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

[Jay28]

Just to change it up a bit... I read a few comments about older people being bias towards Jack.

One thing that should be remembered is that those older people got to see first hand both Jack and Tiger and also experience the sport first hand as it was and is now.  Not through books, or video, or internet sites, but by being there or just experiencing the time.  Younger people really don't have a sense of how good Jack was.  There's a tendency for them to think what they know is best.

I also think GOAT in golf is not something that is even a valid discussion. Golf can be so different depending on the type of course.  For example, in links golf no one I have ever seen holds a candle to Tom Watson.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Jay28

[Phil McGleno]

3 minutes ago, Jay28 said:

Just to change it up a bit... I read a few comments about older people being bias towards Jack.

One thing that should be remembered is that those older people got to see first hand both Jack and Tiger and also experience the sport first hand as it was and is now.  Not through books, or video, or internet sites, but by being there or just experiencing the time.  Younger people really don't have a sense of how good Jack was.  There's a tendency for them to think what they know is best.

SPECULATION ALERT

And buddy-I played WITH and AGAINST Jack-And I think Tiger is head and Shoulders above Jack.

@turtleback grew up watching Jack and was a huge Jack fan.

4 minutes ago, Jay28 said:

I also think GOAT in golf is not something that is even a valid discussion. Golf can be so different depending on the type of course.  For example, in links golf no one I have ever seen holds a candle to Tom Watson.

Oh for the sake of Pete.-We are not talking about once a week or on a certain kind of course or any given day-We are talking about a whole career.

Heck if you consider the whole career Tiger can add three US Ams and three US Junior Ams.

[Jay28]

11 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

SPECULATION ALERT

And buddy-I played WITH and AGAINST Jack-And I think Tiger is head and Shoulders above Jack.

@turtleback grew up watching Jack and was a huge Jack fan.

Oh for the sake of Pete.-We are not talking about once a week or on a certain kind of course or any given day-We are talking about a whole career.

Heck if you consider the whole career Tiger can add three US Ams and three US Junior Ams.

LOL.  It's speculation that people were alive to see both Jack and Tiger and some were not born and have only witnessed Tiger??? Brilliant.

I've seen you before (here and elsewhere) - every time there is a debate you have first hand experience. If we had a debate about the moon landings, no doubt you'd be an astronaut!

Peace out....buddy ✌️

 

Edited June 21, 2019 by Jay28

[Phil McGleno]

24 minutes ago, Jay28 said:

LOL.  It's speculation that people were alive to see both Jack and Tiger and some were not born and have only witnessed Tiger??? Brilliant.

No.-This is:

27 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

Younger people really don't have a sense of how good Jack was. There's a tendency for them to think what they know is best.

In one post you did three things that people who are losing do-You changed the topic, you dismissed those who side with Tiger by saying they are too young to have seen Jack, and you said the discussion is not worth having.

26 minutes ago, Jay28 said:

I've seen you before (here and elsewhere) - every time there is a debate you have first hand experience. If we had a debate about the moon landings, no doubt you'd be an astronaut!

I played and teach golf and that is about it.-All my life.

This is the only golf forum I am on.

But add a fourth thing to the list-Outright dismissal of someone else without any proof to the contrary.

Glad you are bailing-You have not added anything here worth considering.

[Jay28]

3 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

No.-This is:

In one post you did three things that people who are losing do-You changed the topic, you dismissed those who side with Tiger by saying they are too young to have seen Jack, and you said the discussion is not worth having.

I played and teach golf and that is about it.-All my life.

This is the only golf forum I am on.

But add a fourth thing to the list-Outright dismissal of someone else without any proof to the contrary.

Glad you are bailing-You have not added anything here worth considering.

OK, sport.

Opinions don't require a winner or loser. Mine's different to yours. 

 

 

Edited June 21, 2019 by Jay28

[Phil McGleno]

41 minutes ago, Jay28 said:

Peace out....buddy ✌️

Pity you did not mean it.

[lastings]

On 6/20/2019 at 2:47 PM, saevel25 said:

It does put Tiger above Jack's accomplishments though. If you look at it in terms of percentages,

Tiger Woods: 81 PGA tour wins, 15 Majors,

Jack Nicklaus: 73 PGA tour wins,  18 Majors,

Jack has 20% more Majors, 9% less PGA Tour wins.

I could easily say that Tiger had a much tougher time winning The Open Championship since it wasn't a popular tournament before the 80's. It was expensive to travel over the and the purse was small.

If you look at The Masters, Jack is quoted in saying that Augusta National was a much easier course back in his prime than when Tiger played it.

