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

[lewisgl]

I am not going to argue statistics too much since I haven't dug too awfully deep into them as it appears many have, so  will not get into that argument too much, other than to say in that in my opinion, the depth of talent is quite a bit greater now than it was 30 or 40 years ago..  There are good and bad arguments on both sides and a lot of folks are loyal to one or the other so much that they probably are not going to budge too much on their opinion. I didn't care for the comparison between Tiger and Fred Couples though, because Fred's back was so bad during his best years, that it probably made a significant difference on what he might have been able to do.    Both Jack and Tiger are/were such  great golfers and both deserve a whole ton of accolades for that.   They played in different eras and of course neither of the two had a choice which era they played in obviously.   I got to watch Jack play in his prime on TV a lot, and also have been fortunate to see Tiger a lot and try to keep an open mind on the argument as much as possible.  I am somewhat on the fence.   I say that Jack is the greatest right now because he has won more majors, but if one looks at the big picture and total body or work, Tiger could end up considered to be greater because of the total body of work, even if he doesn't win another major. Tiger has quite a bit of time left and still might possibly get 18 majors, but imho by the time Tiger's career is over, he will be considered the greatest and I don't say that easily because I absolutely admire Jack Nicklaus and what he has accomplished and contributed to the game. as many,  many do.   If Jack had a better short game like Tiger, he might have won another 4 majors possibly, but that us just conjecture at this point. Whether Tiger wins another major, who knows.  I think he probably will win at least one more, and if he wins one might win more.  Nothing this man does would surprise me at this point.   He is just amazing and has done some things that will probably never be duplicated, including his record as an amateur.  He could still win another 10 or 20 more tournaments in the next several years, including some majors.   If one looks at all the facts, even at 15 majors, a vey strong argument can be made for Tiger even right now, and it gets stronger every year.  The next several years are going to be a lot of fun to watch.

[bplewis24]

We should start a thread to see who is the Greatest of All Time, Jack or Tiger.

I would definitely like to see that thread so that people can have an opportunity to hash out their respective arguments.

[metrybill]

Great points and quote, too.  Thanks.  Jack is a very, very gracious Man, don't we all think.

Yes; the various iterations of the golf ball have ridiculously improved.  Because of that , The Game has been dumbed-down for the rest of us.

Players are more fit; but, make no mistake about it, Nicklaus was very athletic. Look it up.Nicklaus' "edge" was his mind, as  has been Tiger's. Phil, well, he finally caught on I think.

The money factor:  One could make the opposite argument.  In the "old days," players had to fight harder to make a living. Today, everyone in the top 125 makes a great living.

[Rikoshay]

tiger will never be as great as Jack.  Jack has morals, honor and integrity.  Tiger has demonstrated that he has none of the fore mentioned.  When he was caught cheating on his wife with all the hookers, he lied to everyone, on national TV, his family.  He has

been caught cheating twice on national tv, and even tried to get by with it.  According to his caddie Steve Williams, his quote was Tiger new what he was doing.  How can anybody in their right mind even compare the two.  Tiger has talent as far as hitting the golf ball, but even at that he doesn't have the touch that Jack has.  Tiger can hit the ball a long way, but when I was in my 20's I could hit the ball 350 plus with a wood 43 inch driver, but that didn't make me a great golfer, good, but not great like Jack.  These guys are heros to young people and how could tiger be a hero to anyone except to one of the hookers that was getting 10 grand for a little nookie, I'm sure he was a hero to them, a dumb one at that. I feel sorry for him, he has wasted a God given talent to be so much less of a man than Jack ever thought of being.  For those who voted for tiger, I pity anyone who can't see past hitting the long ball as being a great golfer.  It takes a lot of different character traits to be great.

Rikoshay

Caldwell Texas

[Zwick]

tiger will never be as great as Jack.  Jack has morals, honor and integrity.  Tiger has demonstrated that he has none of the fore mentioned.  When he was caught cheating on his wife with all the hookers, he lied to everyone, on national TV, his family.  He has

been caught cheating twice on national tv, and even tried to get by with it.  According to his caddie Steve Williams, his quote was Tiger new what he was doing.  How can anybody in their right mind even compare the two.  Tiger has talent as far as hitting the golf ball, but even at that he doesn't have the touch that Jack has.  Tiger can hit the ball a long way, but when I was in my 20's I could hit the ball 350 plus with a wood 43 inch driver, but that didn't make me a great golfer, good, but not great like Jack.  These guys are heros to young people and how could tiger be a hero to anyone except to one of the hookers that was getting 10 grand for a little nookie, I'm sure he was a hero to them, a dumb one at that. I feel sorry for him, he has wasted a God given talent to be so much less of a man than Jack ever thought of being.  For those who voted for tiger, I pity anyone who can't see past hitting the long ball as being a great golfer.  It takes a lot of different character traits to be great.

Rikoshay

Caldwell Texas

Jack Nicklaus will never be as great as Mahatma Gandhi. Sure he probably was a bit better on the golf course, but off the course was Gandhi way superior. I can't believe you even consider Nicklaus in this discussion...

[Rikoshay]

Who is talking about Ghadi?

[jamo]

Who is talking about Ghadi?

Zwick is. (And for the purposes of further this discussion and not being too hard on a newbie: you're letting the perception that Jack was a better person off the course than Tiger color your views on their prospective abilities at golf. No one's saying that Tiger is all roses and butterflies - or Gandhi, in this case - but Jack wasn't either. When you give someone sainthood status in your mind, of course no one else is going to live up. You also overlook the good things that Tiger has done for kids/people, like working with his foundation and just generally growing the game of golf.)

