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

[turtleback]

I seriously doubt whether Mr. Nicklaus gives a damn. I don't think he's looking for any advantage in this contest.

I wish I could agree with you but his record and his statements say otherwise.  And it makes me sad because Jack was my first golf hero.

[newtogolf]

I seriously doubt whether Mr. Nicklaus gives a damn. I don't think he's looking for any advantage in this contest.

Jack Nicklaus's place in sporting history is secure and deservedly earned. He's coming up on 75; the great elder statesman of golf - loved and revered - again, deservedly so.

No record stands for ever - it's like when Bannister broke the 4 minute mile - he must have known that very same day that his record would eventually be smashed.

Even if Tiger Woods does get to 19, what's to say some Chinese wunderkind won't show up a decade from now and win 20 majors by his 30th birthday? And even if that happens, it won't diminish Tiger's achievements as a golfer (nor anyone else's).

I think Jack does care, if he didn't he would have never suggested the metric for the greatest golfer be changed.  I don't fault him for caring, we all want to leave a legacy when we're gone and given all of Jack's accomplishments he should be discussed as one of, if not the greatest golfers to ever play.

I agree most athletes acknowledge their records may eventually get broken but that doesn't reduce the importance or pride one has in holding the record.

The discussion is who's the greatest, I think we all agree both Tiger and Jack have had amazing careers so there's no intent to diminish either of their careers.

[BigBaffy]

Ok then, Jack's better, or maybe Tiger is. The truth is they were all good and there's no measurable way to know if any one was better than the other, short of using a time machine.

Any way it's golf, you can be king of the world on Thursday and blow darts on Sunday.

I'm done on this subject.

[lewisgl]

I seriously doubt whether Mr. Nicklaus gives a damn. I don't think he's looking for any advantage in this contest.

Jack Nicklaus's place in sporting history is secure and deservedly earned. He's coming up on 75; the great elder statesman of golf - loved and revered - again, deservedly so.

No record stands for ever - it's like when Bannister broke the 4 minute mile - he must have known that very same day that his record would eventually be smashed.

Even if Tiger Woods does get to 19, what's to say some Chinese wunderkind won't show up a decade from now and win 20 majors by his 30th birthday? And even if that happens, it won't diminish Tiger's achievements as a golfer (nor anyone else's).

+1  Very well said.

[saevel25]

http://thesandtrap.com/b/thrash_talk/tiger_vs_jack

More data in Tiger's favor of being the greatest of all time.

[samadams46]

+1  Very well said.

I agree!  Very well said.  I would rather wait a few years when can look back on Tiger's entire career to have this debate.

[sweeper1]

There was and always be a Mr. Hogan, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Jones, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Player, etc. There will never be a Mr.Tiger,there are are a lot more reasons than one.

sweeper1

[RH31]

http://thesandtrap.com/b/thrash_talk/tiger_vs_jack

More data in Tiger's favor of being the greatest of all time.

So if McIlroy wins say 10 majors 50-60 tourneys worldwide, would he then be the GOAT?

[Ernest Jones]

There was and always be a Mr. Hogan, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Jones, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Player, etc. There will never be a Mr.Tiger,there are are a lot more reasons than one.                                                                                                                                                               sweeper1

Yeah, you're right. They'll probably call him Mr. Woods. :-P

[iacas]

So if McIlroy wins say 10 majors 50-60 tourneys worldwide, would he then be the GOAT?

Comment on the article itself, please.

[samadams46]

There was and always be a Mr. Hogan, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Jones, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Player, etc. There will never be a Mr.Tiger,there are are a lot more reasons than one.

sweeper1

Don't count on it.

[jbishop15]

There was and always be a Mr. Hogan, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Jones, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Player, etc. There will never be a Mr.Tiger,there are are a lot more reasons than one.

sweeper1

[Patch]

How about this argument; The greatest golfer of all time has not been born yet..................

[turtleback]

So if McIlroy wins say 10 majors 50-60 tourneys worldwide, would he then be the GOAT?

Very possibly.  IMO you have to look at a lot of things, things on which he has made a very good start.  Which is kind of what the Tiger supporters have been saying all along, vis a vis Jack. (to bring it back on topic)

[9iron]

So if McIlroy wins say 10 majors 50-60 tourneys worldwide, would he then be the GOAT?

No. Not in my book. Jack would still be the GOAT (assuming Tiger fails to break his record of 18 majors).

[iacas]

At this point I've seen enough posts that reduce what I think is a complex question to the simple "18 > 14" that I owe @turtleback an apology: I was wrong about the number of people who simply compare two numbers (and sometimes, inexplicably to me, the number 19).

You were right, and I was wrong. A lot of people seem to reduce this to "18 > 14."

P.S. Did you read this , @turtleback ?

P.P.S. Edited to hopefully be less snarky. I've probably failed, but I tried.

[turtleback]

At this point I've seen enough posts that reduce what I think is a complex question to the simple "18 > 14" that I owe @turtleback an apology: I was wrong about the number of people who simply compare two numbers (and sometimes, inexplicably to me, the number 19).

You were right, and I was wrong. A lot of people seem to reduce this to "18 > 14."

P.S. Did you read this, @turtleback?

P.P.S. Edited to hopefully be less snarky. I've probably failed, but I tried.

Yes I did and I appreciate it.  It almost HAS to come down to that for them because there is really nothing else on that side of the question.

[Ernest Jones]

At this point I've seen enough posts that reduce what I think is a complex question to the simple "18 > 14" that I owe @turtleback an apology: I was wrong about the number of people who simply compare two numbers (and sometimes, inexplicably to me, the number 19). You were right, and I was wrong. A lot of people seem to reduce this to "18 > 14." P.S. [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/b/thrash_talk/tiger_vs_jack]Did you read this[/URL], @turtleback ? P.P.S. Edited to hopefully be less snarky. I've probably failed, but I tried. :-)

Well now it's just outright cheeky.