On the merit of accomplishment alone, Tiger will win as all time best regardless of his competition. But the intangibles will also support "the all-time best" claim. Watching Tiger is very fun. The operative word here is "watch"! He is the most scrutinized golfer in history. During his win at Arnold Palmers tournament and the Doral tournament almost every swing he makes is documented. You get to see him single handedly take apart the competion of "his" era, the modern media era. NO other golfer has been trained, groomed, built or nurtured to handle this pressure. The "modern media era" and its pressures are fantastic and to perform under the spotlight of intense media and fan scrutiny is in itself a towering achievement.

That being said, the combination of talent, age, energy and competitiveness put Tiger in a class by himself. There is no competition in this regard. I don't know how many times I have a watched a final round of any golf tournament in which Tiger is involved hoping one of the other fine golfers of his era step up and throw darts and make it exciting and fun to watch. That intangible is why there is even a debate. I think Michelson, Els, Vijay and the rest are wonderful golf talents, but they appear to always catch the same "wilting" virus when going head to head with Tiger, espcially in majors. If one of them threw a snake at Tiger a la Trevino at Nicklaus it would not relieve pressure we'd probably have a congressional investigation or the presidential candidates getting wound up about it.

And that's it, where do they go when Tiger comes on? One time, just one time--one of the other hall of famers stands up and says "Not Today, it's MY Day!" and this debate is over. Tiger will still go down as the greatest but not because he didn't have the competition. That competition will make him the greatest. Taking nothing away from one timers, (Rich Beem, Angel, etc.) or near miss winners (Sergio, Bob May), it is the hall of famers who will diminish Tigers accomplishments by not givings us the Nicklaus vs. Palmer, Nicklaus vs. Player, Nicklaus vs. Trevino, Watson, Weiskopf, Norman in the crucible of "Major" competition. Golly that is a whole bunch of really fine golfers that Jack beat in Majors. Maybe I should re-think this.

Nah, Tiger is still better.

It's not fair to say he is not the greatest because he didn't have the competiion, but it is fair to say his competition's response was not great when they had the opportunity to stand and look eyeball to eyeball with the greatest golfer that ever lived and said: "I won that day against the best ever!"

Jack's period of dominance, which I consider 1962-1975 ....

Mayhap splitting hairs but I'd go to 1980 - he won two Majors that year, after all, and three of the 20 played during the period: a lot of people would regard 15% victory ratio and 13/20 top 10s as pretty significant.

One of the things noticeable about Jack's career is that people came after him in pairs or bunches - Player and Palmer, Player and Trevino, Watson and Ballesteros - not to mention the 'nearly there' guys like Weiskopf, Miller (who was the best in the world for a year or so), etc. And the way the inventory turned over; by the time Jack had been pro for 11 years, he'd been facing Player, Palmer, Casper, Saunders, Trevino, Tony Lema (rip - great to watch, died too soon), all in their pomp. In the 75-80 phase, he had to raise himself to new heights to meet the challenge of Watson and Ballesteros and the ongoing interference(!) of Trevino, as well as Player in his last great flush. He did it, wining not just once - as Player did - but adding another three. He was also involved in the 'duel in the sun', one of the greatest matches anyone has ever seen. He lost - but he came back and won the Open the following year.

All great stuff - I'm privileged to have been able to see a lot of it.

Jack also changed - during the late 60s and seventies - and won hearts and admiration all over the world. He connected better with the spectators, was less aloof and stand-offish. Mind you, the reaction he received after he beat Arnie to his first US Open would probably have made anyone a bit reserved!

