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

[GaryH]

Originally Posted by RollTide

FWIW, Tiger hasn't drove the ball as straight as he has this year for an entire season since 2002 (pre Hank Haney).

Glad to hear he finally seems to be working it out.  It's been too long.  Way too long for such an incredible player.

[mosnas]

I have to say Tiger, putting aside the amount of wins how many majors what the field was like all that shannanigans I look at one point.  Tiger can get it done when it counts.  Jack wasn't quite capable of making the charge that Tiger does, as well he didn't strike fear into every player he played with or competing.

As far as skill wise the debate will probably always go on unless tiger wins 5 more majors.  But as far as who is the Greatest it is tiger.

[Elvisliveson]

Originally Posted by mosnas

I have to say Tiger, putting aside the amount of wins how many majors what the field was like all that shannanigans I look at one point.  Tiger can get it done when it counts.  Jack wasn't quite capable of making the charge that Tiger does, as well he didn't strike fear into every player he played with or competing.

See, this is the type of unsubstantiated post that drives me absolutely nuts. Not capable of making the charge that Tiger does? Ever hear of the 1986 Masters? Or, how about the FACT that Tiger has NEVER won a major when trailing after 54 holes, while Jack did it EIGHT times?

[ajst22]

I think Tiger is better, but Nicklaus is more of a legend. Tiger had more wins in a shorter period of time, but I like Nicklaus better (though I never grew up in his time either)

http://beyondtherough.blogspot.com/2012/05/question-always-asked-will-tiger-ever.html

This is a blog post of mine that is related to Tiger, and how good he is. 

[Zwick]

In the not unrealistic case that Woods wins 20 more regular PGA Tour events but only 2 of them are Majors (and lets say something like 8 WGCs) , would that place him ahead of Nicklaus?

He would have won significantly more than Nicklaus, but fall short in terms of Majors. And most of his regular wins would be in important and big tournaments (the WGCs).

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by Zwick

In the not unrealistic case that Woods wins 20 more regular PGA Tour events but only 2 of them are Majors (and lets say something like 8 WGCs) , would that place him ahead of Nicklaus?

He would have won significantly more than Nicklaus, but fall short in terms of Majors. And most of his regular wins would be in important and big tournaments (the WGCs).

The answer is no. Majors are the ultimate judge of greatness in golf.

[Hoganwoods]

Tiger is the better golfer, but Nicklaus is the better champion.

[newtogolf]

I'm curious from all the guys that watched Jack play if he had era's like Tiger had the Harmon, Haney and now Foley era.  Did Jack make the drastic changes to his swing during his career like Tiger has?

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by mosnas

I have to say Tiger, putting aside the amount of wins how many majors what the field was like all that shannanigans I look at one point.  Tiger can get it done when it counts.  Jack wasn't quite capable of making the charge that Tiger does, as well he didn't strike fear into every player he played with or competing.

As far as skill wise the debate will probably always go on unless tiger wins 5 more majors.  But as far as who is the Greatest it is tiger.

I agree with you about Tiger being the greatest, but you are dead wrong about Jack.  He definitely struck fear in the hearts of his competitors when he went on the prowl on Sunday.  The definitive example was the '86 Masters but there were many others.  As Tom Weiskopf once said, "You knew he was going to beat you, he knew he was going to beat you, and he knew that you knew that he was going to beat you."

Originally Posted by MSchott

The answer is no. Majors are the ultimate judge of greatness in golf.

Only for those who lack critical thinking skills.  And a complete ignorance of golf history.  Jack is the only player in all of golf history who was considered the best player because of the number of majors he won.  It was not "the" criterion until he lobbied for it to be the criterion.  Before Jack had the most majors no one thought that the previous leader in major wins was the greatest of all time.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I'm curious from all the guys that watched Jack play if he had era's like Tiger had the Harmon, Haney and now Foley era.  Did Jack make the drastic changes to his swing during his career like Tiger has?

Not really.  He would tweak his putting set-up or make little changes, but no large scale swing overhauls.  Very late in his career he worked with Phil Rodgers to get some semblance of a short game but that was more of an addition to his game than a modification.

[newtogolf]

I had read Jack's book and he never made any reference to swing changes once he turned pro, but I wasn't sure.  Tiger has lost at least four years due to swing changes not including his injuries and personal issues which shouldn't be counted against Jack, but does factor into Tigers overall accomplishment.