It's not much of a stretch in saying that in PGA tour wins, Tiger is way ahead of Jack.  The Open Championships alone could attribute to that 20% more majors by Jack. Throw in a tougher Augusta National, its easy to see that Tiger's 15 majors are at minimum equivalent to Jack's 18, but more likely worth more. It's not much of a stretch at all to say Tiger has clearly succeeded the achievements of Jack.

Lets debunk that for a bit,

You have Dallas Texas which that week saw high 90's and low 100's. Jack famously held up the trophy with a towel. The mean temperature for the month was 87 degrees. You have a total of .57 inches in the month of June (all in one day) leading up to the tournament. Basically, there was no rain for 41 of the 42 days leading up to the 12th of July.

DFW Weather Records Database – iWeatherNet

---

Historical weather records featuring a complete weather archive for DFW since 1898, and numerous stations around North Texas dating back many...

I'll put this into perspective...

He hit a drive 341 yards on a course that was probably hard as a rock.

 

I hit a ball 306 yards once.  

[brocks]

1 hour ago, Jay28 said:

One thing that should be remembered is that those older people got to see first hand both Jack and Tiger and also experience the sport first hand as it was and is now.  Not through books, or video, or internet sites, but by being there or just experiencing the time.  Younger people really don't have a sense of how good Jack was.  There's a tendency for them to think what they know is best.

You have it backwards.  It's old people who really don't have a sense of how good Jack was.  I know, because I'm old.

Jack was my favorite player for over 30 years, from the time he won the Masters by nine in 1965 to the time Tiger won the Masters by 12 in 1997.  So I watched every event he played that was on TV, and attended half a dozen or so.  Unless you were a touring pro, a touring caddie, or a PGA groupie, I assume that you also depended on TV to see him.

And the thing is, there was nothing like the coverage there is today.  There was zero coverage of play on Thursday and Friday, and usually only two hours on Saturday and Sunday, showing only the leaders on the final nine.

Which means that if you saw Jack, he was in contention.  You never saw him miss a cut, because that happened before Saturday.  You never saw him when he had a bad weekend, because he was done by the time coverage started.  The only time you saw a lot of him was when he was either winning or in contention down the stretch.  It's no wonder old people think he never missed a crucial shot or putt.

On the other hand, thanks to the Golf Channel showing as much of Tiger as they possibly could almost from the day they went on the air, we've seen more of Tiger's Thursday and Friday rounds than we ever saw of Jack's weekend rounds.  And with Tiger greatly increasing the popularity and ratings of TV golf, we also got expanded coverage from the networks.  

We see Tiger whether he's playing well or not.  On Thursday and Friday, if Tiger's round is in the TV window, we typically see every shot he hits, even if he's playing horribly.  

Really, I sometimes wonder why Tiger is so popular with young people, because it often seems like he's the worst player out there, even when he's playing fairly well.  Here's how a typical broadcast goes when Tiger's playing OK, but not great:

They show the leader hit a great drive down the middle.  He hasn't won in two years, he has rarely been seen on TV in the last two years, but this week he's hot, and he is hitting great shots.  Same for the guys in second and third.  Then they cut to Tiger, and he hits one into the junk.  Then they cut to some guy out of contention, but who holes one from the fairway.  Then they cut to another guy out of contention who makes a 30 foot breaking putt.  Then they cut back to the leader who hits a great approach.  Then they cut back to Tiger who hits into a bunker.  Then they cut to another also-ran who hits his tee shot to within a couple of feet on a par-3.  Then they cut back to the leader who sinks his birdie putt.  Then they cut back to Tiger whose bunker shot is just OK.  Then they cut to one of the contenders sinking a birdie putt.  Then they cut back to Tiger missing his par putt.  And so on.

This may be exaggerated, but not much.  Somebody watching golf for the first time would think that Tiger is the worst player on the course.  It seems like everybody is hitting great shots except for him.  How many times did you hear even the announcers, who should be used to it, say something along the lines of "The way he was playing, it looked like he was shooting a 75," when Tiger shoots a 70?  

We see all of Tiger's bad shots.  We rarely saw Jack hit a bad shot, because he did it off camera.  

So no, old people don't know how good Jack was.  They think he never missed a shot.  But he must have, because he won less often than Tiger.

[Jay28]

8 minutes ago, brocks said:

You have it backwards.  It's old people who really don't have a sense of how good Jack was.  I know, because I'm old.

