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

[iacas]

5 hours ago, Golfnutgalen said:

Of course, injuries suck, but that's no excuse. jack was competitive from 1962-1984 or so.

And Tiger was competitive 1996 to 2020 or so. That's all Matt has said, or that I've said: that the meaningful part of his career lasted 24 years, and Jack's lasted 26. So some people will say "well, Jack had a longer career" as if winning more stuff in a shorter period of time is a knock against you (Tiger).

5 hours ago, Golfnutgalen said:

That is a crazy long time.

So is 24 years.

5 hours ago, Golfnutgalen said:

I like Tiger too but you are seriously downplaying what Nicklaus did.

No, I'm not. I'm putting it in a context. Jack had far less competition.

3 hours ago, Golfnutgalen said:

The funny thing is I never even attacked Tiger, I just pointed out that the other poster had a point when he mentioned that Jack had a longer career.

The point was that Tiger had a long career.

3 hours ago, Golfnutgalen said:

If those numbers support the fact that Jack had a longer career so be it. Don't take that as an affront to Tiger. 

Nobody's ever denied Jack had a long career, man. I don't know where you're getting that.

[GolfSwami]

Quote

 

On 3/3/2026 at 10:44 PM, saevel25 said:

You got that right. It is in favor of Tiger being more dominant and having a long career. 

My math is correct. Tiger had 24 total seasons versus Jack's 26. People want to use longevity as a tie breaker, but they fail to realize that Tiger had a very long career as well. They just refuse to admit it, because people don't like to admit they are incorrect or have their opinions invalidated. 

I did this on ChatGPT. I assumed 1.0 point for every non-major PGA tour win and 4 points for a major victory. Then I applied a 20% increase for Tiger due to tougher competition. I think 20% might not be conservative enough. 

Yea, I think that looks about correct. 😊

If you make assumptions excessively favorable to Tiger that leave out the best arguments for Jack that most people would never use to evaluate greatness in other sports and didn't use to measure greatness in golf until Tiger got injured, then sure.

Here is how Gemini rates both of them just in major output with a prompt to generously subsidize Tiger's record because of field strength.

And also the answer to the question who had more longevity Jack or Tiger.  Hopefully this puts the trutherism to rest. 

Edited 1 hour ago by GolfSwami