Jack vs. Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?

[turtleback]

While its tempting to argue strength of field or equipment, etc, the fact remains, major wins and finishes is the hallmark of pro golf, Wins-Jack has 18, Tiger 14. Add the 46 top 3 finishes by Jack and I think the question answers itself.

Additionally remains to be seen if Tiger regains his former self.

Talk to me when Tiger has 18 wins, and a bunch of top 3 finishes. Till then I think Jack remains at the pinnacle of pro golfers.

Unless you think the greatest golfer of all time was Walter Hagen, prior to Jack, then your argument is nonsense.  No one in the history of golf has ever been considered the greatest of all time on the basis of the number of majors they won except for Nicklaus. Not one.  No one, in the 50s considered Hagen as clearly the GOAT.

And which many agree as well.

The pro's all gear themselves to peak at the major events....winning more of those than anyone else puts you on top. Winning a bunch of tournaments doesn't get you in the hall a fame, but winning two majors will.

See, Erik - there are a lot more of them out there than you think.

Snowfly, what about the guys who played in an era where everyone did NOT gear themselves to peak at the majors?  One group are the guys who played prior to Jack who did not even have the chance to play some majors because of travel time/cost (more significant before modern jet travel) and the majors lost to WW2.  Another group are contemporaries of Jack's early years when not all of the the majors were held in the high regard you now do.  One of the greatest players during Jack's career, Billy Casper, won 50 PGA events but only played in 3 British Opens.  And Jack was actually the very first guy to completely build his schedule around the majors, so when he was racking them up it is not true that the pros were all gearing themselves up for the majors.  That may be true today but it was NOT true prior to Jack coming on the scene and it was not true for much of Jack's career, even if it might be the case now.

Why was Tiger's goal to break Jack's record for major wins?

If Jack is truly the GOAT then shouldn't HIS goal be the standard?  Or at least the goal he started out with (Snead's number of PGA event wins), since he later changed it when he couldn't reach it.  And HIS goal was most PGA victories, NOT most majors.  By the time Tiger had come along Jack, with the help of the media, had written off every other possible contender for the GOAT title by insisting that the fairest way of comparing golfers of different generations was their record in majors.  But the problem was that this was about the UNFAIREST way of comparing players of different generations because players of different generations had far fewer opportunities to win majors as Nicklaus did.  He played 4 majors a year for virtually his whole career, something that no earlier golfer really had the opportunity to do.

So when Tiger adopted that standard for himself he was just acknowledging Jack's success in changing the standard.  Now if Tiger was like Jack he would be lobbying for the GOAT to be based on the total number of majors/Players/WGC victories.  Yeah I know, Jack didn't have a chance to play many WGCs, but how is that any different from the fact that Hogan didn't get to play anywhere near as many majors as Jack?  It is to Tiger's credit that so far he has not tried to follow Jack in trying to influence the media to declare him the GOAT based on some new standard that he just thought up after having already reached it.  Because that is EXACTLY what Jack did to get himself labeled as GOAT in the first place.

[Wally Fairway]

Quote:

Disagree.  Player can have his opinion, but I don't think Hogan was ever at Nicklaus level or Woods in terms of dominance.  Snead and even Byron Nelson had more dominant periods than Hogan.  Don't get me wrong, Hogan was a great player, but not in terms of shear dominance.  Player is extrapolating on what might have been if Hogan didn't miss those tournaments.  But that is a subjective analysis.

Woods winning percentage, 26% of tournaments entered, is unequalled, even by Nicklaus, 19.4%.

there is a huge issue when you use things like winning %. The issue being that Jack continued to play in tournaments well past the point in which he was in his prime; I can't say why he continued  - maybe he needed the money, maybe he was an ambassador for the tour, maybe he liked the travel.

