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

[tommyfusco]

Well, I can say who my favorite is, Tiger.

Greatest?

Will we really know until Tiger retires?

[Scratch (+20)]

Until Tiger reaches 18 Jack is the greatest

[pitchinwedge]

Tiger. No contest.

[tricky]

I don't think the debate can even start until they both have 18 majors..

I understand what you are saying, but I'm not sure it's as simple as that. The number of majors comparable players hold is a function of how competitive the fields are, as well as how good (relatively) the individual is.

In the modern era, with a larger number of credible contenders, Tiger has decimated fields and accumulated major victories at an incredible rate. On the other hand with inferior equipment and with a lesser knowledge of sports science and psychology Nicklaus demonstrated a mastery of the best the world could throw at him. His victory in the 86 masters was one of the most incredible achievements in golf. Tiger may well beat Nicklaus' major record, and it would be a stunning achievement. Does the fact that he currently is behind, but may finish ahead, alter the lasting perception in which he should be held? In the history of golf they are both great players, and always will be considered such. Major wins only measures who won the most majors, not who is the greatest. There are other players who should also be considered great (like Bobby Jones) who in some aspects might be considered "greater". It's not helpful to compare era's. There are too many variables in terms of opportunity, upbringing, conditioning, knowledge of the game at that point in history (coaching), availability of equipment, and no doubt a raft of other factors. If your generation has a "great" then you can tell. They stand out as remarkable amongst their peers, Jack was one, as is Tiger. Enjoy what they can do. You wont see many in a lifetime.

[lumpuckeroo]

My arguement for Jack goes like this. While I would agree that the quality of golfers is much stronger 1 thru 125 on the tour today, I believe that the top couple of golfer were better in Jack's era. Tiger's era is yet to be determined but Jack's contemporaies, Player 9 majors, Watson 8 majors, Palmer 7, Trevino 6, Floyd 4, Casper 3.

Currently no player has more then 3 majors, other then Tiger.

[Waterland]

Why isn't there an option for "other?" What if I prefer Arnold Palmer over Jack or Tiger?

[iacas]

My arguement for Jack goes like this. While I would agree that the quality of golfers is much stronger 1 thru 125 on the tour today, I believe that the top couple of golfer were better in Jack's era. Tiger's era is yet to be determined but Jack's contemporaies, Player 9 majors, Watson 8 majors, Palmer 7, Trevino 6, Floyd 4, Casper 3.

Yeah, and there are potentially two reasons for it:

1) More "no-name" players have won one or two majors in the Tiger era (due to the increased depth). 2) Tiger's won majors at a faster rate than Jack Nicklaus, thus also taking away a few more majors that Phil or Ernie or Vijay could have won. It's all basically guesswork to say how big of an impact either of those have had, but they've had some impact on Phil's, Ernie's, Retief's, Vijay's, (etc.) ability to win more majors. Watson won five of his majors from 1980 onward. Nicklaus only won one after 1980 and won his first in 1962. Palmer won six of his in 1962 or earlier. So they don't really overlap as much as you'd like to think, either.

[fergal]

Can I choose both ?

Not sitting on the fence or anything, but sometimes things are just so past the norm that they are not comparable

[golfman]

tiger

[lumpuckeroo]

Yeah, and there are potentially two reasons for it:

I don't buy that, Watson won his first major in 1975 his last in 1983, Jack won 4 majors in the 1975-1986 time frame and finished second to Watson twice, so they overlap.

You may not consider them "no names" but there were plenty of one hit wonders in Jack's era, Dave Stockton, Bill Rodgers, Lanny Watkins, John Mahaffey, Lou Graham, Jerry Pate, I could go on. Don't buy that argurement either. Jack won 13 majors from 1962 to 1975, Tiger won 14 majors from 1997 to 2008, I don't think he has taken away majors from your "group", plus none of them even contended in the 3 majors he missed. If Tiger has taken away any majors it was from Rocco and Bob May.

[iacas]

I don't buy that

There's nothing to "buy." They're stats - how many majors the other "big players" won during Nicklau's big years. Surprisingly few.

And Dave Stockton? Equivalent at this point to Zach Johnson. Same with the other names you mentioned. Heck, Angel Cabrera has two majors now. You don't "buy" it because you want to vote for Jack. And that's fine... I was just pointing out the flip side of things.

[augtrav]

Jack is the man

[lumpuckeroo]

There's nothing to "buy." They're stats - how many majors the other "big players" won during Nicklau's big years. Surprisingly few.

