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

[jamo]

Only flaw with that argument is we have no control over history, whether we like it or not. Unfortunately, it's the media that controls everything. The media dictates who's the best and who isn't, in particular 50 years down the road when most of us aren't alive.

IMO, that's an antiquated way to look at the relationship between sports fans and the sports media. Now more than ever we can encourage the media. You can talk to writers on Twitter and Facebook, vote in polls like the SportsNation ones ESPN does, you can start a blog, you can participate in forums like this. People get more historical knowledge from Wikipedia - a site that anyone in the world can edit - than any other source. You can literally write the history books. We're at the point where we don't have to believe that the people in the media know more than us, because quite often they don't. [quote name="ChrisP" url="/t/2203/jack-or-tiger-whos-the-greatest/4260_30#post_979403"]They go by numbers.[/quote] And increasingly by smart numbers. Not just looking at 18>14. We don't look at Cy Young's win record of 511 and assume he was twice as good as Greg Maddux at 355. Young didn't have to pitch against Black, Hispanic, or Asian players, or players from small towns. He only faced a dozen teams. Players used bats that were too heavy, they didn't know how to train in the offseason, and they wouldn't hear of steroids for another half-century. We've gotten increasingly good at not looking at one single stat and assuming that person is the best. We'll realize that Tiger's overall record is closer to Jack's than 18>14 would indicate. [quote name="ChrisP" url="/t/2203/jack-or-tiger-whos-the-greatest/4260_30#post_979403"]I don't get into the whole competition arguments because it's all opinion and can be argued either way. Yeah, the field is deeper today, no doubt, but there's no way to compare whether the top-10 of 1960 or 1970 was better compared to 2000 and 2010. Watson, Nicklaus, Palmer, Player and Trevino may be better than Tiger, Mickelson, McIlroy, Scott and Westwood. Who knows. While it was easier to be in the top-10 30 years ago, it didn't mean it was easier to win against some of the top competition.[/quote] There are statistical ways to compare eras, especially in terms of field depth. We can also go by what Jack has said, which can be viewed a few pages above.

[ChrisP]

I admire Jack Nicklaus. I'm a Nicklaus person and not a Woods person. However, in the history of sporting events (Warning: Dramatic statement to follow), Tiger's cut streak is one of, if not THE, most amazing feats. Tiger didn't play many Puerto Rico Opens. He made cuts against the best fields in the best tournaments. Jack only missed around 22 or 23 I think. Not bad either. I am just flabbergasted at how well Tiger was able to play, tournament in, tournament out, on Thursday and/or Friday against very stiff competition.

Agree. Goes back to my argument that there's two categories here....Greatest in his Prime and Greatest Career. I think Tiger in his prime is unmatched. I think Tiger in his prime against Jack in his prime, Tiger wins. But Jack still has the greatest career. Tiger has some work to do to beat it.

[ScouseJohnny]

It's far too simple a poll to make those sort of assumptions. As it stands it's like an exit poll on election night: did you vote for Candidate A or Candidate B?

Your question, as regards indicated preference of one golfer over the other, would require a lot more data to be collected along with the response itself, before it would be reasonable to conclude that one golfer is definitely preferred over the other by a majority of people. All you have at present is simple data stating which golfer is preferred by the majority of people who use this site and responded to the poll.

Just one factor, for example. If you're going to use data from a participant pool of respondees, you have to give some thought as to who is in that pool.

An example: I'm British and I was born in the late 1970s. Ask me to name the greatest Ryder Cup player of all time and I'll respond,"Colin Montgomerie." Now, that might be a wholly objective response, or it might be a partisan one. At the very least, the response has to be considered in light of the related demographic data.