Here is a fact - unlike many of the "facts" that are opinions of those posting - after the 1980 PGA Championship, Jack went on to win 3 events (1982 Colonial, 1984 Memorial, 1986 Masters) and from 1981 - 2005 he played in 216 PGA events....so for those 25 years his winning % is 1.4%, which skews his career numbers.

(source: Wikipedia - Jack's page & nicklaus.com facts & figures page)

My point is that everyone has their own opinion, and that is great - but it is funny, IMO, when people try to prove their opinion is correct by using "facts"

[mmoan2]

Here's a link to a Ph.D thesis written by an MIT statistician about why Tiger Woods is a better golfer than Jack Nicklaus:

www.mit.edu/scienceandengineering/%%holycrapgiveuppeople$%$#.html

[boogielicious]

Quote:

there is a huge issue when you use things like winning %. The issue being that Jack continued to play in tournaments well past the point in which he was in his prime; I can't say why he continued  - maybe he needed the money, maybe he was an ambassador for the tour, maybe he liked the travel.

Here is a fact - unlike many of the "facts" that are opinions of those posting - after the 1980 PGA Championship, Jack went on to win 3 events (1982 Colonial, 1984 Memorial, 1986 Masters) and from 1981 - 2005 he played in 216 PGA events....so for those 25 years his winning % is 1.4%, which skews his career numbers.

(source: Wikipedia - Jack's page & nicklaus.com facts & figures page)

My point is that everyone has their own opinion, and that is great - but it is funny, IMO, when people try to prove their opinion is correct by using "facts"

These are the facts as they stand today. If when Tiger turns 50, and the numbers are different, we can discuss it then.

The problem with opinion is even if and when Tiger breaks the Major record and the PGA Tour win record, many Jack fans or Tiger anti-fans will still come up with some reason in their mind why Jack is still better.  I happen to be a fan of both players and I am looking at it objectively.  I have stated a few times in this thread that the data set on Tiger is not complete yet.  The only criteria Jack has over Tiger is major wins and nothing else.

[isukgolf]

Here's a link to a Ph.D thesis written by an MIT statistician about why Tiger Woods is a better golfer than Jack Nicklaus:

www.mit.edu/scienceandengineering/%%holycrapgiveuppeople$%$#.html

Bummer ... link does not work for me

[turtleback]

Quote:

Here is a fact - unlike many of the "facts" that are opinions of those posting - after the 1980 PGA Championship, Jack went on to win 3 events (1982 Colonial, 1984 Memorial, 1986 Masters) and from 1981 - 2005 he played in 216 PGA events....so for those 25 years his winning % is 1.4%, which skews his career numbers.

What you say is true, and is something I have countered in my own posts upthread by comparing their records after 5 years, 10 years, and 15 years.

OTOH, it is funny that your exact point never seems to stop those (not necessarily you) who want to talk about how Nicklaus dominated golf for 25 years.

But to provide some perspective, look at Tiger's record - events played, wins, major wins, wining percentage.  And now try to find ANY 10 year period in Jack's career where he comes even close to Tiger.

Here is the FACT: Tiger dominated the PGA Tour for 14 of 17 years (1996-2007, sans 1996 (but only because he played a very short rookie season) 1998, and 2004).  You would be hard pressed to find half as many, i.e., 7 years, where Nicklaus was anywhere near as dominant for the year as Tiger was in those years.

Another challenge I have offered which is NEVER taken up by the Jack camp is go ahead and list Jack's years in order from best to worst.  I'll do the same for Tiger's years.  And my prediction (not really a prediction, since I know how it will turn out) is that using a match play format Tiger will be 5 up after 5 years, 10 up after 10 years and 15 up after 15 years.

[ChrisP]

It's tournaments like this past US Open that make me question the strength of the game's best today vs. Jack's era. No doubt Kaymer had an amazing week, but like Johnny Miller said, while this course was difficult, the players made it look a lot more difficult than it really was. I kinda feel the same way about Merion last year when so many guys had wedges in their hands with their second shots and couldn't stick the shots on soft greens. No doubt the game today is deeper, more global and the difference between #1-100 is a lot more cluttered now than it was back in the day, but is the top 10 today truly better than the top 10 in Jack's era?

