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

[supr4]

That is actually incorrect. According to simple market anaylsis the poll only includes individuals with (1) internet access and (2) members of this site.

My conclusion is correct based on polls also taken elsewhere. It is the general consensus of other golf forums. I have done my research. Have you? If Jack is in our era he will probably be beaten by a number of PGA Top 50 pros. I will say Phil, Vijay and contemporaries would have better records than Jack. Jack has fewer number of golfers with natural athletic ability in his era to compete against. Furthermore golfers in Jack's era come from a narrow spectrum of the socio-economic strata. The challenging courses nowadays will negate the advantages of better golfing equipment etc. P.S. Tiger has over 75.43 % overwhelming support amongst almost 2000 pollsters here. Jamie Foxx you must be Blind

[raycharles]

My conclusion is correct based on polls also taken elsewhere. It is the general consensus of other golf forums.

This is by far the most ridiculous rant of all time. Where do I begin? Who's going to compete against Jack in your Top50, Y.E. Yang? Yang throttled your boy by the way. I didn't realize that socio-economics entered this debate. Jack is the greatest, period. Until Mr Woods beats his records. Then Tiger will be the best, its that simple. Ohh....let me ask you this....what happens if Woods never wins another tournament?

[iacas]

Yang throttled your boy by the way.

And Nicklaus never lost a major, or gave up a final-round lead?

Until Mr Woods beats his records. Then Tiger will be the best, its that simple. Ohh....let me ask you this....what happens if Woods never wins another tournament?

One could argue that if Tiger retired he'd be the greatest because he won his majors at a faster pace, and he's already surpassed Nicklaus' win total.

I'm not saying I'm making that argument, just that it could be made.

[raycharles]

And Nicklaus never lost a major, or gave up a final-round lead?

Nicklaus is also the all time leader in Top 10's, Top 5's and Top 2's in majors by a landslide. Its not even close.

If Woods never won another tournament, he would not surpass Jack as the all time greatest. Whether Woods won his majors at a faster pace is an incorrect way to view record keeping. Sam Snead won 35 tournaments after the age of 40. Should they not count? How does "fastest to" even entertain a thought in this discussion. Jack played against a savvy group of "all time" great players. Woods plays against good players, perhaps one or two of golf's best, but NOT all time best. Jack's equipment was far inferior to modern equipment which simply makes the players during the 60's-80's far better ball strikers. They didn't have the convenience of swing videos, mentalists, and dieticians. They smoked, drank, and ate rare steaks with Cohibas. Oh yeah, and they had to take their balls out of play after three holes because they went out of round! Remember those days you 40 plus golfers? Out of friggin round??? Hahahahahah! Todays balls are ridiculous! Far superior to balls just 10 years ago. Now I play a ball for a round, if it doesnt get too beat up! Today's players have access to technology (all of us have access to) that is completely incomparable to the latter. IF Woods has trouble with his swing plane he flys Butch Harmon into the tournament to look at his swing? Come on, are you friggin kidding me? It all gets back to the wins and majors. Woods does not have them, he is not the greatest, simply stated. When Woods wins the number of majors as NIcklaus, he will be the greatest golfer that ever lived. For now, he is just the greatest of this generation.

[iacas]

Nicklaus is also the all time leader in Top 10's, Top 5's and Top 2's in majors by a landslide.

Finishing second is stupid. Tiger likely couldn't care less about Jack's record for #2 finishes in majors.

If Woods never won another tournament, he would not surpass Jack as the all time greatest.

In your

opinion. To claim it's fact is foolish. Some others still say Bobby Jones is the greatest ever, and a lot of that has to do with how quickly he won the majors he did win before he retired.

Jack played against a savvy group of "all time" great players. Woods plays against good players, perhaps one or two of golf's best, but NOT all time best.

Another opinion. Some believe that if Nicklaus played today he'd have won less majors. Deeper fields for one. And some people believe that today's competitors are not only deeper, but stronger at the top.

Since there's no way to prove any of that, it's an opinion.

Jack's equipment was far inferior to modern equipment which simply makes the players during the 60's-80's far better ball strikers.

Huh? Jack's competitors were using the same equipment. Many point out that better equipment narrows the gap between the elite player (Woods) and the guys further down the list (his competitors), so I never understood people who cite "better equipment" as reasons why Jack is "better." Tiger would probably have already passed Nicklaus if they were playing the old equipment.

They didn't have the convenience of swing videos, mentalists, and dieticians. They smoked, drank, and ate rare steaks with Cohibas. Oh yeah, and they had to take their balls out of play after three holes because they went out of round!

See above. That doesn't support your theory. Tiger's competing against finely tuned athletes (and is one himself), while Jack competed against a bunch of drunk guys who had no idea what their swing looked like and played with out-of-round balls. Yeah, that's a real good argument for Jack there!

IF Woods has trouble with his swing plane he flys Butch Harmon into the tournament to look at his swing?