[MS256]

tiger will never be as great as Jack.  Jack has morals, honor and integrity.  Tiger has demonstrated that he has none of the fore mentioned.  When he was caught cheating on his wife with all the hookers, he lied to everyone, on national TV, his family.  He has

been caught cheating twice on national tv, and even tried to get by with it.  According to his caddie Steve Williams, his quote was Tiger new what he was doing.  How can anybody in their right mind even compare the two.  Tiger has talent as far as hitting the golf ball, but even at that he doesn't have the touch that Jack has.  Tiger can hit the ball a long way, but when I was in my 20's I could hit the ball 350 plus with a wood 43 inch driver, but that didn't make me a great golfer, good, but not great like Jack.  These guys are heros to young people and how could tiger be a hero to anyone except to one of the hookers that was getting 10 grand for a little nookie, I'm sure he was a hero to them, a dumb one at that. I feel sorry for him, he has wasted a God given talent to be so much less of a man than Jack ever thought of being.  For those who voted for tiger, I pity anyone who can't see past hitting the long ball as being a great golfer.  It takes a lot of different character traits to be great.

Rikoshay

Caldwell Texas

I don't know either Jack or Tiger. I do know two people that knew Jack when he was playing and their stories don't exactly match public perception.

I voted for Tiger because I think he was a better golfer playing against a much larger worldwide talent pool. I don't put people I don't even know on a moral pedestal.

[bplewis24]

tiger will never be as great as Jack.  Jack has morals, honor and integrity.

Someday, I would seriously love to live in the world some of you live in for a few hours.  I imagine it's a lovely place, in your own mind.

[Rikoshay]

no the world is not a lovely place to live in, and knowing this first hand spending 12 years working all over the world does give you the perspective to understand this.  But the question

was who is the great of the two, and my point is that there is alot more to being great than just hitting the little white ball.  It just goes to show the narrow band of thought in most

people. It is my opinion and I am sticking to it.  I believe the game is about the integrity of ones self, calling a penalty on yourself when you could have gotten away with a little

slip in the rules, but having the fortitude to standup and be honest with yourself and the game, it takes character to do that, doesn't it?

[Rikoshay]

Your statement is out on a limb, because you don't know whether or not that I know Jack.  I have been involved and playing PGA since the early 70's.  I have sat and had drinks

on Arnies jet while sitting in Houston Intercontinental airport at AirResearch, so I know more people in the PGA than you might expect...........................

[turtleback]

Sorry, but you blew all possible credibility with the silly comment that Jack had touch and Tiger doesn't.  How anyone can argue that Jack, with a short game that ranged from average to mediocre, had better touch than Tiger, who is regarded as having one of the best short games in the game, if not of all time, is beyond me.

[boogielicious]

Sorry, but you blew all possible credibility with the silly comment that Jack had touch and Tiger doesn't.  How anyone can argue that Jack, with a short game that ranged from average to mediocre, had better touch than Tiger, who is regarded as having one of the best short games in the game, if not of all time, is beyond me.

I thought he lost all credibility due to the horrible spelling, grammar, punctuation, and sentence formatting.  If you want to be taken seriously, spend more than 30 seconds spewing your thoughts out on a forum you just joined @Rikoshay .  Also, nothing you wrote was original.  If you had taken time to even browse the previous 221 pages, you would have known this.

[iacas]

I thought he lost all credibility due to the horrible spelling, grammar, punctuation, and sentence formatting.  If you want to be taken seriously, spend more than 30 seconds spewing your thoughts out on a forum you just joined @Rikoshay.  Also, nothing you wrote was original.  If you had taken time to even browse the previous 221 pages, you would have known this.

Though I agree with all of that, @Rikoshay 's point is valid: some people want to consider more than just the golfing prowess in determining who is "greatest."

I'm not one of those people - I don't care what they do off the golf course for the most part because I know next to nothing about what that truly is (both have been nice guys the times I've talked to them) - but they're out there. It's wrong, @Rikoshay , to say that everyone MUST consider things outside of golf, for they are golfers, so that's a valid way of determining an answer.

[Ernest Jones]

But the question was who is the greater of the two, and my point is that there is alot more to being great than just hitting the little white ball.

See now here is where you've lost the point, and to be fair a LOT of posters in this thread have wandered down the same path, which is the main reason we have so many pages. In this case we are secifically speaking about greatness in COMPETITIVE GOLF, so actually, there is nothing more to it than just hitting the little white ball. Yes, you can throw in some intangibles like mental fortitude and creativity if you want but at the end of the day even those things don't matter beyond their influence on how well you are "hitting the little white ball".

[MS256]

Your statement is out on a limb, because you don't know whether or not that I know Jack.  I have been involved and playing PGA since the early 70's.  I have sat and had drinks

on Arnies jet while sitting in Houston Intercontinental airport at AirResearch, so I know more people in the PGA than you might expect...........................

You missed the point entirely. The point is not whether you know Jack or Tiger well enough to form an opinion on their character. It's that the opinion you form isn't necessarily the same as everyone else and shouldn't be stated as a fact.

There's not a thing wrong with having a different criteria than I do. Neither is right or wrong.

[Rikoshay]

Well it is clear that you don't encompass the whole of the game, just the mechanical, not the character and spirtual side of the game.  Your loss

[turtleback]

Well it is clear that you don't encompass the whole of the game, just the mechanical, not the character and spirtual side of the game.  Your loss

We really didn't need you to make that clear, as the point has been made within the 4000 posts of this thread and accepted by some and rejected by others.  But that is your opinion, not a fact- you won't get very far around here trying to palm off your opinions as fact.