He was and remains a great ambassador for the sport and did a great deal to promote it around the world. Tiger is a world icon, no doubt, but Jack travelled the world far more. He won the Australian Open 6 times -I don't believe Tiger has ever even played in it. He made a point of playing in the World Matchplay at Wentworth (OK - he was part of McCormack's stable when it was the 'IMG invitational' - but he went). He played in the World Cup/Canada Cup every time the opportunity arose, wherever it was - from France (won in 1963) to Japan (won 1966) and everywhere else. He and Arnold Palmer took up the task of ensuring US golf didn't become totally insular and the game remained a world sport. Its world status is being enhanced but more by the marketing men than Tiger himself - which is a shame. I don't think the WGC would have become US-only for the convenience of the American players when Jack, Arnie and Player dominated. What a shame it is now.

All round, I think Jack gave a great deal more to the game than Tiger has - so far. But he's only 32 - there is time. Let us hope he uses it. If his career came to an end tomorrow, then in 22 years' time (it's 22 years since the 1986 Masters) I'm sure he would be remembered as a remarkable player but would he be held in such high regard as Jack?

I dunno. Time will tell.

Erik, I think you have to check your sources. Casper won two of his three Majors in 1966 and 1970; he also won 27 PGA Tour titles 1964-70, two more than Jack in the same period, as it happens. Palmer won his last Major in 1964 and he didn't turn 40 till 1970 - hardly over the hill. Watson won all his Majors before Jack won his last, in 1986. Player won most of his Majors in the 1960s and 70s. Trevino is just a few months older than Jack. All of them are genuine contemporaries. It could be a bit of a stretch to include, say, Ballesteros - but not much; his last Major victory (British Open, 1988) came just two years after Jack's last triumph.

Ruari: Yes, I missed Casper's 2 majors in Jack's first 11 years.
Some of this is splitting hairs, but Jack's period of dominance, which I consider 1962-1975 coincides best with that of Player and Casper; Watson came later and Palmer earlier. Tiger's dominance coincides with the prime of Mickelson, Els, and Singh. Comparing the records of Mickelson, Singh, and Els with Tiger during their time of overlap gives fairly similar results to that of Jack, Trevino, Player, and Casper during say 1962-75.

I have to take issue with your 'bullsh*t dump' comment. Mental attitude/mental strength is an established element of the game. After all, the first challenger one has to overcome when playing golf is oneself - and most people never manage it. So psychology is not any kind of bullsh*t.

Consider two recent examples. Look at Ernie losing his grasp of reality in Dubai earlier this year. Yes, he needed a birdie to tie and eagle to win but his ball was off line, in the rough and a long way from the green. What on Earth possessed him to try to get it on the green from where he was?
At the Accenture World Matchplay, Tiger was very, very fortunate to get through the first round - his putting was atrocious. The closer he got to the finish line - and the further he got ahead - the more nervous JB Holmes got, as evidenced by his almost endless series of practice strokes, and the way he conducted them - more twitch than stroke, I'd venture.
In both cases - and these are just the most recent - Tiger's achievement was made immeasurably easier by the opposition yielding. Ernie misplaced his golfing brain; Holmes looked as if he was overcome by the 'enormity' of what he was on the brink of achieving. Either guy could, or should, have won but they didn't. Is it bullsh*t to propose that the problem was inside their head, rather than in their golf? By your own argument, they are better than multiple-major champions in the past. So why else did they lose?
Further back, you have Sabbatini (for all his huff and puff) and VJ in the Wachovia, Sabbatini in the Bridgestone, etc, etc and on and on - you see the players fail to get the job done. As I said before, their body language - and the language they use when talking about stuff - indicates that they expect Tiger to win and don't have the ultimate mental edge to sustain their game to the bitter end.
Don't get me wrong - I can see that Tiger is brilliant and he's clearly the best of his generation. My argument is whether the opposition is your local club taking on Tom Pernice or it's actually as of high quality as Jack faced.

Tiger Woods has tried ridiculously difficult shots many times in big tournaments (Canadian Open bunker shot, for example), Arnold did this repeatedly in his career. Els taking a risky shot trying to win is not de facto (hope my Latin's ok there) evidence of poor thinking. As you said, he needed a birdie to tie. Maybe the percentage play for making 3 was to try for the green. Only he knows what the lie was. Judging the matter after seeing the result skews the thinking.

