant amount of events prior to turning pro.

He finished way down and won some nominal amount, less than $1,000.  But he went on to with the US Open that year so I think we can forgive that.

The US Amateurs seemed to stop counting once Tiger had 3 and Jack only had 2.  Before then they were routinely included in the major figures (some of us are old enough to remember when the magic number was 20, not 18).  IMO they should never have counted for a couple of reasons:

1) there should only be 4 majors.

2) While there was a (very weak, IMO) case to be made that the Amateurs in Jones days had at least some of the best players in the word (really just 1, Jones himself), the fact is that none of the post ww2 amateurs, neither US nor British, had ANY of the best players in the world, or maybe one or two at most, and a major in which virtually none of the best players in the world compete is an oxymoron, IMO.

Great post and good data.

I think one of the most telling numbers in the OP that got overlooked in many of the replies, was the Foreign players finishing top-10 in Non-European Majors within the Woods principal span (Players Championship not included) .  You note that Rory McIlroy, shows up at the top of the list when compared to the so-called "younger generation underneath Tiger."  Rory's 9, sticks out like a huge signpost above all the other players who were on the tour before he arrived.  IMO, that marks the real challenger to Tiger, if there is anyone out there currently in the "younger generation" (below Tiger's) capable of making a charge in the area of career stats.  But, again - all of that is very subjective.

What the stats simply do not show us is the players Mindset.  When Tiger, was dominating the Tour week in and week out, he actually believed that he should be dominating the Tour.  Conversely, you routinely heard other players basically rolling over in their praise and commentary about Tiger - which is something they should have never done as professional athletes.  Tiger, while speaking about other players would always be respectful and point out strengths that other players had, but he did it with mentoring tone (almost like giving a lecture about why someone was a good player) - not as one who was sitting in awe of what was taking place, as everyone did with Tiger on tour.

To me, this whole question of, is is Jack or is it Tiger, really comes down to one stat: Major Victories.  Since the OP featured the caveat of "Principle Career," we cannot say right now where Tiger, will eventually end up.  However, as far as the "Best Ever" is concerned, for me it is simple.  He who has the most Major Victories is King.  That makes Jack Number #1 and Tiger Number #2.  Tiger, is quite frankly the only player on Tour that I support when he's in the line-up.  He's quite simply my most favorite player.  But, I've seen how tremendously difficult it is for other players to win just one Major and I've seen Tiger work his rear-end off to win 14 of them.  That makes me stand in awe at anyone who can pull of 18 of them in one career.  Regardless, of the questions about the variability in the competition between the two eras in golf, that's simply amazing.

I wish Rory was around in '97. I would love to see what he would have done in that Masters with his length and how we would have competed against Woods in that era. Would have been an unbelievable rivalry. I truly do believe Rory's A-game is very close to Tiger's A-game in his prime. The difference is Tiger's A-game showed up almost every week whereas Rory's shows up in spurts. But I really wish someone stepped up during Tiger's prime as a rival to him. As special as that era was, it could have been more special if we had Nicklaus-Watson like battles. Phil just never seemed to step up when Tiger was doing well in majors.

^

It's just tradition and technically, because otherwise there is no actual added value a player receives from playing in the Masters over the Players Championship.

Here's some strength of field data from Official World Golf Rankings Website:

PGA Events with the highest World Rating Average since 1997 (available data)

As expected the US PGA is really the Super Bowl of golf.. as far as field strength. The Players host, on average, a higher level of competition than the Masters, and almost on par with the US Open. How is this not a "Major"? It's silly. Maybe if Tiger had pulled a Byron Nelson, or Arnold Palmer and just adopted it as a Major, it'd be commissioned as one. It's always one of the strongest Tourneys in the world each year, since the mid-80s, how is that not "Major"?

You do realize, I hope, that Jack Nicklaus is the only player in golf history whose claim to #1 has been based on most majors.  No one thought it was Walter Hagen before Jack got major number 12 and no one seriously thought it was Bobby ones if we want to count Amateurs.  Jack himself didn't decide that majors are what counted until well into his career and after he had discarded the other criteria he aimed for to establish his claim to GOAT.

Initially, when he was contemplating staying an amateur his goal was to match Bobby Jones' Grand Slam.  When he decided to turn pro he decided that to be GOAT he had to top Hogan and win a professional one year grand slam (something that arguably now puts Tiger at #1 but too bad, Jack had already moved on).  Then when he realized he wasn't going to do that he decided that breaking Snead's record would make him GOAT.  But then he realized that wasn't going to happen.

And so he decided that even though he had many many more opportunities to play majors that any other player in the GOAT discussion, up to that point that the only fair way to compare him to players of earlier eras was record in majors. Which considering the limits on the other players in the discussion, Hogan, Snead, Hagen, Jones, Sarazen,  - of majors not yet existing, majors being canceled for WW2, the tremendously greater cost in both time and money of going across the Atlantic to play.  It is an interesting definition of fair.

But hey, give Jack credit because it worked and you bought into it hook, line, and sinker.

Why? The emphasis on majors was pretty much established entirely retroactively and spearheaded by Jack himself. In fact, I could see WGCs and Players Championships being regarded in a similar light as majors 20 years down the line.

Tiger really is the better player - nobody dominated as much as he did at his peak, and he had an incredibly long run of dominance. His career isn't over yet either, but even if he retires today he still goes down as #1.