Jack was my favorite player for over 30 years, from the time he won the Masters by nine in 1965 to the time Tiger won the Masters by 12 in 1997.  So I watched every event he played that was on TV, and attended half a dozen or so.  Unless you were a touring pro, a touring caddie, or a PGA groupie, I assume that you also depended on TV to see him.

And the thing is, there was nothing like the coverage there is today.  There was zero coverage of play on Thursday and Friday, and usually only two hours on Saturday and Sunday, showing only the leaders on the final nine.

Which means that if you saw Jack, he was in contention.  You never saw him miss a cut, because that happened before Saturday.  You never saw him when he had a bad weekend, because he was done by the time coverage started.  The only time you saw a lot of him was when he was either winning or in contention down the stretch.  It's no wonder old people think he never missed a crucial shot or putt.

On the other hand, thanks to the Golf Channel showing as much of Tiger as they possibly could almost from the day they went on the air, we've seen more of Tiger's Thursday and Friday rounds than we ever saw of Jack's weekend rounds.  And with Tiger greatly increasing the popularity and ratings of TV golf, we also got expanded coverage from the networks.  

We see Tiger whether he's playing well or not.  On Thursday and Friday, if Tiger's round is in the TV window, we typically see every shot he hits, even if he's playing horribly.  

Really, I sometimes wonder why Tiger is so popular with young people, because it often seems like he's the worst player out there, even when he's playing fairly well.  Here's how a typical broadcast goes when Tiger's playing OK, but not great:

They show the leader hit a great drive down the middle.  He hasn't won in two years, he has rarely been seen on TV in the last two years, but this week he's hot, and he is hitting great shots.  Same for the guys in second and third.  Then they cut to Tiger, and he hits one into the junk.  Then they cut to some guy out of contention, but who holes one from the fairway.  Then they cut to another guy out of contention who makes a 30 foot breaking putt.  Then they cut back to the leader who hits a great approach.  Then they cut back to Tiger who hits into a bunker.  Then they cut to another also-ran who hits his tee shot to within a couple of feet on a par-3.  Then they cut back to the leader who sinks his birdie putt.  Then they cut back to Tiger whose bunker shot is just OK.  Then they cut to one of the contenders sinking a birdie putt.  Then they cut back to Tiger missing his par putt.  And so on.

This may be exaggerated, but not much.  Somebody watching golf for the first time would think that Tiger is the worst player on the course.  It seems like everybody is hitting great shots except for him.  How many times did you hear even the announcers, who should be used to it, say something along the lines of "The way he was playing, it looked like he was shooting a 75," when Tiger shoots a 70?  

We see all of Tiger's bad shots.  We rarely saw Jack hit a bad shot, because he did it off camera.  

So no, old people don't know how good Jack was.  They think he never missed a shot.  But he must have, because he won less often than Tiger.

Hmm, so older people got to see Jack, but not all of Jack's shots ... and younger people never saw him at all.  That's about right.

As for Tiger - it sounds like you think there is some broadcaster conspiracy to show his bad shots?  I don't get that sense.  It's just that Tiger has a lot of really bad shots in his game, these days, that can spring up at any time.

 

[brocks]

1 minute ago, Jay28 said:

Hmm, so older people got to see Jack, but not all of Jack's shots ... and younger people never saw him at all.  That's about right.

That's like saying young people never heard the Beatles.  Highlight reels of Jack are very frequently shown on TV, and are widely available on YouTube.

 

2 minutes ago, Jay28 said:

As for Tiger - it sounds like you think there is some broadcaster conspiracy to show his bad shots?  I don't get that sense.

The only broadcaster conspiracy is to show as much of Tiger as they can, because Tiger = ratings. 

 

4 minutes ago, Jay28 said:

It's just that Tiger has a lot of really bad shots in his game, these days, that can spring up at any time. 

What I am trying to get through to you is that every player hits bad shots in almost every round, but we rarely see them, while we see almost all of Tiger's bad shots.  And a lot of old people compare how often they see Tiger hit a bad shot with how often they saw Jack hit a bad shot, and conclude that Jack was better than Tiger.   They don't realize that the broadcasters in the 60's were, in effect, cherry-picking Jack's shots.   Not as a pro-Jack conspiracy, but out of necessity, because they only had time to cover the contenders.

[Phil McGleno]

23 minutes ago, Jay28 said:

Hmm, so older people got to see Jack, but not all of Jack's shots ... and younger people never saw him at all.  That's about right.

As for Tiger - it sounds like you think there is some broadcaster conspiracy to show his bad shots?  I don't get that sense.  It's just that Tiger has a lot of really bad shots in his game, these days, that can spring up at any time.

