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

[JWL1957]

Count all the stats, and talk about how conditioned todays players are all you want. It has little to do with winning. When Tiger started winning, his competition wilted away because they couldnt handle the pressure.......Love, Els, etc. etc. etc. Take a look at Jacks rivals major wins compared to Tigers era. Phil has how many..... 4?


Jack's era :




Player (9)
Palmer (8)
Trevino (6)
Seve (6)
Watson (8)
Floyd (4)
Casper (3)
Irwin (3)

[iacas]

Count all the stats, and talk about how conditioned todays players are all you want. It has little to do with winning. When Tiger started winning, his competition wilted away because they couldnt handle the pressure.......Love, Els, etc. etc. etc. Take a look at Jacks rivals

Pointless stat that's been discussed tens of pages ago, as many of those players won a lot of their majors outside of Nicklaus's prime years. Also, it speaks to the depth of the modern tour versus how shallow the tour was in the 60s and 70s.

And sonicblue, what was the point of that? What's any of that stuff have to do with answering the question about who's the greatest golfer?

[sonicblue]

It was an attempt to put to rest the argument where people try to bring character into this. I thought that article emphasized exactly how little we knew athletes on a personal level before, and we hear way too damn much know (and still know too little).

[bogie]

Post 1: Woods vs. Nicklaus--Majors results

Woods' 14 wins (Age 22 -35):
97 Masters Woods -18, Kite -6; 99 PGA Woods -11, Garcia -10; 00 US Woods -12, Els/Jimenez +3; 00 British Woods -19, Els/Bjorn -11; 00 PGA Woods wins playoff over May; 01 Masters Woods -16, Duval -14; 02 Masters Woods -12, Goosen -9; 02 US Woods -3, Mickleson E; 05 Masters Woods wins playoff over DiMarco; British Woods -14, Montgomerie -9; 06 British Woods -18, DiMarco -16; 07 PGA Woods -8, Austin -6; 08 Woods wins playoff over Mediate.

Woods' 2nds (4)
05 US Campbell E, Woods +2; 07 Masters Z. Johnson +1, Woods/Sabbatini/Goosen +3; 07 US Cabrera +5; Woods/Furyk +6; 09 PGA Yang -8, Woods -5.

Nicklaus 18 wins (Age 22 - 46):
62 US Nicklaus wins playoff over Palmer; 63 Masters Nicklaus -2, Lema -1; 63 PGA Nicklaus -5, Ragan -3; 65 Masters Nicklaus -17; Palmer/Player -8; 66 Masters Nicklaus wins playoff over Jacobs & Brewer; 66 British Nicklaus -2, Sanders/Thomas -1; 67 US Nicklaus -5; Palmer -1; 70 British Nicklaus wins playoff over Sanders; 71 PGA Nicklaus -7, Casper -5; 72 Masters Nicklaus -2, Mitchell/Weiskopf/Crampton +1; 72 US Nicklaus +2, Crampton +5; 73 Nicklaus PGA Nicklaus -7, Crampton -3; 75 Masters Nicklaus -12, Weiskopf/Miller -11;75 PGA Nicklaus -4, Crampton -2; 78 British Nickalus -7, Kite/Crenshaw/Floyd/Owen -5, 80 US Nicklaus -8, Aoki -6; 80 PGA Nicklaus -6, Bean -1; 86 Masters Nicklaus -9, Norman/Kite -8.

Nicklaus seconds (13)
60 US Palmer -4, Nicklaus -2; 65 PGA Marr -4, Nicklaus/Casper -2; 67 British DeVicenzo -10, Nicklaus -8; 68 British Player +1, Nicklaus/Charles +3; 71 Masters Coody -9, Nicklaus/Miller -9; 71 US Trevino wins playoff over Nicklaus; 72 British Trevino -6, Nicklaus -5/Jacklin -4; 74 PGA Trevino -4, Nicklaus -3; 77 Masters Watson -12, Nicklaus -10; 77 British Watson -12, Nicklaus -11; 81 Masters Watson -8, Miller/Nicklaus -6; 82 US Watson -6, Nicklaus -4; 83 PGA Sutton -10; Nicklaus -9.