[Jakester23]

It's tournaments like this past US Open that make me question the strength of the game's best today vs. Jack's era. No doubt Kaymer had an amazing week, but like Johnny Miller said, while this course was difficult, the players made it look a lot more difficult than it really was. I kinda feel the same way about Merion last year when so many guys had wedges in their hands with their second shots and couldn't stick the shots on soft greens. No doubt the game today is deeper, more global and the difference between #1-100 is a lot more cluttered now than it was back in the day, but is the top 10 today truly better than the top 10 in Jack's era?

Yes

[ChrisP]

Yes

Okay?

[iacas]

Yes

I agree.

[saevel25]

It's tournaments like this past US Open that make me question the strength of the game's best today vs. Jack's era. No doubt Kaymer had an amazing week, but like Johnny Miller said, while this course was difficult, the players made it look a lot more difficult than it really was. I kinda feel the same way about Merion last year when so many guys had wedges in their hands with their second shots and couldn't stick the shots on soft greens. No doubt the game today is deeper, more global and the difference between #1-100 is a lot more cluttered now than it was back in the day, but is the top 10 today truly better than the top 10 in Jack's era?

There is already another thread that talks about golfers from Tiger's era versus Jack's era. Same arguments apply, the top 10 today would be better than the top 10 in Jack's era.

[ChrisP]

There is already another thread that talks about golfers from Tiger's era versus Jack's era. Same arguments apply, the top 10 today would be better than the top 10 in Jack's era.

And I've stated my points in that thread as well. Bottom line is I disagree and my opinion is stronger now after this Open than it was before.

[saevel25]

And I've stated my points in that thread as well. Bottom line is I disagree.

Fine, then why keep asking the same question?

[ChrisP]

Fine, then why keep asking the same question?

No need to be mean. Just saying.

[RJH999]

No need to be mean. Just saying.

Lets all get along fellas ;)

[saevel25]

No need to be mean. Just saying.

I guess some of us will just keep saying "Yes" to that todays top 10 are better than in Jack's time

[ChrisP]

I guess some of us will just keep saying "Yes" to that todays top 10 are better than in Jack's time

I guess I'm just letting off a little steam because I'm really angry at this U.S. Open. I like Kaymer...I think he's an elite player.....but I think the play in this Open was abysmal. I thought the players made this course look a lot harder than it was, and outside of Kaymer, the putting was really bad this week.

[saevel25]

I guess I'm just letting off a little steam because I'm really angry at this U.S. Open. I like Kaymer...I think he's an elite player.....but I think the play in this Open was abysmal. I thought the players made this course look a lot harder than it was, and outside of Kaymer, the putting was really bad this week.

I think the course was that tough. I mean they had a par 3 that was 240 yards, and the effective size of that green was a fraction of the total green size due to how fast, hard, and sloped the green was. There were some holes that if you were a foot too right and the ball ends up in a bunker. Look at Graeme McDowell, hit his tee ball on that par 3 about 4 yards more left, and about 2 feet shorter than Zach Johnson. Graeme's ball ended off the front of the green. Zach got a hole in one. Just say, less than 5 yards difference in landing spot is between a tap or chipping from the front of the green.

I think the play at this Open was typical of any US Open. It is a struggle to the end. Just because everyone wasn't making 65's all week doesn't mean poor golf was being played. That course is TOUGH!!!

The course rating for the US Open tees was a 76.4, 6.4 strokes harder than par. Given the PGA tour players can have a handicap ranging from +7 to +4, they were all shooting where they were suppose to. Kaymar just got hot. I would like to see his Strokes Gained on his long game. I think he hit a ton of greens this week. Honestly his ball striking was crazy good for the week, and he actually putted very well. He just put in a complete performance.