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

[turtleback]

Two different points, Jack defining most majors as the metric to compare golfers greatness is a personal opinion, it's not for him or Tiger to define the metric.  It's no different than Barry Bonds claiming he was the GOAT because HR's should be the metric in baseball.

Jack's comments about the fields they competed against are based on his observations on and off the course.  He's qualified to make the comments because he's played against and watched the current pro's enough to make such a determination.  Jack may be acting a bit humble in this case or not factoring equipment sufficiently into his position.

Jack as an "expert" witness could testify to the quality of the fields they both played against but only give opinion on what he thought the metric for GOAT should be.

Actually Jack DID address the equipment issue.  His point was that the advances in equipment made it harder for the best players to distance themselves from the rest.

Even more unfortunate to my mind than the impact of equipment advances on our finest courses is their contribution to the homogenizing of the players. Simply put, the more forgiving the tools, the tougher it becomes for the best to rise above the rest. - Jack Nicklaus (emphasis added)

Which of course makes it even more remarkable for someone to dominate to the extent that Tiger then proceeded to do.

Maybe this has already been pointed out but I can conceivably see some one checking both boxes in the poll.

Tiger is the Man - check...but Jack is my favourite - check.

I think the 'my favourite' part is what clouds the issue for many of the posters in this thread.

But the poll asked for greatest:  greatest <> favorite

Probably my favorite golfer in all of golf is Raymond Floyd, but I would never argue for him as being the greatest.

[Slice of Life]

but jacks win + 2nd place finishes is one of the most impressive numbers in all of sports and I think it has to be considered.

Nobody ever remembers who finished second at anything.
- Jack Nicklaus

[Machmood]

If we aren't taking into consideration 2nd places at majors then no one can bring up tigers cut streak. If 2nd place mean nothing, making the cut is. . . Well still nothing

[Slice of Life]

If we aren't taking into consideration 2nd places at majors then no one can bring up tigers cut streak. If 2nd place mean nothing, making the cut is. . . Well still nothing

I agree. Both moot when talking about the GOAT.

Cut streak? Wow, so you were consistently in the top "half"...big deal (I know it actually is but...shouldn't be used in the GOAT discussion).

[k-troop]

I agree. Both moot when talking about the GOAT.  Cut streak? Wow, so you were consistently in the top "half"...big deal (I know it actually is but...shouldn't be used in the GOAT discussion).

I disagree--it's all relevant. Win total, majors, and other big championships are the biggest factors for me. After that comes scoring titles, win percentage, win streaks, multi-win seasons, etc. The cut streak is so good because it shows a level of play over such a long period of time. It wouldn't really factor if we were comparing 30 cuts made for Jack vs 35 for Tiger. But 140 cuts in a row is a really big accomplishment. Many consider it one of Tiger's greatest. Jack's seconds in Majors are also huge. 6 runner up finishes not a big deal, but 19 is a different story. Again they're not factored like a win, but they matter. BTW Tiger also gets credit for winning a US Open on a broken leg. Talk about Hogan winning after his accident, but he didn't win while playing on a broken leg and wincing from excruciating pain on nearly every shot.

[Hacker James]

Erik, can you please build a time machine so we can put an end to this debate?  We'll organize a match between '75 Jack and '00 Tiger.

This might help, just something I scribbled down

Well , MVMac actually something similar has already been done. Do you remember the computerized "Marciano vs Ali" fight? Or even "There's a tear in my beer" thing with Hang Williams Jr and his dad. Of course, its not the same thing, but for a simple comparison, it might be interesting. Kinda like an old "Shells Wonder World of Golf" with Tiger dubbed in.

[Machmood]

Is it crazy to say jack had the greatest career of all time, but if it was one round, jack in his prime vs tiger in his I'm most likely taking tiger

[k-troop]

Is it crazy to say jack had the greatest career of all time, but if it was one round, jack in his prime vs tiger in his I'm most likely taking tiger

How about this scenario: Jack and Tiger, both in their prime, playing in the penultimate group on Sunday at the US Open. They both trail the leaders, Tom Watson and Phil Mickelson by 2 shots. Who wins between Jack and Tiger, and who wins the Open? (Obviously not Phil because it's a US Open.)

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Machmood

Is it crazy to say jack had the greatest career of all time, but if it was one round, jack in his prime vs tiger in his I'm most likely taking tiger

How about this scenario: Jack and Tiger, both in their prime, playing in the penultimate group on Sunday at the US Open. They both trail the leaders, Tom Watson and Phil Mickelson by 2 shots.

Who wins between Jack and Tiger, and who wins the Open? (Obviously not Phil because it's a US Open.)

Phil will be Phil - 'nuff said.  Jack will charge to take the lead on 16.  Watson will chip in for birdie on 17 to tie for the lead, then miss a 4 foot par putt on 18 to fall to a tie for second with Phil.  Tiger will spray a couple of tee shots into the 6" US Open rough, make bogies, and ends up in 4th.  Jack hits a magnificent 1 iron from 240 to 8 feet on 18 - holes the birdie putt and wins by 2.

[iacas]

How about this scenario: Jack and Tiger, both in their prime, playing in the penultimate group on Sunday at the US Open. They both trail the leaders, Tom Watson and Phil Mickelson by 2 shots.

Who wins between Jack and Tiger, and who wins the Open? (Obviously not Phil because it's a US Open.)