And did these vaunted, mentally tough past champions never choke? How about Arnold at Olympic? Hogan at Cherry Hills? Nicklaus at Cherry Hills, for that matter, failing to fix a ball mark, and too taken with the situation to ask if he could do it, leading to a missed crucial putt?

I am not saying this sort of debate is a bullsh*t dump because sports psychology and the mental game is bullsh*t. It isn't. What I think is bullsh*t is to ignore quantifiable, factual data which may disagree with one's opinion, and use something completely unquantifiable and subjective, such as mental strength, to discount facts.

My article wasn't an exhaustive thesis, but it DID demonstrate that for all of the huffing and puffing about the great greying golf geniuses of yesteryear, they didn't really do any better in Jack's first 11 years than did Tiger's 'weak' competition in his first 11. Furthermore, it's a known statistical phenomenon that as abilitiy levels become more and more equal in a population and you have regression toward the mean, the number of exceptional, outstanding performers is going to decrease. For me, I'd rather deal with stuff like this than suggest that, for some unknown reason, a handful of golf pros in 1967 were blessed with more mental fortitude than a similar group in 1997.

The mental game and decision making are definitely important, but they are not more important than the physical skill of making the shots. The reason Tiger wins is about 95% due to the fact that he just makes better golf shots than the rest of the guys, not because he's thinking more clearly.

There is an adage in sports journalism that once you've written, interviewed, and reported for about 5 years, you've heard and seen everything you'll ever hear and see. The quotes, the cliches, the exciting finishes, the blowouts, tend to repeat themselves over time.

A friend says sports only means something because it is a metaphor for life, and I suppose we like to get into the heads of our pro athletes because it somehow speaks to our own mental state, our own hopes, insecurities, etc. Fine and dandy, but however compelling this sort of stuff may be, I prefer to deal with things I can grasp a bit more tangibly.

Again, thanks for reading and taking the time to comment!

Do you see what I'm saying Ruari? You don't have to agree, but do you follow the argument?

Yes, I understand what you're saying but no, I don't agree.

But you already knew that!

This is where I have trouble with the logic. To summarize and paraphrase, Pernice would dominate because the competition is weak; Tiger dominates because the competition is strong.

No, I'm not saying Tiger is dominating because the competition is strong. I'm saying he's dominating in spite of the fact that the competition is strong. This makes the case for him being the greatest ever.

The fact that no _other_ players are racking up incredibly impressive resumes today (no Players or Watsons, as in Jack's day) is what makes the case for overall more deep, even, higher level competition today.

That Tiger is able to rise above this level is what makes him the greatest ever.

Do you see what I'm saying Ruari? You don't have to agree, but do you follow the argument?

Could you tell us how you came up with these numbers of 20 and 75?

Just a guess, Mark. The only other person I read making this sort of a statement was Jack Nicklaus. I'll check his biography next time I get a chance to see if I can find this particular quote there. Not sure what, if any, numbers he gave, but my sense was he thought the number of potential winners was much, much higher today than when he started out.

Dan, methinks you did not read JP's article. Only a fraction of those wins came while Nicklaus was winning majors. Stretching your logic a bit further, we may as well include Tiger as one of Nicklaus' peers, since they've played PGA Tour events (and even majors) together.

Erik, I think you have to check your sources. Casper won two of his three Majors in 1966 and 1970; he also won 27 PGA Tour titles 1964-70, two more than Jack in the same period, as it happens. Palmer won his last Major in 1964 and he didn't turn 40 till 1970 - hardly over the hill. Watson won all his Majors before Jack won his last, in 1986. Player won most of his Majors in the 1960s and 70s. Trevino is just a few months older than Jack. All of them are genuine contemporaries. It could be a bit of a stretch to include, say, Ballesteros - but not much; his last Major victory (British Open, 1988) came just two years after Jack's last triumph.