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

[OrlandoTrader]

Tiger Woods career is nowhere near being over so obviously I'm going to go with Tiger, also because he is from the Orlando area. ;)

[LeviTee]

Hard to say, give Jack Tiger's equipment in his prime and see.

[Joeyk1415]

Tiger is better, no one can beat out the mental game.

[ragontona]

I decide to stop in to The Trap and this argument's STILL going on. It's been going on for years. Awesome.

[whitetiger94]

I wasn't alive at jack's prime so I go with tiger being the greatest golfer, also tiger can rip it further, has a better short game, and he's a built athlete, what else is their to say?

I wasnt alive when Jack was at his climax either......but i still think he was the best golfer to ever walk the fairway. He has more majors than any other golfer in the pga currently.

[woronoff]

I think there is deeper field of players today. Very hard to compare the two head to head

[tfauss]

definitely tiger.

[chef35ca]

I think there is deeper field of players today. Very hard to compare the two head to head

PGA Championship

Don Massengale Don January-1967 Julius Boros-1968 Masters George Archer -1969 Billy Casper-1970 British Open 1970&71-Trevino 1972-Weiskopf US open Johnny Miller-1973(Nicklaus palmer trevino tied for fourth...) Hale Irwin-1974 Pga championship Davis Love 3-1997 Vijay-1998 Masters Olazabel-1999 Vijay-2000 British open Duval-2001 Els-2002 US Open Furyk-2003 Goosen-2004 I don't know about deeper fields. That's a random smattering of majors from both their eras & it's pretty diverse. Also, if you look at the leaderboards for those years it's apparent how much talent there was behind the winners. So in Jack's era, when you look down the list you see weiskopf, miller, watson, palmer, trevino, snead, irwin, etc. Those are some pretty heady names to have on a top ten/twenty behind you. Tigers era, mickelson, els, vijay. Sometimes furyk, goosen, sergio(ok i'm just being mean...). I could look at it a couple of different ways. The field could be conceivably deeper these days, or the top players are complete headcases who cannot finish for more than a season or two at a time. It seems like theres a more consistant group in Jacks era in & around the top ten/twenty. & they're all regarded fairly highly in the ranks of golf elite. But that's the field. & this about Jack vs Tiger. Really until Tiger passes Jack's records there's no contest. People said Jack was the greatest. Then Tiger came along & everyone wasn't so sure anymore. Until a couple of years ago Michael Jordan was pretty much the undisputed greatest basketball player ever as well. But now there's Kobe & people aren't so sure anymore. Just wait 20 years. "Jack was good, & Tiger was alright, but JB is the undisputed greatest!"

[Mattplusness]

Not having been alive during Jack's reign, I have to go with Tiger. Seems when he is on his game, nobody can stop him. The only thing that seems to screw with him is off the field shenanigans that he has to put up with.

[rickaltman]

Tiger is more dominant, Jack more complete. Moreso, since Tiger's troubles off the course.

[Thwak-Thwak-Ting]

Tiger.

Jack came first. Tiger came second.

Tiger is better.

[JMcDonald]

Tiger is a beast!!! Jack is also but I am a huge Tiger fan.....I think they both share a common ground, on the course that is...;)

[weetikveel]

Well.. Tiger rules, my favorite. Although Jack can play those iron's insanely well.

[Zeph]

Hard to say, give Jack Tiger's equipment in his prime and see.

Don't forget to give all the other players of his time the same equipment.

I suppose talent was more important before, without the high tech equipment available today. Balls, clubs, swing speed, club speed, trackman, high speed video. I would say it is easier to get good at golf today, but of course that goes for everyone, which makes it harder again to compete in the top. You see players on the tour today that is there almost only on talent, with a swing not honed by cameras. You also got players that use a lot of equipment to their benefit. Earlier, you didn't have this equipment, so those with the talent and ability to play good golf had an advantage over those who didn't.

[burns]

Jack, and I'm not just talking about golf.

