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

[JustAKid]

I say Tiger because I am only a teen so I didn't see him play at all really, I only saw highlights from back then. Also I saw Tiger with his knee all busted up beat Rocco Mediate and I thought that was real tough challenge for him.

[NormH3]

I haven't read all the posts here, but I don't think you can compare the two. Equipment and courses have changed since Jack was in his prime.

I often wonder if the better golfers today would be able to play at the same level 45 years ago.

[misty_mountainhop]

both eratic drivers, both quality pressure putters - but for utter brilliance and a far better technical golf swing - my vote goes to Tiger!!

Vote Tiger by all means but "utter brilliance and a far better technical golf swing"???? By whose yardstick? Nicklaus' Masters in '86 wasn't "utter brilliance"? At 46 years old? As for swing technique, Tiger's is soo good that he bust his leg and damaged his knee ligaments. What works best for one isn't best for the other; they both had excellent swings as their results would tend to suggest.

I haven't read all the posts here, but I don't think you can compare the two. Equipment and courses have changed since Jack was in his prime.

Exactly.

I often wonder if the better golfers today would be able to play at the same level 45 years ago.

Would be interesting but I suspect the best from any era would still be winners wherever you drop them off from your time machine.

[richieb]

Tiger has changed the game of golf and the popularity of the sport on a global scale. He has done wonders for the game. Palmer, Watson and Nicklaus all did a lot for the game of golf but nowhere near what Tiger has done. I guess its the evolution of sport. Someone after Tiger will have a great impact on the game as well in due time.

richieb

[Blades4me]

Tiger has changed the game of golf and the popularity of the sport on a global scale. He has done wonders for the game. Palmer, Watson and Nicklaus all did a lot for the game of golf but nowhere near what Tiger has done. I guess its the evolution of sport. Someone after Tiger will have a great impact on the game as well in due time.

No offense, but I take issue with your post. What has made Tiger is the media. If the media had been as prying and obsequious as they are now Jack and Arnie would be even more idolized. It was Arnie that brought golf to the "common man" initially, not Tiger. Many ppl are very impressed with the way Tiger can work the ball and he does a very good job of it. However back in Jack and Arnies day, EVERYBODY worked the ball; today not so much.....and working the ball with a balata ball is a whole lot different from how easy they are to work today, comparatively.

This isn't to say Tiger isn't a great golfer b/c he is. All the greats have and will continue to elevate and bring things to the game, thats just progress. And as others have pointed out, comparing era's is the same as comparing apples and oranges. Some examples,,,,,,,,,When interviewed Jack said when he was playing he was just trying to win touraments to put food on the table. He went on to say if he knew there was going to be such an emphasis on winning majors he would have concentrated on that more, but again, it was a different era and he was trying to raise a family, (BTW, back then on the tour it was no where as laied as it is now; Barbra Nickalus should really be recognized for what she did b/c it was a major reason why Jack was able to focus on winning touraments) . OTOH, Tiger grew up with a picture of Jack in his bedroom with the full intent on beating his record. As you may know, it is easy getting to the top and very difficult to staying at the top. Both have done that well. I'm not trying to take anything away from Tiger b/c he has earned it, as did all the rest in the past. But to say he is the greatest golfer, IMO is a misnormer; but if you are looking for something like that review Babe Zaharis biography--now there was a very impressive individual, again, IMO. And thats my .02 cents---play well

[unoiron]

I think they are both great but not the greatest.

I agree. In 1953 when Hogan won the Masters, US, and British Open, he didn't even have the opportunity to play in the PGA because at that time it was played in the same week as the British.

Hogan played in way fewer majors than Jack, averaging around two per year over his shortened career, and his still won 9. This was also at a time when there was less of an emphasis on majors. The games best golfers routinely skipped majors - something that never happens today.

[very handicap]

Tiger rocks.

[MrMunkey]

Probably Tiger. I was watching him play today and he was a total beast. Like a machine programmed to win, how can you beat that?

[ffredrikk]

Haven't seen so much from jack so I'll stick with tiger.

[R7Player]

Jack is so much better than Tiger.
Jack was bigger and stronger than
TW. He had dead vision. He was
phenomenal putter. He focuses better
and is not annoyed by the crowd.
TW comes up short. If TW were a lawyer
he might get my vote. Dont forget Bobby Jones.

[richieb]

Jack is so much better than Tiger.

Ummm....Jack was bigger and stronger than TW? You're kidding right? Tiger Woods is the most athletic golfer to ever play in the PGA! I don't think good old Jack could bench press 350 lbs like Tiger, nor was his swing speed as fast as Tiger's.

richieb

[Ckw200]

I'm just getting into golf, I wish I had a lot sooner. Me and my dad went to the 3rd round Tour Championship in ATL today. pretty awesome, I got to see Tiger, Padraig, Els, and O'hair up close so that was pretty cool

[unoiron]

Tiger can't bench press 350 lbs. That's nonsense.

[Smiffy]

As players?
Too close to call.

