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

[Razorhog]

Both incredible, but I've seen more of Tiger and went with him.

[pittpanther]

Impossible to compare - two different times. I go with Tiger, because he's a truly conditioned athlete. People no longer laugh at the fat bellies carried by golfers (at least, not the most successful ones, these days).

[ugapug5150]

Umm.... Jack was a conditioned athlete. If the only time you've ever seen him play was the Masters Par 3 this year, let's just say he has put on weight and leave it alone. Still had his swing though

[iacas]

Umm.... Jack was a conditioned athlete. If the only time you've ever seen him play was the Masters Par 3 this year, let's just say he has put on weight and leave it alone. Still had his swing though

Jack was known as "Fat Jack" for several years. He had a belly in 1986, too. He was athletic, but I'm not sure I'd call him "conditioned." He hit balls. You never heard of him doing any training, jogging, etc.

[sqengineer69]

Didn't really see Jack play much when I was kid, but I am ALWAYS in awe of Tiger, even when he doesn't play well!

[sandtrapnorm]

Tiger is more atletic and may become the greatest golfer ever. Now however, Jack is still the man until his records are surpassed. He played with far less technology.

[iacas]

He played with far less technology.

Why do people keep bringing that up??

Technology has made it HARDER for Tiger to win. Golf isn't a game you just play by yourself - you compete against others. In Jack's day, the gap between him and the "average" PGA Tour player was huge. Today, technology has helped to close that gap, making it tougher for Tiger to win events.

[BASHERBAKER69]

I think what the previous blogger meant, sandtrapnorm, was that Jack did what he did and shot the scores he did with by our standards 'terrible equipment'- which adds to the general preumption that Jack was a raw talent. Jack could boom it 300+ yards with a dunlop 65 and a wooden driver.

The notion that the new technology has narrowed the gap and made it harder for Tiger to win is suspect in my view, no disrespect to Iacas. Sure the other players are hitting it harder and being more aggressive in their play, but so is Tiger. The technology means in my view that all the players have jumped up a plateau or two, i don't necessarily think the gap has been narrowed.

I think we also need to look at Jack's runner up finishes in majors as well, no just outright wins. I don't think Tiger will match Jack's achievements any time soon. I can't see him winning another major this year. The competition is definitely increasing- ive been impressed with Phil's performances and consistency this year so far. I think he will one this year, maybe the Open Championship.

[MrKadash]

Why do people keep bringing that up??

I don't agree with this at all. If Jack was so much better than the average tour player in his day, with no mention of technology, I would attribute it to Jack's talent level.

The same goes for Tiger. You say technology has made it tougher for Tiger to win events now, but yet Tiger has 60+ sanctioned wins by age 32 with no one else close. I attribute that to Tiger's talent level also. Bottom line is, Jack and his peers played with the same equipment relative to the times, as does Tiger and his competition. Technology shouldn't even be part of the equation in my view.

[iacas]

I don't agree with this at all.

Then you disagree with Jack Nicklaus himself. He's said it's harder for Tiger to win as he did. He's said it several times, as have others like Tom Watson, Arnold Palmer, etc.

That Tiger has 60+ wins already is simply a testament to how much better he is than Jack.

[Elsfan]

In the world of sports being special means more then just stcokpiling wins. NE Pats is a perfect example. This discussion is premature and until Tiger shows he is capable of winning a major when behind, even if by only one stroke, that is a serious kink in his armour.

[MrKadash]

Then you disagree with Jack Nicklaus himself. He's said it's harder for Tiger to win as he did. He's said it several times, as have others like Tom Watson, Arnold Palmer, etc.

Heaven forbid, I thought I was just disagreeing with you. If Jack, Arnold, and Tom say it I guess I gotta change my opinion....

I attribute Tiger's success to how much better he is than the players of today, seeing how that's the only thing tangible there is to go by. Give me a break.

[iacas]

In the world of sports being special means more then just stcokpiling wins. NE Pats is a perfect example. This discussion is premature and until Tiger shows he is capable of winning a major when behind, even if by only one stroke, that is a serious kink in his armour.

Huh? Okay, how about...

"Jack never won a major by 12 strokes. Or 15. That's a serious kink in his armour."

Heaven forbid, I thought I was just disagreeing with you. If Jack, Arnold, and Tom say it I guess I gotta change my opinion....

Not saying you have to disagree. Just saying that people who likely know better have spoken on this very subject... I tend to believe they know better, and take their word for it.

[Elsfan]

Huh? Okay, how about...

Thats funny because Jack won the Masters by 9, a record at the time in 1965, and then won the PGA by 7 in 80. That might as well be 15 or 20 for that matter. I just have a hard time saying the greatest golfer of all time can't overcome even a 1 stroke deficit to win a major. Jack won 8 majors coming from behind on Sunday which showed he had the clutch gene that makes the truly special athletes a class above. Tiger sure knows how to lead the pack though.

[Ruari]

The great racing driver, Juan Manuel Fangio, always said he 'drove slow enough to win'. Jack tended to do the same. Tiger likes to spreadeagle the field. Both, in their way, can be quite intimidating - but the fact that Tiger hasn't won from behind may give others comfort, whereas if Jack was four or five shots behind and sank a couple of birdies, you could see the leaders start to shake in their shoes.
With some huge exceptions - Player and Trevino, to name two, and, of course, Tom Watson. In the British Open 1977, Jack finished 10 shots ahead of the next player, Hubert Green. It would have been a record winning margin - but for the fact that he came second, to Tom Watson. Jack went 65-66 in the last two rounds; Watson 65-65. It's one of the events that captured my interest in golf.
Just an interesting statistic.

[Ruari]

... also tiger can rip it further, has a better short game, and he's a built athlete, what else is their to say?

In the early 1970s (can't remember which one - it's on a video somewhere), when he was chasing the leader in the British Open, Jack teed up on the 18th at St Andrews and smashed the ball through the green. That's more than 300 yards - with a persimmon-headed wood attached to a then state-of-the-art, but now clearly very clunky, steel shaft. The ball wasn't a patch on today's, either. Jack could rip it a bit in his day, too...

And another thing to say...I think you meant 'what else is is THERE to say' Yours pedantically (and in danger of having his glass house smashed to smithereens... )

[AmenCorner]

In the early 1970s (can't remember which one - it's on a video somewhere), when he was chasing the leader in the British Open, Jack teed up on the 18th at St Andrews and smashed the ball through the green. That's more than 300 yards - with a persimmon-headed wood attached to a then state-of-the-art, but now clearly very clunky, steel shaft. The ball wasn't a patch on today's, either. Jack could rip it a bit in his day, too...

Probably downwind...it is the "Open" you know.

[AmenCorner]

I don't know what this "coming from behind" crap is all about. A win is a win in my book, and Tiger has a bunch of them. As they say, there are no pictures on the scorecard, and I'm quite certain none on the trophies as well.