ETA: I thought that Watson's performance in the Brit. Open last year would silence those who argue that competition is tougher now. I was disproved; idiots remain idiots regardless of empirical evidence. Imagine, one of Jack's rivals outplaying Tiger and all the other youngsters minus one, at the age of 60, and some folks still think Tiger has tougher competition.

MOST of the idiots who thought Tiger was a "good guy" still think he's a good guy. It should have been obvious since around 1996 (US Am playoffs vs. Steve Scott).

[James_Black]

Jack, and I'm not just talking about golf.

One good day doesn't make a summer.....

fair play to watson, he did well at his specialty. Links golf in bad weather. But tiger would kill him even the way he is playing at the moment at any other course. Tiger DOES have tougher competition. Back then there was only a few guys playing on tour. Now you've got thousands of pro's all over the world trying their best to get on tour. Only a few of those people make it to the top and that's who Tiger has had to face to get his 14 majors.

[VinoGolfer]

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

Actually, if each of their peers played the same equipment, peer wise it is a wash. Say Jack's equipment = X and Tiger's = Y. So Jack, and all of his competition, would have the co-efficient of X and for Tiger and his cohort, Y. Basically, if each set has it's own similar equipment, it impacts each set equally.

[burns]

One good day doesn't make a summer.....

Yes, it is hard to play consistently, day to day, for an entire summer, WHEN YOU ARE 60 YEARS OLD!!! I'm curious, how old are you?

I'm not saying it means everything, I'm saying it means A LOT, over the course of four days. The fact that Watson can come back, as a "part-time" golfer and full-time OLD GUY and hang with the best in the world for four straight days at the age of 60 is absolutely huge, ON ANY COURSE! And he isn't even Jack Nicklaus. Your arguments that "back then there were only a few guys on tour" and that "now there are thousands of pro's all over the world trying their best to get on tour" are the typical arguments always used to make your point. I hear you. However, there WERE quite a few players trying to get on, and win tournaments back then, and the best still rose to the top. It's not like the 1975 Masters was a club championship. Additionally, many would argue that overall the older generation of players were mentally tougher and attitudinally superior to many of today's tour "prima donnas". Tiger's intimidation factor is huge because as far as mental toughness, he is a giant, and in regular tournament play and playoffs, world-class players often and obviously wilt like drying daisies in his presence (where are the "battles" of Nicklaus' era?). I'm not going to regurgitate the typical arguments by those who agree with my point of view. I would just offer this idea: Go out and play one round of golf with a set of irons and balls from Nicklaus' era. Just one round. Even if you have done this before, say 10 years ago, try it now. Leather grips, crappy steel shafts so comparatively poor that they easily bend and snap over the knee, sharp/straight blades with zero/negative bounce and comparatively crappy grooves, tiny persimmon woods, an "L" putter, and those ridiculous wound balls that cut and deform upon impact or get surface tearing when someone like Jack hit them 300 yards on the screws (he then had to hit that deformed ball in to the green and putt with it), etc. etc. etc. Then think about this; Tiger Woods' low score in the Masters is 18 under; Jack's is 17 under. ONE STROKE separates those records over the course of four days and around 270 shots. After playing that round with Jack-era equipment, you tell me how many strokes you think Tiger gained on Jack, due to equipment, and nothing more (we won't even go into superior course conditioning, health/dietary/fitness technology improvements, Lasik, computer club fitting etc.). 32 years separates 17 under and 18 under. I have to wonder, not just how Tiger would have done with Jack-era equipment, but how Jack would have done had he had those advantages. One stroke? I think Tiger's advantage is worth more than that. I realize this is just one example, from one tournament. This is just one way to try and compare. Heck, Hogan was 14 under in 1953, and I think that was after the bus wreck. There is a temptation to think that one's own generation is superior, especially since technological innovation makes today's players LOOK superior to yesterday's legends. Golf is a foremost a mental game. As for this discussion, the size of the field of POTENTIAL contenders throughout the world isn't what is important. This is a discussion about the greatest golfers of all time. What matters is the size of the field in terms of ACTUAL contenders who could post a challenge to Tiger or Jack. Jack had to fight off legendary players on a regular basis, and those guys didn't just fall apart when he stepped up to the tee for a playoff.