This is all a bit long-winded, but I suppose what I'm saying is: Woods is by far the more contemporary of the two players (realistically, you have to be at least 35 or older to have even witnessed a Nicklaus major victory on television at the time it occurred. You'd have to be well in your 50s to have watched Nicklaus in his prime). The fact that Woods is a more recent player may well skew your results, especially if the majority of the responses are from younger people. Similarly, it could be the case that the votes for Nicklaus mostly came from site users aged 40+. Alternatively, it may be the case that there is no correlation at all between respondent age and preference for one golfer or another - but without the data to at least make those determinations it's impossible to say. One thing is apparent, though, with all due respect: you can't use the poll you have to definitely say that Woods is regarded by the majority of people as being a greater golfer than Nicklaus.

[KillEveryGopher]

There is no way too definitively answer how much Jack would have won today, of course, but I did see Jack in most of his prime and I have no doubt that his mental toughness, tremendous ability, and shot making skills would have him at least in double figures in majors in any era.

[ChrisP]

Quote:

We don't look at Cy Young's win record of 511 and assume he was twice as good as Greg Maddux at 355. Young didn't have to pitch against Black, Hispanic, or Asian players, or players from small towns. He only faced a dozen teams. Players used bats that were too heavy, they didn't know how to train in the offseason, and they wouldn't hear of steroids for another half-century. We've gotten increasingly good at not looking at one single stat and assuming that person is the best. We'll realize that Tiger's overall record is closer to Jack's than 18>14 would indicate.

And that brings up the point of equipment. How would Tiger do in Jack's days with their equipment and how would Jack do in Tiger's days with their equipment. That's why this argument, although fun to take part in, really could go on forever. There's just so many areas to debate and discuss and both sides have great arguments. Tiger's big argument is the competition and the total wins. Jack's big argument is the majors and he was able to win majors throughout his entire career, both on the front end and back end.

Now Tiger still has a lot of time to change all of this and win majors over the next 10 years. He may. I'm just going by the fact he'll never win another one because, well, I don't think he will. But my confidence level on that statement isn't very high. I just think both players were dominant in their eras, they both racked up tons of wins, but right now, Jack has more major championships, and even Tiger and Jack both have said that is the biggest barometer. I'll never forget Tiger Woods being asked by Mike Tirico (and I apologize if I don't have the exact quote but it's close) "Are you in your mind the greatest ever" and he said "No". Asked again what will make you the greatest ever, and he responded "18." Tirico responded "But what about all your other wins" and Tiger responded "18".

That just goes to show how much importance the majors carry. They are a huge deal.

[tmac20]

I'm not going to go into much detail but I think that in general, Tiger Woods > Jack Nicklaus. However, if we are strictly talking about majors, Jack Nicklaus > Tiger Woods. The stat that always amazes me is that not only does Nicklaus have 18 major wins, but he also has 19 major 2nd place finishes.

[iacas]

I disagree. I think half do, half don't. That's the perception I get.

I disagree with your perception, so, moving on…

Yeah, because this forum's the ultimate barometer and judge.

I meant to include "on this forum" after "… people". I'm not suggesting it's the ultimate barometer. But it certainly speaks to the opposite of what you maintain to be true. Many people feel Tiger is already the greatest. That's my only point there.

Most of us here haven't even seen Jack play in his prime...

Nor will have sportswriters in 50 years.

and in the end, it's the career that matters most.

And in the end, many if not most already feel Tiger's had the better career.

In the end, just like any other sport, it's about the big title. Tennis is a perfect example. Federer is being looked at as The GOAT because he has the most majors. The other small tournaments are important, but in the end, they look at the majors in tennis....unless you disagree with that?

If tennis is like golf, this doesn't help your case at all as Federer has BOTH: much stiffer competition and tougher fields (again, that's if it's like golf).

Tiger has eclipsed Jack in many, many, many things. And many people, even if you ONLY let them consider majors, STILL put Tiger ahead of Jack because his 14 were tougher to win than Jack's 18 (in their opinions).

I disagree that ONLY majors are considered. IMO, that's a pretty dumb way to consider things. Let me ask you this: If their careers ended today, who has had a better career of these golfers?

• Shaun Micheel
• Sergio Garcia
• Luke Donald
• Lee Westwood
• Steve Stricker
• Dustin Johnson
• Henrik Stenson

Majors count, but they're not all that counts.