In all other respects?
Jack, by a country mile.

[max power]

Tiger can't bench press 350 lbs. That's nonsense.

There is absolutely no way that he

can't bench press 350. I hoisted 300 last year and I wasn't even in spitting distance of the shape Tiger is in.

[scarsaint]

Just got into golf a couple of years ago so i cant really speak on jack but i love watch tiger play power and grace combined beautiful to watch

[sonicblue]

As players?

You must be kidding me, right? You're trying to diss Tiger as a person? I don't know either of me enough to even truly present an valid argument, but my personal opinion, based on what I see? Jack is a pompous, arrogant old man, who seems to be doing a whole lot in the public eye to 'relive' his glory, in hopes of one day winning this exact debate. Meanwhile, Tiger is dismantling the record books, and if he has anything resembling longevity in his career, will hold every meaningful record there is.

Tiger has lived under a media scrutiny unparalleled ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, not even over LeBron James, and certainly not like anyone from Jack's time saw. Aside from fulfilling his golf potential, Tiger has put his inconceivable wealth to awfully good use. Jack had no such concerns until late in his career, he was not earning the fortunes modern golfers do while playing. The talk about Tiger not having the same competition is complete junk. There are plenty of golfers today with lots of wins who were 'supposed' to challenge Tiger. The problem is, he's not letting them. Mickelson, Harrington, Els, more?...all have multiple majors. Why not more? Because Tiger wins them! Sure, the CHIII's, Adam Scott's, et al, haven't risen up, but all of golf history is littered with guys who didn't do what we thought they would, just as all of history has people who are 'real damn good' but end up paling in comparison to the elite. I think it's a weak argument to claim that somehow, despite the same consistent process of the PGA Tour collecting THE best golfers in the world, to say the competition just isn't as good. The fact is, among the best golfers in the world, who all play the same (now long-ass) difficult courses, with the same modern technology and access to teachers and fitness, etc..., Tiger is beating them all, more than anyone ever has. Next year, Tiger WILL pass Jack for most wins, and probably Snead in 2011, and the odds are still HIGHLY in Tiger's favor to beat Jack's major wins. It is WELL within expectations (that's what Tiger does, he makes you expect him to win) to say Tiger will end up with 100 wins and 20 majors. End of debate, c'mon, seriously.... Further, let's look at Tiger's "claw into it" factor, which is his ability to - if not win - get REAL close. In his career, Tiger has won 28% of his starts. Going only through 1986, Jack won only 16% of his starts. Tiger comes in 3rd or better more than 45% of the time; Jack 36%. Think about that, when Tiger steps on the course Thursday, he's nearly just as likely to finish in the top THREE as not. Phil's (currently the only guy that seems to repeatedly come up as Tiger's modern challenger) 50/50 mark comes almost at the top 25! Heck, Tiger's nearly a 2:1 favorite to finish in the top 10 (65%)! And consistency? Tiger has a season of 9 wins, 8 wins, two 7's, a 6, a bunch of 5's... Jack's two best years ever were 7 wins each, then a handful of 5's and then maybe 4, 3, 2... Tiger's 71 wins are over 14 years; Jack's 73 took him 25 years. And this just isn't about winning, it's about command of the game. Tiger was 5th in sand saves this year, 1st in scrambling, 7th in driving...he's a complete player, not just someone who overpowers a course. And mentally? I know Jack was supposedly real 'intimidating,' but did Jack have - literally - thousands of people watching EVERY single one of his shots, not to mention countless cameras, galleries swarming him at every turn? And, just for good measure, I give Tiger the "oh, and I'm built like a Greek god" award, too. Maybe five years ago this was up for debate. I just don't think there's any doubt anymore. Maybe if Tiger collapsed and never won another tournament, maybe....but c'mon, that won't happen. Jack's best three years were 1971-1973, where he won 19 times, the he fell off fast. Only two wins in 1974, got five in 1975, but only 21 total wins from 1974 through 1986. Discounting 2008 (where he won four of six!), Tiger's won 21 times in his last three full years, and it could be argued it's not even his peak. So, either he's headed toward a peak (holy cow, the thought...) or he HAD his peak already, and his "non-peak" years will continue to grab 4, 5, 6 wins per year. Given his conditioning, there won't be a physical dropoff for quite a while and, if anything, his mental strength will likely carry him until, and beyond, such a thing.

[goblue107501]

Excellent post sonic!!!

I was going to put together something along the same lines but you saved me the time. You did forget one thing. You always hear this with regards to Jack: "Well, he finished 2nd in 'x' amount of majors". My response, so what. They only thing finishing second means is that you (he) didn't win. To quote Ricky Bobby, "if you're not first, you're last".

Maybe the whole debate is moot anyway. We are trying to compare a completed career, to a career that is maybe half over. Think about that for a minute. We are comparing an all time great to someone who is about halfway done. That right there tells me that Tiget is greater. We can acutally compare stats and results even though Tiger has played waaay less than Jack did. And he is on the verge of catching everything Jack accomplished in much less time.