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

[Kabal]

When all is said and done, I believe that Tiger will be considered the greatest. I have a great respect for both of them, as they are both great and have done amazing things for the game of golf.

It is hard to compare two different times. I believe that the overall skill of players today is much higher than it was in the past, making major wins / Top 10's a more challenging feat these days. In Tiger's remaining PGA career, it would not surprise me if he comes close to matching Jack's amount of Top 10s in majors.

The face that Tiger hasn't had a consistent challenger should not be a detriment to what he has accomplished. Instead, it demonstrates that he has raised the bar higher than ever before and we have yet to have someone be able to come close to this level consistently.

[zeke4155]

To answer the question: Jack.

IMO, Bobby.

[Awsi Dooger]

I used to walk Doral and Inverrary when Nicklaus was in his prime. I've seen Tiger in person many times in Las Vegas and at Doral.

If I had to summarize, it would be:

* Nicklaus' drives were brilliantly long and straight, like an after burner. He had that high arc to allow him to play taller than his actual height. I don't give Tiger any edge in distance. Many rounds I watched Nicklaus alongside big bombers like Weiskopf, who was younger, and Jack was every bit as long. Only Jim Dent consistently put it past him, when I saw the two paired together.

* Nicklaus had more ways to make a bogey. That aspect stands out to me. Tiger has more margin for error than any athlete I've ever seen, rescuing holes. Nickluas would inexplicably miss a shot and say in disgust, "Oh Jack..."

* Nicklaus was a more natural putter. I'd still pick him above Tiger in that category. Tiger is mechanical and goes on great streaks but I remember many stretches when Tiger is putting from 10-15 feet and I gave him no chance. Also he's had years when the 40 footers never fell, one of the lowest percentages on tour. I bet the matchups every week and look at all the vital stats. Tiger has had years above #100 in putts per green. His dominant years he's in the top 10 or 20. At that point he's scary but Nicklaus with the open stance and great feel was more consistent, at least based on memory and impression. I wasn't looking at the stats at that point. I don't think they were available.

* No question the competition was superior in Jack's day. IMO, it's a joke to pretend otherwise. You had to survive one wave after another. A certain guy would get hot and you knew damn well he would be there, and no chance he would fade. In this era Tiger puts his name on the board and that virtually guarantees the big names wilt. It's a joke. They don't get relaxed and play their own game unless Tiger is out of contention on the weekend, or he's in one of his "slumps" like 2003 and 2004 when he couldn't find a fairway.

[GolferWolf]

I know more about Tiger woods, and have seen some pretty crazy shots. Havent heard enough about Jack to like him or not, but i've heard about him.

[thehotcorner]

tiger would take him out head-to-head.

i'm from the school of thought that athletes today are just far superior to the athletes of yesteryear.

[abarkley]

Jack is the greatest

[rudyfink]

I think Jack is the greatest but Tiger has many years in front of him. By the time Tiger goes to hang up his bag, he may, unquestionably, hold the title as the best to have ever played the game.

[superskid]

My preference is to Jack now, but with many more years ahead of Tiger it is scary to think what he may be able to accomplish in the end.

[bg1856]

investment broker

[Yat_man]

Even though Tiger hasn't won as many majors as Jack has, he can pull off any shot at any time under any conditions and any pressure. No one else has been able to do that time after time on a consistant basis, which makes him the best golfer ever. Besides, the number of wins doesn't make someone better than another. What if Tiger died in a car wreck back in 2001 with just a few majors under his belt at the time? Would that mean that Lee Trevino is better than Tiger since he won more majors? No.

[G10_Jamie]

I am a Tiger fan but Jack seems to be what legends are made of!

Jamie

[Guest]

All depends on Tigers injury really, we shall find out.

[Bogey Man]

Tiger Woods seems to be more athletic. I don't know who is "better", but they both are fun to watch!

[cshelton]

I think if Jack and Tiger were in their prime in the same era the edge would go to Jack.

[halcon]

I haven't had the opportunity to watch Jack Nicklaus playing... On the other hand, Tiger Woods is very, very impressive (I watched him playing the 2008 US Open, again, impressive).
Because I don't have the elements to decide, I'll go with Lorena Ochoa , blood calls!

[Gone.Golfing]

Both about the same but i favor Jack right now because he is a legend. Once when tiger wins a few more majors Ill go for him but im going for jack right now.

[scott415]

That's a hard one as only just started getting into golf but I think Tiger is an amazing player

[iacas]

Something I saved from somewhere:

I just came to think of another thing: Many people attribute Woods' domination to the "fact" that Tiger's competitors are inferior compared to Nicklaus' competitors. Well, get this: Both Singh and Mickelson have won more tournaments this decade (24 and 22, respectively) than any single player won in the 80's and 90's COMBINED (Watson and Norman come the closest with 21 and 20, respectively). And both have more career Tour victories than Nicklaus' two best opponents in the early 70's, Lee Trevino and Gary Player. I know, damn lies and statistics, but I just get more and more awed at Tiger's record the more I think about it.