You must be. I really doubt he's flying Butch Harmon in from anywhere since, oh, 2002 or so...

I left out more of your "better technology" stuff. It really doesn't help your case.

[goblue107501]

Nicklaus is also the all time leader in Top 10's, Top 5's and Top 2's in majors by a landslide. Its not even close.

You are comparing a career that is over to one that is not even half over. Of course the guy who has played more years than the other guy has been alive will be the leader. And if I have to hear about all seconds in the majors I think I will puke. 2nd is no different than 12th or 22nd except that you get more money. I hate to quote Ricky Bobby but "If you ain't first, you're last"

If Woods never won another tournament, he would not surpass Jack as the all time greatest. Whether Woods won his majors at a faster pace is an incorrect way to view record keeping. Sam Snead won 35 tournaments after the age of 40. Should they not count? How does "fastest to" even entertain a thought in this discussion.

The discussion is that Tiger is at a point that he is argued as the best golfer ever, and he is halfway through his career. Think about that for a minute. The guy who some say is the best ever has almost equal wins to the guy who others consider the best, and he has played in half the tournaments in half the time. Mind boggling if you think about it.

Jack played against a savvy group of "all time" great players. Woods plays against good players, perhaps one or two of golf's best, but NOT all time best.

Some would say that those 'all time' greats were only great becuase there were not more to choose from. Today we have probably 100 guys in the world capable of winning a tournament on a given weekend. Were there even 100 guys that played pro golf 30 years ago?

Jack's equipment was far inferior to modern equipment which simply makes the players during the 60's-80's far better ball strikers. They didn't have the convenience of swing videos, mentalists, and dieticians. They smoked, drank, and ate rare steaks with Cohibas. Oh yeah, and they had to take their balls out of play after three holes because they went out of round!

The courses were also inferior to match up to the equipment. 30-40 years ago a 7000 yard course would be considered impossible. Now it is considered short. I can guarantee you that if you ask any of those 'great' players from 40 years ago, any of them will tell you that even with today's equipment, Augusta National is a much harder course than it used to be. As the equipment has evolved, so have the courses. A good ball striker is a good ball striker, regardless of the equipment. And the guys today take the ball out of play after 2 or 3 holes. Not sure what the point is there. The balls are better sure, but they could use a new on every hole if they wanted to. I am sure no one is paying for them.

Remember those days you 40 plus golfers? Out of friggin round??? Hahahahahah! Todays balls are ridiculous! Far superior to balls just 10 years ago. Now I play a ball for a round, if it doesnt get too beat up!

I would happily play today's balls. Would you rather play with two dozen balls over a month becuase they don't last, or play with a dozen balls for a month? I played the balata balls. They were great balls, but you couldn't use them for a whole round. I have a friend who doesn't lose balls and saw him play 36 holes with the same ball. Not sure what the point is here. Not having to use 6-8 balls in a round is a good thing.

Today's players have access to technology (all of us have access to) that is completely incomparable to the latter. IF Woods has trouble with his swing plane he flys Butch Harmon into the tournament to look at his swing?

True, but that is just part of the evolution of the game. Everybody does it, so it is a level playing field.

It all gets back to the wins and majors. Woods does not have them, he is not the greatest, simply stated. When Woods wins the number of majors as NIcklaus, he will be the greatest golfer that ever lived. For now, he is just the greatest of this generation.

Fair enough, nothing wrong with that thinking.

[plumcrazy]

Tiger will be the best ever regardless of everything else said

Jack missed 19 wins for major by less than 3 shots

What about Bobby Jones?

[Kristoffer]

Jack had tougher compettion and won 18 majors but even more unbeliveable he finished second something like 15 times!!

Don´t see how you can say that the competition was tougher during Jack's days. I would say that the competition never been tougher than it is today.

[Bastid]

Jack was great but Tiger is without a doubt the most dominant player of all time.

[Baglgolfer]

Wondering.....
Did Jack ever get a DUI? Hmmmm

[Josh1369]

i guess im not old enough to remember much about jack so i gotta go with tiger

[Lemay427]

Wondering.....

When did Tiger get a DUI?

[goblue107501]

Wondering.....

When did Tiger get a DUI?

And what would it matter if he did? Doesn't take away anything he did on the course.

[sean_miller]

I was going to vote for the best golfer of all time, but Young Tom Morris, Bobby Jones, and Annika Sorenstam aren't on the list. Regarding who "is the man", that's Tiger. I pefer Jack, my all time favourite is a tie between Seve and Tom Watson. I voted for Tiger.

[Vance87]

Wondering.....

You're pretty dumb, aren't you.

[tiger_woods_wannabe]

tiger is like michael jordan transending the game he plays

[JetFan1983]

Wondering.....

Did Jack ever play under the scrutiny of 21st century media? Was golf even that much of a main stream sport during his time?

Would Tiger beat Jack every single time heads up? Hell no. But I do think he would win more times than he would lose.

[walk18]

You're pretty dumb, aren't you.

When has tiger ever had a DUI?