Originally Posted by turtleback

Not really.  He would tweak his putting set-up or make little changes, but no large scale swing overhauls.  Very late in his career he worked with Phil Rodgers to get some semblance of a short game but that was more of an addition to his game than a modification.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I had read Jack's book and he never made any reference to swing changes once he turned pro, but I wasn't sure.  Tiger has lost at least four years due to swing changes not including his injuries and personal issues which shouldn't be counted against Jack, but does factor into Tigers overall accomplishment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

Not really.  He would tweak his putting set-up or make little changes, but no large scale swing overhauls.  Very late in his career he worked with Phil Rodgers to get some semblance of a short game but that was more of an addition to his game than a modification.

Nicklaus rebuilt his swing in 1980. It's detailed in his book "The Full Swing". You should read it - it's awesome.

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Only for those who lack critical thinking skills.  And a complete ignorance of golf history.  Jack is the only player in all of golf history who was considered the best player because of the number of majors he won.  It was not "the" criterion until he lobbied for it to be the criterion.  Before Jack had the most majors no one thought that the previous leader in major wins was the greatest of all time.

Rather rude of you to phrase it this way. Let me be more clear, as apparently I lack critical thinking skills I had better do so. In the modern game, and I'll define it as the era since Jack dominated which is the last 50 years, winning majors has been the standard of excellence. Gary Player, Tom Watson, Arnold Palmer, Sir Nick Faldo, Jack and now Tiger measure there careers by their major victories.  Arnold never won another major after his loss to Casper at Olympic and it clearly bothers him as he has said numerous times. He was never the same player. We all know that Greg Norman was a phenomenal golfer but he will never be considered in the same class as Faldo because he only won 2 majors. And wasn't it a big deal for Nicklaus to break Bobby Jones number of major wins?

[Pa Pa Jack]

I lived through Arnie's best years and throughout all of Jack's pro career. Jack IS the one that brought forth the idea that majors were HIS idea of how he would rate his career. Until that time, they were considered a bonus to a career and not the identifying determination.

I think Tiger is the best ever. If you stack up the competition of the time, the depth of the fields was nowhere near as strong during Jack's prime. I remember someone did some research about most of the tournaments of the 1950 thru 1980 era and noted that an average tournament had less than 12 competitors under par at the end of the competition.

Jack had few serious rivals throughout most of his career. There were probably only about 5 or 6 at any one time that could honestly contend with him week in and week out.

I agree though that Jack is by far a more complete champion. Tiger doesn't seem to have the personality outside the ropes. It's a shame. But the real problem is that the game today is more about business and endorsements than it is about the game itself. We will never see the camaraderie overall that used to be there. We still see it to some extent on the European tour, But even there it is diminishing. I have some hope for the latest group of young players. They really seem to enjoy each others company and do seem to socialize more outside the ropes.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Nicklaus rebuilt his swing in 1980. It's detailed in his book "The Full Swing". You should read it - it's awesome.

Thanks, I'll check it out.  I didn't remember that from his biography but sometimes not everything gets into the book or I just didn't remember.

It might be a little off-topic but if you remember any of the details could you give a quick summary of what he changed?

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by MSchott

Rather rude of you to phrase it this way. Let me be more clear, as apparently I lack critical thinking skills I had better do so. In the modern game, and I'll define it as the era since Jack dominated which is the last 50 years, winning majors has been the standard of excellence. Gary Player, Tom Watson, Arnold Palmer, Sir Nick Faldo, Jack and now Tiger measure there careers by their major victories.  Arnold never won another major after his loss to Casper at Olympic and it clearly bothers him as he has said numerous times. He was never the same player. We all know that Greg Norman was a phenomenal golfer but he will never be considered in the same class as Faldo because he only won 2 majors. And wasn't it a big deal for Nicklaus to break Bobby Jones number of major wins?

So John Daly (2 majors) goes ahead of Tom Kite (1 major)?  We ignore the many many ways that Kite's career was better?  Lee Jantzen was greater than Tom Kite?  Including being the leading career money winner for much of the latter portion of his career?  Neither of these is even remotely debatable, IMO.  Faldo (6 majors) goes ahead of Mickelson (4 majors), even though Mickelson has so many more Tour wins?  This one is debatable and I think I could make a good argument either way.

And your original statement wasn't qualified by limiting it to the last 50 years.  So one could also ask if Peter Thompson (5 majors - some of which were when the British Open was a 2nd rate event)) was greater than Vijay Sngh (3 majors)? (not even close)

I may have been a little harsh, but, anyone who adopts one single measure based solely on less than 20% of the events players typically play is not utilizing judgment.  It isn't a soundbite world and soundbite statistics don't determine anything.  The real world is considerably more complicated than boiling anything down to one number.