I have a sense for where you're going and if I'm right I'd call that a leading question based on the likely possibility that you'd like to use Tiger's lack of come-from-behind wins.

He won so many of his majors by being ahead that he may very well have won them trailing by one or two on Sunday morning, too, but we'll never know.

Who is the better golfer: the one who wins 14 majors by the age of 37 coming from two back in every final round, or the one who wins 14 after leading after Saturday's play? To me, the latter speaks to consistency, while the former says more about the players who couldn't hang on to the lead (because it's not like the former is shooting 63 every Sunday to overtake someone who is playing well but not lights out).

Jack's lesser competition also played a good role in his ability to come from behind a few times. Probably about as often as Tiger's over-caution has thwarted situations in which he wasn't that far out of it entering play Saturday but failed to gain or lost ground (this has been a more recent problem).

[Harmonious]

How about this scenario: Jack and Tiger, both in their prime, playing in the penultimate group on Sunday at the US Open. They both trail the leaders, Tom Watson and Phil Mickelson by 2 shots.

Who wins between Jack and Tiger, and who wins the Open? (Obviously not Phil because it's a US Open.)

Woods shoots even par, because he can never come from behind to win a major.  Nicklaus figured he needed to shoot 69 to win, and does so. Mickelsen is leading by one going into 18, hooks his drive into the trees, takes a bogey for 71. Watson sinks his birdie putt on 18 for 70 to win by one.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by k-troop

How about this scenario: Jack and Tiger, both in their prime, playing in the penultimate group on Sunday at the US Open. They both trail the leaders, Tom Watson and Phil Mickelson by 2 shots.

Who wins between Jack and Tiger, and who wins the Open? (Obviously not Phil because it's a US Open.)

Woods shoots even par, because he can never come from behind to win a major.  Nicklaus figured he needed to shoot 69 to win, and does so. Mickelsen is leading by one going into 18, hooks his drive into the trees, takes a bogey for 71. Watson sinks his birdie putt on 18 for 70 to win by one.

Really?  Watson wins on his putter?  Have you been watching him the last 20 years?  Putting is easily the worst part of his game.

[k-troop]

I have a sense for where you're going and if I'm right I'd call that a leading question based on the likely possibility that you'd like to use Tiger's lack of come-from-behind wins.

He won so many of his majors by being ahead that he may very well have won them trailing by one or two on Sunday morning, too, but we'll never know.

Who is the better golfer: the one who wins 14 majors by the age of 37 coming from two back in every final round, or the one who wins 14 after leading after Saturday's play? To me, the latter speaks to consistency, while the former says more about the players who couldn't hang on to the lead (because it's not like the former is shooting 63 every Sunday to overtake someone who is playing well but not lights out).

Jack's lesser competition also played a good role in his ability to come from behind a few times. Probably about as often as Tiger's over-caution has thwarted situations in which he wasn't that far out of it entering play Saturday but failed to gain or lost ground (this has been a more recent problem).

Fair, but several opinions have been posited here about who wins head-to-head, one round.  The answer to that question is, I think, "it depends."  In the championship match at the World Match Play or US Am, I take Tiger and don't look back.  In the scenario I presented I take Jack.  In Shell's Wonderful World of Golf, WGAF?

And I think the scenario I listed is great because it presents lots of the marginal arguments about each player:  most people would pick Tiger in any head-to-head scenario, Jack has more majors, Tiger can't come from behind in majors, and it incorporates the level of competition from the two eras.

[Harmonious]

Really?  Watson wins on his putter?  Have you been watching him the last 20 years?  Putting is easily the worst part of his game.

We're not talking NOW, we are speculating when these guys were in their prime. And, in his prime, there was no one better than Watson at fearless putting.

[Machmood]

I was torn on how much to weigh the never came from behind aspect but after thinking about it in think its a symptom of a bigger problem. Tiger doesn't handle adversity well. When things aren't going his way he doesn't seem to rise to the occasion. When talking about an all time great in anything this trait is usually at the top of the list. Last time he handled adversity well was in the amateur when he came back from a huge deficit to win. Ya he's great and won some tournaments when a few things didn't go his way but when he is really up against it he doesn't seem to shine. Is this a huge deal, idk maybe. I think tiger would beat jack in his prime, only problem is jack would thrive in this scenario, would tiger be able to close the deal?

[iacas]

And I think the scenario I listed is great because it presents lots of the marginal arguments about each player:  most people would pick Tiger in any head-to-head scenario, Jack has more majors, Tiger can't come from behind in majors, and it incorporates the level of competition from the two eras.

I think that's where people get it wrong, and where the stats can be misleading: Tiger likely can come from behind in majors, he just hasn't had to yet (and he's still gotten to 14). Jack had to more often. Also, Tiger might have started the day with the lead in all of his majors, but he's been behind in a few of them at various points in time.

In other words, I don't see the point in one-round "matchups." Rich Beem won a major in a one-round matchup after all. So who would win with those players? Billy Casper. That's my answer. :-)

P.S. Tiger won a U.S. Open played over 91 holes with a broken leg. He's returned to win, what, 10 times or whatever since his fire hydrant thing and people saying he'd never win again. I think he can overcome adversity just fine.

[k-troop]

So who would win with those players? Billy Casper. That's my answer. :-)

Back on topic please.  If you want to start a thread about why Billy Casper is the goat, please go ahead.

[iacas]

Back on topic please.  If you want to start a thread about why Billy Casper is the goat, please go ahead.

Uh huh.