Source: Golfobserver.com

[bogie]

Post 2: Nicklaus vs. Woods tour results (non-majors)

Nicklaus PGA Tour Results 53 wins (non-majors) age 22 - 38. 8 scoring titles.
1962 2 wins, 70.80; 1963 3 wins, 70.42; 1964 4 wins, 69.96 ; 1965 4 wins, 70.09 ; 1966 1 win, 70.58; 1967 4 wins, 70.23; 1968 2 wins, 69.97; 1969 3 wins, 71.06; 1970 2 wins, 70.75; 1971 4 wins, 70.08 ; 1972 5 wins, 70.23 ; 1973 6 wins, 69.81 ; 1974 2 wins, 70.06 ; 1975 3 wins, 69.87 ; 2 wins, 70.17 ; 1976 2 wins, 70.17 ; 1977 3 wins, 70.36; 1978 3 wins, 71.07.

+2 non-major tours wins after 38 for a total of 55 wins.

Woods PGA tour results 57 (non-majors) age 22 - 35. 9 scoring titles.
1996 2 wins, N/A; 1997 3 wins, 69.10; 1998 1 win, 69.21; 1999 7 wins, 68.43 ; 2000 6 wins, 67.79 ; 2001 4 wins, 68.81 ; 2002 3 wins, 68.56 ; 2003 5 wins, 68.41 ; 2004 1 win, 69.04; 2005 4 wins, 68.66 ; 2006 6 wins, 68.11 ; 2007 6 wins, 67.79; 2008 3 wins, N/A; 2009 6 wins, 68.05 .

When both players at the same age (35) Woods has 57 non major wins to Nicklaus's 45.

Source: wikipedia

[bogie]

Part 3 Analysis:

1. Career Value (non-majors)
At the same age (35) Woods already has 12 more wins than Nicklaus and has 9 scoring titles to Nicklaus' 8.

2. a. Career Value (majors)
At the same age (35) both players have 14 wins. Nicklaus had 4 major wins after 35. If a golfer's prime is between 30 - 39, can Woods get 5 wins in the next 4 seasons? Will Woods' body hold up in his 40s to get that 1 last win like Nicklaus did at age 46 @ 1986 Masters?

b. Contending vs dominating

Nicklaus won 6 of his 18 majors by 3 shots or more (33%).
Woods has won 7 of his 14 majors by 3 shots or more. (50%)

Woods has 4 seconds in his career.
Nicklaus had 13 seconds in his career.
(By seconds, within 2 strokes of the winning score)

c. Peak value (top 3 seasons)

Nicklaus
1963 5 wins, 2 majors, 70.42; 1972 7 wins, 2 majors, 70.23 ; 1975 5 wins, 2 majors, 69.87 .

Runner-ups: 1963 Masters Lema, 1972 Masters Mitchell/Weiskopf/Crampton, 1972 PGA Crampton, 1975 Masters Weiskopf/Miller, 1975 PGA Crampton.

All of Nicklaus wins in his best seasons were by 2 shots or less. Poor Bruce Crampton got nosed out 3 times by Nicklaus.

Woods
2000 9 wins, 3 majors, 67.79 ; 2002 5 wins, 2 majors, 68.56 ; 2006 8 wins, 2 majors 68.56 .

Runners-up: 2000 US Els/Jimenez, 2000 British Els/Bjorn; 2000 PGA May; 2002 Masters Goosen, 2002 US Mickleson; 2006 Masters DiMarco, 2006 PGA Micheel.

5 of 7 wins in Woods's best seasons were by 3 shots or more. Somewhat surprisingly it is May and DiMarco who gave Woods his staunches challenges those years.

Simply put, Nicklaus at his best was a more consistent contender at the majors while Woods is more dominant.

Strength of fields

All Woods can do is play against his contemporaries. When he does dominate, Woods should get the acclaim he does. When he's leading after 3 rounds, he's leaving to use NFL slang.

However close wins against top opponents also deserves credit and Nicklaus has 3: 1962 US playoff win over Palmer, 1975 Masters win over Weiskopf/Miller and 1986 Masters win over Norman/Kite/Ballesteros.

Conclusion

If Woods gets to 19, there is no question he'll be considered the best of all time. If he only gets 17, then he's second to Nicklaus. If they each have 18, then we have a heck of an argument.