It is like saying who is the greatest hitter in baseball?  Bonds has the most HRs but the Bambino has the best ratio of HRs to ABs and had a lifetime BA that was 40 pts. higher than Bonds'.  Pete Rose has the most hits, but Ty Cobb had a much higher lifetime average.  But neither of them had many HRs.  So do we just roll over if someone says lifetime HRs are all that count so it is Bonds?

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by turtleback

So John Daly (2 majors) goes ahead of Tom Kite (1 major)?  We ignore the many many ways that Kite's career was better?  Lee Jantzen was greater than Tom Kite?  Including being the leading career money winner for much of the latter portion of his career?  Neither of these is even remotely debatable, IMO.  Faldo (6 majors) goes ahead of Mickelson (4 majors), even though Mickelson has so many more Tour wins?  This one is debatable and I think I could make a good argument either way.

And your original statement wasn't qualified by limiting it to the last 50 years.  So one could also ask if Peter Thompson (5 majors - some of which were when the British Open was a 2nd rate event)) was greater than Vijay Sngh (3 majors)? (not even close)

I may have been a little harsh, but, anyone who adopts one single measure based solely on less than 20% of the events players typically play is not utilizing judgment.  It isn't a soundbite world and soundbite statistics don't determine anything.  The real world is considerably more complicated than boiling anything down to one number.

It is like saying who is the greatest hitter in baseball?  Bonds has the most HRs but the Bambino has the best ratio of HRs to ABs and had a lifetime BA that was 40 pts. higher than Bonds'.  Pete Rose has the most hits, but Ty Cobb had a much higher lifetime average.  But neither of them had many HRs.  So do we just roll over if someone says lifetime HRs are all that count so it is Bonds?

MSchott's point is still valid, turtleback. You did it with me & now you're doing it with him. You're attacking the poster rather than the post, by inferring those that don't think like you 'lack critical thinking  skills.'

I know you hate having 18>14 tossed out there...'It's more complicated than that!"

Only if you want it to be.

In other words, only if you believe the one with 14 is the best.

Those of use that believe the one with 18 is still the best aren't 'lacking' anything. We just disagree with you.

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by turtleback

So John Daly (2 majors) goes ahead of Tom Kite (1 major)?  We ignore the many many ways that Kite's career was better?  Lee Jantzen was greater than Tom Kite?  Including being the leading career money winner for much of the latter portion of his career?  Neither of these is even remotely debatable, IMO.  Faldo (6 majors) goes ahead of Mickelson (4 majors), even though Mickelson has so many more Tour wins?  This one is debatable and I think I could make a good argument either way.

And your original statement wasn't qualified by limiting it to the last 50 years.  So one could also ask if Peter Thompson (5 majors - some of which were when the British Open was a 2nd rate event)) was greater than Vijay Sngh (3 majors)? (not even close)

I may have been a little harsh, but, anyone who adopts one single measure based solely on less than 20% of the events players typically play is not utilizing judgment.  It isn't a soundbite world and soundbite statistics don't determine anything.  The real world is considerably more complicated than boiling anything down to one number.

It is like saying who is the greatest hitter in baseball?  Bonds has the most HRs but the Bambino has the best ratio of HRs to ABs and had a lifetime BA that was 40 pts. higher than Bonds'.  Pete Rose has the most hits, but Ty Cobb had a much higher lifetime average.  But neither of them had many HRs.  So do we just roll over if someone says lifetime HRs are all that count so it is Bonds?

You are right that majors are not the sole measure of a golfer but in the last 50 years it's THE measurement of the greatest players. If you question that you are just being stubborn. For example, Phil Mickleson is generally considered the second best golfer in his era. If he never wins another major he will be on a level slightly below Sir Nick Faldo and alongside Raymond Floyd and maybe Seve but if he goes on to win 3-4 more majors he'll be ranked with Palmer, Player and Watson and among the greatest ever.

[x129]

It has been a long time since I read Jacks books but I thought it was more of a tweak (to swing flatter) to get back to how he used to swing the club.  I consider that different than what Tiger is doing but yeah no one swings the same way for 25 years.

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Nicklaus rebuilt his swing in 1980. It's detailed in his book "The Full Swing". You should read it - it's awesome.