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

[JWL1957]

I hope the young kids coming out today ..... take a good look at Tiger and realize how quickly things can go bad when you lead the double life of deceit. He screwed his family, friends, business partners, and the fans. And now he wants to be left alone? Screw him. He's getting exactly what he deserves. I know this is harsh........ but he hurt alot of people.

[hattrick]

I never really got to see Jack play so it's tough not to be biased towards Tiger. His accomplishments on the course certainly speak for themselves. the off course garbage has ruined that aura he had though imo. I'll still enjoy watching him but it doesn't seem quite the same.

I do think eventually he will get that 19th major to pass Jack, but his legacy is sadly tainted whereas Jack will always be seen as a great golfer/person - Tiger we may just see as a great golfer.

[cigarsmoke23]

Tiger, of course. Haven't you heard of "tiger proofing" a golf course. That pretty much means that he is that good. Almost reminds me of the "jordan rules" that the piston implemented against MJ back in the day

[BigMikey]

Jack - It's just got to be.
1) Jack is actually Tiger's idol / mentor
2) Jack has way more class than Tiger
3) Jack's instinct took him farther with the game where Tiger's was pure athleticism and we can see that now he'll fade out quickly.
I'm even going to state here and now that he won't break Jack's record at the masters.... ever!!!

[rduncan1216]

I never had the opportunity to watch Jack play (other than highlights on TV from his matches and tourneys) so I guess it's a bit hard for me to judge. I do hope that Tiger can turn things around, if only to make things interesting again.

[PuttPutt]

in terms of raw talent, Tiger has it.. he's way above his contemporaries however they tried to take him over. I think this question is not fair because a lot of us didn't see Jack play and they are not in the same era. with that I think Jack is still the greatest but Tiger is just a couple of steps behind.

[Golf Guru]

Yeah i never really got to see Jack in action, but no matter what Tiger has done outside the game he is an outstanding golfer and im sure will definitely be the best of all time.

[golfandcoffee]

For me Tiger, i hope he gets his stuff together.

[ejewels]

I would go Tiger on this one...

[TheDoctorReal]

I would love to see Jack vs. Tiger when they were both in their prime!

[Golf]

Tiger, in terms of golf. In life, most definitely Jack.

[MagnusW]

I don't know Jack that well, so I have to say Tiger.

[chef35ca]

Jack.

I'll even throw out the inferior equipment claim & put them on a level playing field that way.

over the course of this 25-year period of 100 major championships as a professional, Nicklaus finished either first or second 36 times, in the top three 45 times, the top five 54 times, and the top 10 67 times.

That's a lot of really decent placings. & this is before fulltime swing gurus, mental health professionals & personal trainers following these golfers around on chartered jets & million dollar buses(or 30 million dollar yachts, eh Tiger?).

& honestly, i vote for charisma too. Jack is possibly the classiest pro athlete we've ever been witness to. & i'm Canadian & grew up watching Wayne.

Wilt Chamberlain's quote-"Greatness is marked by consistancy."

[iacas]

I'm constantly amazed by the number of people who think Jack (and Jack's peers) playing with lousier equipment elevates Jack's status. In reality, it elevates Tiger's.

[dbuck]

Jack.

+1 Several of those 18 seconds were pretty close, too.

I also tend to discount the equipment. The irons Tiger plays are not that different from blades of the last 30 years. If Tiger played persimmon, I think he'd still be long--at least if he can regain his prime form. He frequently practices with a persimmon driver or so I've heard. I'd like to see how Tiger's overall performance in majors stacks up--Jack's 18 seconds is pretty impressive. But for a few shots, he could have 36 majors.

[olkev]

+1 Several of those 18 seconds were pretty close, too.

You are right about the irons. Tiger's musclebacks very much resemble the MacGregor Limited Editions & Muirfield 20ths that Nicklaus played with in the 80's. Prior to that he played the 1966-67 VIP's which was a muscleback as well. As far as persimmon is concerned, you have to remember that the standard length of a persimmon driver then was 43". That is two inches shorter than today's standard and they were steel shafted with a shaft weight around 120gms. That means a heavier club with a swing arc that is shorter, resulting is less clubhead speed and therefore less distance, at least theoretically.

The biggest difference is in the ball being played today. Nicklaus played the Tourney ball which was junk, but even a Titleist balata ball of that time, which was THE dominant ball of that era too, still does not compare to the performance of today's golf ball; very high spin. The dimple pattern alone on the ball compared to today's ball is laughable. Today's ball is so long it is rendering championship tour courses of days past obsolete for many of today's tour venues.

[iacas]

The point about equipment is this: Jack's peers played the same equipment. Tiger's peers play the same equipment.

Better equipment has a leveling effect. It's elevated Tiger's peers in ways that Jack's peers didn't have.

To say "equipment" is a factor is to lean towards favoring Tiger, as his competitors have better equipment which has brought them up - relatively - a few levels.

[olkev]

The point about equipment is this: Jack's peers played the same equipment. Tiger's peers play the same equipment.

That is true. The problem lies in the fact that everybody wants to play the "fantasy tournament" in their minds and wonders what it would be like for the two of them in their prime to go head to head. The argument being made is that if you were to take Nicklaus in his prime, give him today's equipment, and put him up against Tiger today, Nicklaus would beat him. It's that simple; and he probably would, IMHO.

So many on this thread have put Tiger on this pedestal, by their own admission, simply because they grew up with him and never saw Nicklaus play, much less any of the competition that Nicklaus beat, and it was strong. They discount Nicklaus' second and third place finishes in the majors which combined with his outright wins is something that cannot be overlooked. The simple fact of the matter is this: If you never saw Nicklaus play, you just don't know how good he was.