This post hasn't even looked at the effect of technology on scoring, or whether Woods will pass Snead's 82 total wins.

It's a cop-out, but if this comparison were to use match play terminology Nicklaus leads 1 up with 3 to play .

[JWL1957]

If stats won golf tournaments, guys like Seve, Watson, and Mickelson would not have 18 majors between them. I was making my point about the competition in Jack and Tigers separate era's. Jack had 6-7 guys during his hey day that could stand toe to toe with him. Most every player who played against Tiger folded up before they got to the firt tee. I'm not knocking Tigers game, as we all know he's a great player. I am knocking his competition for folding up between the ears when they are paired with Tiger. There have been alot more players in Tigers era with comparable stats who wet thier pants when grouped with Tiger in the final day. It is laughable to say that todays players are better than 20 years ago..... when they cant bring thier superior swings to the majors. Stats cannot measure grit and determination.

[chrisronline]

Tiger is the best

[Dr. Manhattan]

If stats won golf tournaments, guys like Seve, Watson, and Mickelson would not have 18 majors between them. I was making my point about the competition in Jack and Tigers separate era's. Jack had 6-7 guys during his hey day that could stand toe to toe with him.

So what did you want them to do when he was making every putt at Pebble in 2000? I'm with Brad Faxon on this. When Woods was at his best, he would kick the hell out of the likes of Player and Watson too.

[max power]

If stats won golf tournaments, guys like Seve, Watson, and Mickelson would not have 18 majors between them. I was making my point about the competition in Jack and Tigers separate era's. Jack had 6-7 guys during his hey day that could stand toe to toe with him.

The fact that the talent pool was much smaller and a handful of superior players could dominate does not equal "grit and determination".

[max power]

So what did you want them to do when he was making every putt at Pebble in 2000? I'm with Brad Faxon on this. When Woods was at his best, he would kick the hell out of the likes of Player and Watson too.

Exactly. My heart is with Nicklaus, and if Tiger doesn't return to his 2000-2009 level of play then at the end of the day Nicklaus will remain #1. But the idea that Watson, Player, Trevino, or Palmer would have derailed Tiger

at his peak is ridiculous.

[golfro]

If stats won golf tournaments, guys like Seve, Watson, and Mickelson would not have 18 majors between them. I was making my point about the competition in Jack and Tigers separate era's. Jack had 6-7 guys during his hey day that could stand toe to toe with him.

yeah unfortunately, in a debate like this, stats mean everything.

like max power stated, 1. talent pool are much smaller. but 2, more importantly, the level of play at which Nicklaus and Tiger are playing may be very different. Sure Nicklaus dominated the tour during his era, but who's to say that the level of play on the tour hasn't increased over the year? Comparitively speaking, it just might be that some of the more ordinary PGA players are now just THAT much better...and Tiger is(was?) just that much better than the more ordinary PGA tour players. Now that undermines Nicklaus's success on tour so its a moot argument at best...but to say Nicklaus simply dominated multiple major winners isn't saying much either. Again...different era, different sport pretty much., different talent pool, different level of play. Apples / Oranges.

[max power]

Maybe we can all agree on this:

Top 4 (by era)- Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan, Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods

[Dr. Manhattan]

Maybe we can all agree on this:

Yep, and all 4 have pretty strong arguments for being the best ever.

[The Recreational Golfer]

Whenever I read the talent pool arguments, I think of last year's Boise State football team. They were really good, but since they played in the second worst Div I conference, we couldn't find out how good they were. Since Tiger and Jack will never play each other, we can have fun with the discussion, but puleeze, let's not think that anything definitive can be concluded.

I agree with max power's post if he means all we can do is say who was the best of a given era. That we have the stats for, and even then, it isn't an easy question to answer.

[birdiedream]

Name a single sport performance can be measured (running, high jump, long jump, swimming, ...etc.) that past athletes were better than today's athletes. Of course you can't. Larger talent pool, scientific training, and healthier/stronger people means that athletes of every sport get better.

That is why you don't hear that Jesse Owens was better than Usain Bolt. If there is no stop watch, I am sure a bunch of people would say Jesse Owens is still the best.

[Shorty]

Name a single sport performance can be measured

Cricket. Don Bradman.

[max power]

Cricket. Don Bradman.

No-a real sport...