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

[Aflighter]

its like gary player said.without a doubt its ben Hogan.jack has a lot of majors but consider how many Hogan missed because of being in army and his accident.man about died and won more after that than he did before.tiger is incredible but just like the rest, nowadays the equipment has made the players more than anything.the thought of Hogan  with todays equipment and technology and condition of courses and also without the accident it would be scary what he would have accomplished.i  do understand rating the best is about numbers but 9 majors in short time he had is incredible.

[boogielicious]

its like gary player said.without a doubt its ben Hogan.jack has a lot of majors but consider how many Hogan missed because of being in army and his accident.man about died and won more after that than he did before.tiger is incredible but just like the rest, nowadays the equipment has made the players more than anything.the thought of Hogan  with todays equipment and technology and condition of courses and also without the accident it would be scary what he would have accomplished.i  do understand rating the best is about numbers but 9 majors in short time he had is incredible.

Disagree.  Player can have his opinion, but I don't think Hogan was ever at Nicklaus level or Woods in terms of dominance.  Snead and even Byron Nelson had more dominant periods than Hogan.  Don't get me wrong, Hogan was a great player, but not in terms of shear dominance.  Player is extrapolating on what might have been if Hogan didn't miss those tournaments.  But that is a subjective analysis.

Woods winning percentage, 26% of tournaments entered, is unequalled, even by Nicklaus, 19.4%.

[chasm]

Futile to compare sportsmen of different generations. It's reasonable to suppose that Jesse Owens would ahve been much, much faster had he been racing on modern tracks with modern shoes and, most importantly, training with modern methods, ingesting testosterone supplements and all that. Whether he'd have been as fast as Usain Bolt we'll never know. Similarly, Nicklaus was hitting ballata balls with persimmon woods and was still prodigiously long. Moreover, he was a hell of a player around the greens. Whether with modern equipment, against modern fields, he'd have achieved the level of dominance he did back in the day, is moot. However, the length of time for which that dominance was maintained was quite remarkable. From his first US Open win till his last Masters, a period of 25 years, he finished first, second or third in 46 majors - that's 46 out of a hundred. It isn't just that he won 18, it's that if he didn't win, he only just lost, and that he saw off about three generations of opponents.

[Snowfly]

Futile to compare sportsmen of different generations. It's reasonable to suppose that Jesse Owens would ahve been much, much faster had he been racing on modern tracks with modern shoes and, most importantly, training with modern methods, ingesting testosterone supplements and all that. Whether he'd have been as fast as Usain Bolt we'll never know.

Similarly, Nicklaus was hitting ballata balls with persimmon woods and was still prodigiously long. Moreover, he was a hell of a player around the greens. Whether with modern equipment, against modern fields, he'd have achieved the level of dominance he did back in the day, is moot.

However, the length of time for which that dominance was maintained was quite remarkable. From his first US Open win till his last Masters, a period of 25 years, he finished first, second or third in 46 majors - that's 46 out of a hundred. It isn't just that he won 18, it's that if he didn't win, he only just lost, and that he saw off about three generations of opponents.

Exactly, that pretty much says it all, 46 majors with a top 3 finish, unreal.

[mvmac]

@chasm and @Snowfly , this thread might interest you guys

[Snowfly]

@chasm and @Snowfly, this thread might interest you guys

While its tempting to argue strength of field or equipment, etc, the fact remains, major wins and finishes is the hallmark of pro golf, Wins-Jack has 18, Tiger 14. Add the 46 top 3 finishes by Jack and I think the question answers itself.

Additionally remains to be seen if Tiger regains his former self.

Talk to me when Tiger has 18 wins, and a bunch of top 3 finishes. Till then I think Jack remains at the pinnacle of pro golfers.

[boogielicious]

While its tempting to argue strength of field or equipment, etc, the fact remains, major wins and finishes is the hallmark of pro golf, Wins-Jack has 18, Tiger 14. Add the 46 top 3 finishes by Jack and I think the question answers itself.

Additionally remains to be seen if Tiger regains his former self.

Talk to me when Tiger has 18 wins, and a bunch of top 3 finishes. Till then I think Jack remains at the pinnacle of pro golfers.

You need to read the rest of this thread.  Your point has been debated ad nauseam.  Many do not agree.

[Snowfly]

You need to read the rest of this thread.  Your point has been debated ad nauseam.  Many do not agree.

That's my view, my opinion, it may differ from the herd, that's the point of a forum, to hear the different sides of a debate.

If we all followed the herd on everything then we would all be communist, or worse----Liberals. Ha Ha Ha

[chasm]

@chasm and @Snowfly , this thread might interest you guys   [CONTENTEMBED=/t/74049/strength-of-field-in-jacks-day-and-tigers-day layout=inline]​[/CONTENTEMBED]

Sure. I absolutely understand the argument, and I'm not even prepared to debate whether Tiger in 2010 was playing better golf than Nicklaus in 1970. He certainly was. But that was my point about the futility of comparing athletes between generations. Nicklaus was playing in an era in which golfers weren't especially physically fit. Had he been, does anyone believe he wouldn't have spent enough time in the gym to get competitive? Of course he would. One can only judge sportsmen on how superior they were to their contemporaries, because circumstances change over time. Nicklaus proved sufficiently talented, and determined, and adaptable, to stay at the top of the tree for a [b] quarter of a century[/b], despite all sorts of challengers coming along. That seems to me to be a persuasive argument for him being supremely gifted. He stayed as good as he needed to be for a very, very long time : and the talent pool was expanding while he was doing that. I don't know whether he was more innately talented than Tiger, but I'd bet on it. Unfortunately, there's no way of telling whether I'm right.