Oh my-That is NOT what he said.-What a doof.

Still waiting for you to stop posting in the thread like you said.

[turtleback]

2 hours ago, Jay28 said:

Just to change it up a bit... I read a few comments about older people being bias towards Jack.

One thing that should be remembered is that those older people got to see first hand both Jack and Tiger and also experience the sport first hand as it was and is now.  Not through books, or video, or internet sites, but by being there or just experiencing the time.  Younger people really don't have a sense of how good Jack was.  There's a tendency for them to think what they know is best.

I also think GOAT in golf is not something that is even a valid discussion. Golf can be so different depending on the type of course.  For example, in links golf no one I have ever seen holds a candle to Tom Watson.

Yeah, no.  I grew up watching Jack and was, and still am, a big fan of his golf.  

But because I was an observer for his whole career I know about the advantages he had over his fellow pros, who were driving - not flying like Jack - from event to event, who couldn't carve out a couple of weeks to get tuned up at the next major site like Jack did, who couldn't easily afford the trip to play the British Open like Jack could.  Personally I think the confluence of weak fields and changing logistical conditions made the period of Jack's career the most propitious for accumulating majors. 

All most young folk really know about Jack is the '86 Masters.

There is a lot of ignorance about what the tour was like in the 60s and early 70s.  I've mentioned this book before, but if someone wants to see what it was like, Frank Beard's book: Pro Frank Beard on the Pro Tour lays it all out.  Unfortunately it is rare and expensive.  It was one of the earliest 'diary for a year' books that get prettied up by a real writer (Dick Schaap, in this case - I think he did several).  Frank Beard was a successful tour player in the late 60s who, while not a top top player, won over 100,000 several years when that was a significant benchmark.  Never won a major, but by one of the strange quirks of fate he was the leading money winner in the year covered by the book. 

Aside: Yeah, a guy many even here barely know was the leadinto money winner right in the middle of Jack's prime.

Despite being one of pro golf's elite, Beard paints a picture of hauling his young family around in a station wagen, staying at the same cheap motels as the other players, and living a pretty challenging life, logistically.  Nothing like the life of even a mediocre tour player today.

Edited June 21, 2019 by turtleback

[Vinsk]

2 hours ago, Jay28 said:

I also think GOAT in golf is not something that is even a valid discussion.

Then please for the love of all that is pure and enlightening, stop. Just leave this topic. The Flat Earthers will welcome you. Please.

[turtleback]

22 hours ago, longiron205 said:

In my humble opinion, Jack is #1 with Tiger a very close #2. Jack has 18 majors to Tiger's 13, I think it's going to be tough for Tiger to catch Jack's major title record. Ceck out what Dustin Johnson did with Jack's old persimmon wood and #1 driving iron: https://www.golfdigest.com/story/dustin-johnson-hit-jack-nicklaus-old-1-iron-and-persimmon-driver-really-really-far

 

When you don't even know how many majors Tiger has I think your credibility has suffered a fatal wound.

But thanks for that link which disproves all of the nonsense about how Jack would hit it 360 with modern equipment.  With old equipment Dustin hit it just as far as Jack did in his heyday.  Yet according to some, a young Jack would outdrive DJ by 60 yards on average.  There's a circle that cannot be squared.

Edited June 22, 2019 by turtleback

[Vinsk]

44 minutes ago, turtleback said:

When you don't even know how many majors Tiger has I think your credibility has suffered a fatal wound.

But thanks for that link which disproves all of the nonsense about how Jack would hit it 360 with modern equipment.  With old equipment Dustin hit it just as far as Jack did in his heyday.  Yet according to some, a young Jack would outdrive DJ by 60 yards on average.  There's a circle that cannot be squared.

Well unfortunately they’ll come back and say that DJ didn’t use an old ball so it’s impossible to know. Maddening.

[Jay28]

22 hours ago, Vinsk said:

Then please for the love of all that is pure and enlightening, stop. Just leave this topic. The Flat Earthers will welcome you. Please.

Hmm.

'Flat Earther', lol... because I laugh my ass off at people who think mathematics can tell us who was better between Jack and Tiger.

😂

[saevel25]

5 minutes ago, Jay28 said:

Hmm.

'Flat Earther', lol... because I laugh my ass off at people who think mathematics can tell us who was better between Jack and Tiger.

😂

Better than believing in half baked logic and denial.

[iacas]

19 minutes ago, Jay28 said:

'Flat Earther', lol... because I laugh my ass off at people who think mathematics can tell us who was better between Jack and Tiger.

😂

Nobody made that claim.