But Jack has never said that the top-10 of today is better than the top-10 of 1960 and 1970. That can't be compared. There's no telling whether Phil and McIlroy are better than Player and Watson and so forth. Deeper field, yes. Doesn't mean if Jack weren't alive today, he couldn't win 18 majors, though.

Agree to disagree on that.

Jack competed against fewer than 10 guys that could win majors regularly. The guys today are competing against 100 guys that could win multiple majors if they could eliminate 93 of the other guys.

Of course the other guys look better in comparison. Arnie, Jack, Miller, Watson… they too only had to beat six or seven other guys, and one to five "hot" guys that normally kind of sucked. So it only makes sense that they too racked up a few more major wins.

Heck, Phil would have probably won five U.S. Opens if he played in the 50s-70s.

A third of the field in Jack's day was club pros. And yet, Jack missed cuts far more frequently than Tiger. That alone says Jack wasn't able to maintain a high level of golf throughout his career. Tiger's MC number dwarfs anyone else, especially those in the modern game.

And that brings up the point of equipment. How would Tiger do in Jack's days with their equipment and how would Jack do in Tiger's days with their equipment.

Jack would do worse in his day if everyone had great equipment. Better equipment is an equalizer. It makes it tougher for the better golfer to separate himself.

Jack has said exactly the same thing. Tiger is HURT by better equipment. The better players always are.

Now Tiger still has a lot of time to change all of this and win majors over the next 10 years. He may. I'm just going by the fact he'll never win another one because, well, I don't think he will. But my confidence level on that statement isn't very high. I just think both players were dominant in their eras, they both racked up tons of wins, but right now, Jack has more major championships, and even Tiger and Jack both have said that is the biggest barometer.

Again, we don't have to apply the same methods they use. We get to decide for ourselves.

If you prefer not to think, then great. You're done. 18 > 14 and you can be content in making the "right" choice. Congratulations! :D

[turtleback]

So you disagree that the game is measured by majors??? Maybe bring some insight instead of calling history a moron. Just like any other sport, it's about the championships...in golf, the majors. Peyton Manning and Dan Marino are the two greatest quarterbacks that I've ever seen and won a ton of games, but yet many see Tom Brady and Joe Montana as the GOAT over them because they have 7 combined rings between the two of them.

So prior to Jack you thought Walter Hagen was the GOAT?  If you did you were pretty lonely because almost no one did.  Yet by the criteria you advance he should have been .

Does the number of opportunities to PLAY in majors play a part?  Because Jack had lots more opportunities than guys like Vardon, Jones, Hagen, Snead, Nelson, and Hogan.  That is what makes Jack's claim that the only fair way to compare players across eras is majors so egregious and self-serving, since he had far more opportunities.  He is the only player in the history of golf who has ever been considered as the GOAT based on having won the most majors.

I just think in the long run, majors are the determining factor. Tiger and Jack both themselves have admitted it. Now it's one thing if Jack won the most majors but didn't win a lot of PGA events, but he's among the most in PGA wins as well and won a lot of different events.

See, Erik, this is why I keep fighting the good fight even though you claim that almost no one bases their opinion on 18>14.  The sad truth is that I cannot remember a single Jack supporter for GOAT who, when confronted with the overwhelming case for Tiger didn't end up having to fall back and rely on 18>14 (and maybe 19 second place finishes when they realize how weak 18>14 really is and need to buttress their bias for Jack - that and some of the newer nonsense we have seen such as their personal qualities and the golf courses Jack has designed).

And that brings up the point of equipment. How would Tiger do in Jack's days with their equipment and how would Jack do in Tiger's days with their equipment. That's why this argument, although fun to take part in, really could go on forever. There's just so many areas to debate and discuss and both sides have great arguments. Tiger's big argument is the competition and the total wins. Jack's big argument is the majors and he was able to win majors throughout his entire career, both on the front end and back end.