[Jakester23]

Sure. I absolutely understand the argument, and I'm not even prepared to debate whether Tiger in 2010 was playing better golf than Nicklaus in 1970. He certainly was.

But that was my point about the futility of comparing athletes between generations. Nicklaus was playing in an era in which golfers weren't especially physically fit. Had he been, does anyone believe he wouldn't have spent enough time in the gym to get competitive? Of course he would.

One can only judge sportsmen on how superior they were to their contemporaries, because circumstances change over time. Nicklaus proved sufficiently talented, and determined, and adaptable, to stay at the top of the tree for a quarter of a century, despite all sorts of challengers coming along. That seems to me to be a persuasive argument for him being supremely gifted. He stayed as good as he needed to be for a very, very long time : and the talent pool was expanding while he was doing that. I don't know whether he was more innately talented than Tiger, but I'd bet on it. Unfortunately, there's no way of telling whether I'm right.

What?

[iacas]

While its tempting to argue strength of field or equipment, etc, the fact remains, major wins and finishes is the hallmark of pro golf, Wins-Jack has 18, Tiger 14.

That's not a fact. It's an opinion. One with which many disagree.

[chasm]

What?

What do you mean, what? I think i've expressed myself pretty clearly.

[Snowfly]

That's not a fact. It's an opinion. One with which many disagree.

And which many agree as well.

The pro's all gear themselves to peak at the major events....winning more of those than anyone else puts you on top. Winning a bunch of tournaments doesn't get you in the hall a fame, but winning two majors will.

[Jakester23]

And which many agree as well.

The pro's all gear themselves to peak at the major events....winning more of those than anyone else puts you on top. Winning a bunch of tournaments doesn't get you in the hall a fame, but winning two majors will.

Well why was Jacks goal to break Sam Snead's record of tour wins then not to break the majors record?

[tmac20]

Well why was Jacks goal to break Sam Snead's record of tour wins then not to break the majors record?

Why was Tiger's goal to break Jack's record for major wins? :-P

[Jakester23]

Because Tiger wants that record just like Jack wanted Snead's.  If Tiger gets to 83 and says he doesn't care about majors anymore then he will be pulling the same $hit Jack pulled.

[isukgolf]

This debate seems to parallel should toilet paper come over or under ... republican or democrat ... its depends what "you" want to use as the measuring stick ...

They are both great players and have left an indelible mark on the game of golf ... as others have ... and we are blessed that they came along, and showed us how exciting this game can be!

On my pedestal they sit stand-by-stand ...

[Fourputt]

Futile to compare sportsmen of different generations. It's reasonable to suppose that Jesse Owens would ahve been much, much faster had he been racing on modern tracks with modern shoes and, most importantly, training with modern methods, ingesting testosterone supplements and all that. Whether he'd have been as fast as Usain Bolt we'll never know.

Similarly, Nicklaus was hitting ballata balls with persimmon woods and was still prodigiously long. Moreover, he was a hell of a player around the greens. Whether with modern equipment, against modern fields, he'd have achieved the level of dominance he did back in the day, is moot.

However, the length of time for which that dominance was maintained was quite remarkable. From his first US Open win till his last Masters, a period of 25 years, he finished first, second or third in 46 majors - that's 46 out of a hundred. It isn't just that he won 18, it's that if he didn't win, he only just lost, and that he saw off about three generations of opponents.

I have to add a qualification to the sentence I put in bold.  Jack was a great putter, but he was just average at chipping, pitching and bunker play.  The reason?  He was so good with his irons that he just didn't need to be that special with greenside shots.  I have no doubt that had he used a practice regimen like Tiger does, Jack would have been as proficient as most anyone - he certainly had talent to spare - but he had a different overall look at life than Tiger.  He put family, and eventually his business interests at a much higher priority than Tiger does.  That necessitated spending less time practicing his game so the fine feel needed for greenside short game ended up suffering for it.  Jack will be the first to admit that his short game was not up to the sort of standard set by guys like Tom Watson.

The rest of what you say is certainly pertinent when discussing Jack's career and comparing it to Tiger's, but I still won't try to draw any conclusions from it.  Like you say, comparing the two players is difficult because of the vast differences in equipment, courses, and competition.  I'm not even going to try to take the comparison to any sort of final result.

Both were/are the best when they played, and there are enough parallels in both careers that it's really never going to be possible to say conclusively that one is better.  I don't really see why one has to be "declared" better.  I appreciate that I had to opportunity to watch both of them play during their prime, and that's enough for me.