Okay, I don't agree with that either, the stats show, from 1962, Jack's first major, until 1986, Jack's last major, Tom Watson won 8 majors, Gary Player won 7, Lee Trevino won 6, Seve Ballesteros won 4. My point being that there was more competion at the top of the game in Jack's era. Over the next 40 majors Tiger may see some stiff competion but at this point his competion was not as strong as Jack's.

[iacas]

Okay, I don't agree with that either, the stats show, from 1962, Jack's first major, until 1986, Jack's last major, Tom Watson won 8 majors, Gary Player won 7, Lee Trevino won 6, Seve Ballesteros won 4. My point being that there was more competion at the top of the game in Jack's era. Over the next 40 majors Tiger may see some stiff competion but at this point his competion was not as strong as Jack's.

Right, and by including the extra six years in which Jack won only ONE major, you vastly improve the stats of the other players, and in particular, Tom Watson's, more than doubling his major take.

And I pointed out two reasons why Jack's competitors (Watson, Player, etc.) may have won more majors - Jack was winning them at a slower rate than Tiger (so they had more opportunity than Tiger has allowed his fellow competitors) AND there were less no-names getting one or two majors in that time period (so, again, the bigger names had more opportunities and less opponents). Jack's era didn't have, for one example, very many Todd Hamiltons taking away majors from Ernie Els. And very often, the no-names have taken away victories from Tiger - Michael Campbell, anyone? - which would have boosted Tiger's records even HIGHER. These are made-up numbers (coming up), but they hint at what I believe is the truth: in Jack's day, there were about 30 people who could win any given major (less at The Masters). Today, 90 golfers have a chance to win a major (still less at The Masters, but more than in Jack's day). That sort of change affects everyone's ability to win a golf tournament, not just Tiger's or Jack's, but the second-tier guys who might or might not be "big names" - Watson, Mickelson, Els, Trevino, etc. Furthermore, if the competition truly is slightly weaker (which, again, I don't think it is), and then Tiger's doing exactly the right thing: winning majors at a faster rate.

[lumpuckeroo]

And I pointed out two reasons why Jack's competitors (Watson, Player, etc.) may have won more majors - Jack was winning them at a slower rate than Tiger (so they had more opportunity than Tiger has allowed his fellow competitors) AND there were less no-names getting one or two majors in that time period (so, again, the bigger names had more opportunities and less opponents). Jack's era didn't have, for one example, very many Todd Hamiltons taking away majors from Ernie Els. And very often, the no-names have taken away victories from Tiger - Michael Campbell, anyone? - which would have boosted Tiger's records even HIGHER.

I think we will just agree to disagree, Dave Stockton is no different then Todd Hamilton. If Hamilton took away a major from Ernie, Stockon took one away from Trevino. So I don't see where that arguement has any merit.

[iacas]

I think we will just agree to disagree, Dave Stockton is no different then Todd Hamilton. If Hamilton took away a major from Ernie, Stockon took one away from Trevino. So I don't see where that arguement has any merit.

I told you why it has merit: because there are MORE of the one-off winners these days - due to increased depth on the PGA Tour - than there were in Jack's prime.

Those one-off winners not only take wins away from Tiger (or Jack), but away from his "primary competitors." If Tiger and the rest of the crew were playing in the low-depth fields of Jack's day, Tiger might have 16 majors by now and Ernie, Phil, and even Jim Furyk or someone might have five to eight.

[lumpuckeroo]

I told you why it has merit: because there are MORE of the one-off winners these days - due to increased depth on the PGA Tour - than there were in Jack's prime.

Pure speculation! If you want to talk facts you should actually know them before posting. From 1997 to 2008 (Tiger's era) there have been 14 one time major winners, from 1962 to 1980 (Jack's era, since you don't seem to recognize 1986) there were 20 (include to 1986 and there were 23) one time winners. Jack's "primary competitors" have many more majors and contended with just as many one-off winners as Tiger's.

[iacas]

Pure speculation!

No kidding. Is that what the word "might" implies?

I'll say it again, and then I'm done: the depth of the modern fields makes it tougher for not only Tiger but Tiger's biggest competitors to win majors. Tiger's higher rate of winning also makes it tougher for his biggest competitors to win majors. Additionally (and I don't plan to say this more than this one time either): modern equipment has made everything more equal as well, making it tougher for Tiger to separate himself. Jack had an easier time separating himself from his peers because he played lousier equipment. If you could somehow make everyone on the PGA Tour play persimmon, balata, old-school irons, no hybrids, etc. - Tiger might (ooh, speculating again!) very well be at 20+ majors by now.