According to Jack, the improvements in equipment act to make it more difficult for the best players to separate themselves.  And despite this Tiger STILL managed to dominate professional golf to an extent never equaled before or since.  And let's not forget that Tiger absolutely crushed the golf world in his first major playing equipment not too dissimilar to what Jack played with for his career.  And was one of the very last players to switch to the more modern equipment.  Remember Phil's comment that Tiger was winning with sub-standard equipment?

If you prefer not to think, then great. You're done. 18 > 14 and you can be content in making the "right" choice. Congratulations! :D

You are still wrong in your claim, IMO,  that not many people base it on 18>14.  As I have maintained all along, without that criteria there is virtually no case to be made for Jack.  The very fact that he is still almost universally acclaimed (the poll here notwithstanding) as GOAT demonstrates that there are a huge number of people who, when you peel back the rationalizations of their bias for Jack, have to fall back on 18>14 as their only argument.  Just because you are rational and see that it is more complicate than 18>14 doesn't change the fact that almost everyone who ends up on the Jack side of the argument is hanging their hat on 18>14. @ChrisP is just the latest in a long line.

[iacas]

See, Erik, this is why I keep fighting the good fight even though you claim that almost no one bases their opinion on 18>14.

…

You are still wrong in your claim, IMO,  that not many people base it on 18>14.  As I have maintained all along, without that criteria there is virtually no case to be made for Jack. The very fact that he is still almost universally acclaimed (the poll here notwithstanding) as GOAT demonstrates that there are a huge number of people who, when you peel back the rationalizations of their bias for Jack, have to fall back on 18>14 as their only argument.  Just because you are rational and see that it is more complicate than 18>14 doesn't change the fact that almost everyone who ends up on the Jack side of the argument is hanging their hat on 18>14.  @ChrisP is just the latest in a long line.

To be fair, I don't think I ever said "almost no one."

And unless you want to get into a debate over what constitutes "many people," you can't prove the last part any more than I can. Except that I can point to the poll here, and will point out that you've thus far had to contend with, what, four or five people who seem to resort to 18 > 14?

At the end of the day, we both agree that it's a silly way to measure things, and I will note that it doesn't surprise me at all that the latest person to do so said things like "the media tells us what to think" (paraphrased). And you'll notice I keep fighting the fight too. :)

[iacas]

Your last post was deleted as malformed (I PMed you about it), but here's the executive summary of what my response would be:

• It's ridiculous, IMO, to consider only majors. And when you consider their actual "careers" then you start to run into trouble supporting Jack as the GOAT. Tiger's other numbers and stats blow Jack out of the water.
• Even if you somehow ONLY consider the numbers 18 and 14, many people would still vote for Tiger as GOAT because of the strength of field AND the equipment changes.

That's it.

P.S. I noticed that you ducked the Shawn Micheel question.

[ChrisP]

Your last post was deleted as malformed (I PMed you about it), but here's the executive summary of what my response would be:

It's ridiculous, IMO, to consider only majors. And when you consider their actual "careers" then you start to run into trouble supporting Jack as the GOAT. Tiger's other numbers and stats blow Jack out of the water.

Even if you somehow ONLY consider the numbers 18 and 14, many people would still vote for Tiger as GOAT because of the strength of field AND the equipment changes.

That's it.

P.S. I noticed that you ducked the Shawn Micheel question.

Yeah, I saw that. I didnt' duck the Shaun Micheel question. My counter-point on that is you have to also include PGA Tourney wins, and Jack has those to back up his majors....73 of them. If Jack had 18 majors and no other victories, then of course we have a totally different story here. Of course, you could also make the case that Micheel's win and Curtis's win could be because the field wasn't very strong in the early 2000s.

And I agree, it's ridiculous to consider only majors, but once again, I go to my point above....Jack has the wins on Tour. Does he have as many as Tiger? No. He'll probably fall about 15 or 20 short of him when all is said and done, but the majors more than cancel that out.

I understand the strength of field question. The field is deeper, although I don't know if I would agree that the top-10 now is better than the top-10 then. I think Player, Watson, Palmer and Trevino could be better than the Mickelsons and McIlroys now. And it's a guessing game to say Jack couldn't win more majors than Tiger in today's day and age or Tiger more majors in Jack's day and age. We don't know that which is why we have to go by the numbers in front of us. Strength of field is definitely a factor, but it doesn't automatically make one better than the other.

I'll be honest, I defend Tiger against those that back Jack by bringing up the strength of field argument. I like playing Devil's advocate on both sides. However deep down I still hold that Jack had the better career up to now, while Tiger is the greatest I've ever seen at his peak. However, that can change. I am not ready to say Tiger's career is better than his just yet. He has more work to do and Tiger knows it...that's why he's going through the back surgery and will likely take the year off to prepare for one final surge to take aim at the record.

[iacas]

My counter-point on that is you have to also include PGA Tourney wins, and Jack has those to back up his majors....73 of them. If Jack had 18 majors and no other victories, then of course we have a totally different story here. Of course, you could also make the case that Micheel's win and Curtis's win could be because the field wasn't very strong in the early 2000s.

I have two ways to play that one:

1. I don't "have" to do anything. It's my opinion.
2. I could say you "have" to consider all the other things - Player of the Year, multi-major years, money titles, worldwide wins, WGC events, the U.S. Am wins, margins of victory, Missed Cuts, and on and on and on.

And no, you can't make that case. Well, you can, but it'd be really hilarious.

And I agree, it's ridiculous to consider only majors, but once again, I go to my point above....Jack has the wins on Tour. Does he have as many as Tiger? No. He'll probably fall about 15 or 20 short of him when all is said and done, but the majors more than cancel that out.

In your opinion. Again, Tiger vastly outpaces Jack in many, many, many other categories.

I understand the strength of field question. The field is deeper, although I don't know if I would agree that the top-10 now is better than the top-10 then. I think Player, Watson, Palmer and Trevino could be better than the Mickelsons and McIlroys now.

Disagree. Their numbers are inflated, like Jack's, because they had to beat so many fewer people.

We don't know that which is why we have to go by the numbers in front of us. Strength of field is definitely a factor, but it doesn't automatically make one better than the other.

I never said it was automatic. I said I consider it. IMO, even if you consider nothing but majors , I could easily make the case that Woods's 14 > Jack's 18.

---

So, let's put a cap on this:

1. Your opinion boils down to little more than 18 > 14 with a little help from the numbers 73 and 19.
2. I consider far more than that, and would put them in a relative tie at this point. Four more PGA Tour victories or one more major and I'm going to feel, IMO, that Tiger > Jack.

Good? Okay. :)

[ChrisP]

So, let's put a cap on this:

Your opinion boils down to little more than 18 > 14 with a little help from the numbers 73 and 19.

I consider far more than that, and would put them in a relative tie at this point. Four more PGA Tour victories or one more major and I'm going to feel, IMO, that Tiger > Jack.

Good? Okay. :)

Not just 18 majors for Jack, but 17 runners-up. That's an impressive feat. Bottom line is I put a lot of stock in the majors, no doubt. More than you and many others. And part of it is both Jack and Tiger themselves, the two most important parties in this discussion, both said it's the bottom line. If Jack didn't have 73 wins to his credit, I'd put less stock in it, but that's not the case.

I will not argue that the field today is much more deeper, but will not concede that the top-5 or top-10 now is better than the top-5 then. That's open for debate which is based on opinion.

The one thing I don't think Jack would do in today's game is dominate the way Tiger did. That's why I made the point I don't think anyone will ever be as good as Tiger in his prime. He did things no one will ever come close to doing. 13 majors in less than 9 years is unreal. However, the one stat that I just can't get over is zero majors since the age of 32. I can't say that Tiger had a more successful career than Jack Nicklaus if he ends his career that way. I'm not saying he has to get to 18, but he at least has to get to 16.

I hate to go back on the whole "how history will view Tiger" talk, but if people are in discussions 50 years from now on who the greatest player ever was, they will ask the question "Why did Tiger Woods not win one major championship after the age of 32?"

[iacas]

Seriously? You win. I'm done. [spoiler]The number is 19, not 17. Which I included in my post. :doh:[/spoiler]

[saevel25]

Not just 18 majors for Jack, but 17 runners-up. That's an impressive feat. Bottom line is I put a lot of stock in the majors, no doubt. More than you and many others. And part of it is both Jack and Tiger themselves, the two most important parties in this discussion, both said it's the bottom line. If Jack didn't have 73 wins to his credit, I'd put less stock in it, but that's not the case. I will not argue that the field today is much more deeper, but will not concede that the top-5 or top-10 now is better than the top-5 then. That's open for debate which is based on opinion. The one thing I don't think Jack would do in today's game is dominate the way Tiger did. That's why I made the point I don't think anyone will ever be as good as Tiger in his prime. He did things no one will ever come close to doing. 13 majors in less than 9 years is unreal. However, the one stat that I just can't get over is zero majors since the age of 32. I can't say that Tiger had a more successful career than Jack Nicklaus if he ends his career that way. I'm not saying he has to get to 18, but he at least has to get to 16. I hate to go back on the whole "how history will view Tiger" talk, but if people are in discussions 50 years from now on who the greatest player ever was, they will ask the question "Why did Tiger Woods not win one major championship after the age of 32?"

Because he was injured, and overall there are just more golfers who can get hot for one tournament and pull out the win. It's way tougher now to win tournaments than in jacks time. Tougher courses, and way more golfers who can get hot and win.

[jamo]

The one thing I don't think Jack would do in today's game is dominate the way Tiger did. That's why I made the point I don't think anyone will ever be as good as Tiger in his prime. He did things no one will ever come close to doing. 13 majors in less than 9 years is unreal. However, the one stat that I just can't get over is zero majors since the age of 32. I can't say that Tiger had a more successful career than Jack Nicklaus if he ends his career that way. I'm not saying he has to get to 18, but he at least has to get to 16.

Ah, I forgot the all-important "major wins after 32" stat. How silly of me.

[ChrisP]

Ah, I forgot the all-important "major wins after 32" stat. How silly of me.

The stat of all stats.....the most important of them all...the coup de grace of the golf gods. You can never forget that stat.

In all seriousness, I continue to argue that if Tiger doesn't win anymore, then Jack has the "better career".  Tiger may very well (and prolly) win another major, but I'm just playing the "What If" game. You can agree to disagree, that's fine.

[Fourputt]

[QUOTE name="jamo" url="/t/2203/jack-or-tiger-whos-the-greatest/4284#post_979549"]   [QUOTE name="ChrisP" url="/t/2203/jack-or-tiger-whos-the-greatest/4260_30#post_979460"] The one thing I don't think Jack would do in today's game is dominate the way Tiger did. That's why I made the point I don't think anyone will ever be as good as Tiger in his prime. He did things no one will ever come close to doing. 13 majors in less than 9 years is unreal. However, the one stat that I just can't get over is zero majors since the age of 32. I can't say that Tiger had a more successful career than Jack Nicklaus if he ends his career that way. I'm not saying he has to get to 18, but he at least has to get to 16.[/QUOTE] Ah, I forgot the all-important "major wins after 32" stat. How silly of me.[/QUOTE] When you are talking career, it's one consideration.  Tiger's career isn't over yet, but if he never wins another major, longevity has to be figured into any discussion about total career.  There have been great players in just about every sport who would be at or very near the top of the rankings but for shortness of their careers.  Many did not achieve what Tiger has during the period that they played, but longevity is still factored in.  I sometimes wonder what Jack might have done if he had had the same single minded focus that Tiger has had.  Jack accomplished what he did while being a good family man and running a thriving business away from the Tour, something Tiger has not managed to do (nor really made a good attempt at doing).