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

[Hedley Sohn]

In some ways it's apples and oranges...the courses are longer, but the equipment is better. There is a science to golf now, that wasn't around when Jack was playing. Slow mo cameras, digital swing analysis, shaft differentials etc., etc.

[RC]

Those that were fortunate enough to see Jack hit a driver in his prime will likely agree that if he had today's equipment and ball, be would be as long or longer than any on tour today. Talking to golfers who should know, I know for a fact that Tiger was told Jack would have been longer -- at a time when Tiger was considered the best power player on tour. Of course, today, probably by choice, Tiger is not even in the top ten in length.

Jack was big, amazingly strong, fast as lightening, and simply exploded on the ball. He looked like an Ohio State middle linebacker, but swung with the grace of a ballet dancer. At the time, no one had ever seen anything like his power. He changed the game by hitting it higher and further and forced golfers to be much more athletic in order to compete. Jump forward, and the Tiger era is similar -- Tiger also changed the game to yet a new level of athleticism.

So it is an apples and oranges type discussion. However, when Tiger retires, I think there will be no argument that he was the greatest golfer in history. But it is unlikely that there will not be someone better come along in the future. Improvement is as natural as time itself.

[YajR]

i think Tiger had more exposure, that's why we think he's better. There are a lot more people watching golf today than there was back in the day when nicklaus was king.

It was super rare to see kids play golf those times, but ti's pretty common now.

[Drifterland]

Tech doesn't matter it is relative. One thing we have to keep in mind too is the real dominance Tiger has (Just like Jack did). It is harder these days on tour to have so much dominance because there are more people practicing harder, more tours, etc. Tigers level of dominance is amazing.

Jack: Better driver of the ball.
Tiger: Better short game.

They both are excellent putters

[Drifterland]

Those that were fortunate enough to see Jack hit a driver in his prime will likely agree that if he had today's equipment and ball, be would be as long or longer than any on tour today. Talking to golfers who should know, I know for a fact that Tiger was told Jack would have been longer -- at a time when Tiger was considered the best power player on tour. Of course, today, probably by choice, Tiger is not even in the top ten in length.

Jack was very long (In his prime reaching clubhead speeds of

up to 120) amazing for persimmon woods! But lets look at the facts here. Tiger when he came on tour swung around 134 off the tee Average with a driver that was not much longer.

[MxJx20]

Never saw Jack play so I have to say Tiger

[Livestrong]

I'm just getting into golf and never seen anything jack did. Tiger is just so good today and hard to think anyone was ever better.

[ewc19972]

tiger is definately a better golfer because, he can hit it farther, but he can everything better than jack exept putting

[matalobos]

I'm for Tiger

[ptodd]

Tiger dominates the game much more then Jack ever did. In a few years Tiger will hold all the records.

[Acropo]

Tiger dominates the game much more then Jack ever did. In a few years Tiger will hold all the records.

Only someone with absolutely no awareness of the history of golf could say such a thing.

Jack dominted the game from the early 60s to the mid-80s. Dominated. As in: everything was about - what is Jack doing? In the same way as the last 10 years or so have been about whatever Tiger is doing. Tiger has dominated in the way Jack did since 1997. Jack dominated for 25 years. Another 12 years or so and you can say Tiger has dominated AS MUCH AS Jack; but so far - still a few years to go.

[Acropo]

I'm just getting into golf and never seen anything jack did. Tiger is just so good today and hard to think anyone was ever better.

You're just getting into golf, as you say. Read up on some history and find out about Jack v Arnie; Jack v Lee Trevino; Jack v Tom Watson; then Watson and Ballesteros v Jack, in the latter's twilight years.

And when you have some time, read about Ben Hogan, Sam Snead, Bobby Jones, et al. All dominant in their eras.

[iacas]

Jack dominted the game from the early 60s to the mid-80s. Dominated. As in: everything was about - what is Jack doing?

Dude, you weren't even born until Jack had won half of his majors...

Tiger has dominated in the way Jack did since 1997.

That's probably not fair to Tiger. His pace is well, well, well ahead of Jack's. He's won PGA Tour events at something nearing double the pace and he's won majors several years ahead of Jack's pace.

Tiger has dominated MORE so than Jack ever did. And Jack never won majors by 15 or 12 shots.

[MSDOGS1976]

Yeah but Tiger is burned out. Got the yips now and not having any fun on the course. Look for Tiger to give up on Jack's record and retire from the game. Will enter politics and become the next governor of Florida. Then run for the presidency when Obama's time is up.

[TxTaurus74]

It would have been interesting to see Jack play with todays technology. I think the competition is way better now days though.

[Acropo]

Dude, you weren't even born until Jack had won half of his majors...

And I think Bobby Jones was nearly dead, too. But I can read, and I do! And I can watch re-runs and videos...

...though I don't spend all my time doing that! I have a life as well... Just strikes me as strange that people say 'I never saw Jack so Tiger's obviously better'.

Tiger has dominated MORE so than Jack ever did. And Jack never won majors by 15 or 12 shots.

No, Jack didn't win by huge margins - he did enough to win. (Juan Manuel Fangio used to do the same in Formula One. Many think he was the greatest ever, despite Schumacher's achievements. He set the benchmark Schumacher strove to pass - same as Jack set the benchmark for Tiger.)

One point, though - the "Duel in the Sun". Jack lost by a shot - but he was 10 shots ahead of Hubert Green, in third. He missed out but he and Watson were, truly, a class apart. He won the Masters by 9 in 1965 and the PGA by 7 in 1980. Although he was associated with last-round charges to get into a playoff, I can only recall 4 off the top of my head - he won 3 (lost the other one I can remember to Lee Trevino). I like this, from sports columnist Thomas Boswell: "Some things cannot possibly happen, because they are both too improbable and too imperfect. The US hockey team cannot beat the Russians in the 1980 Olympics. Jack Nicklaus cannot shoot 65 to win the Masters at age 46. Nothing else comes immediately to mind."

[iacas]

Just strikes me as strange that people say 'I never saw Jack so Tiger's obviously better'.

Me too, but I don't claim to have seen Jack in his prime or attest to how people were behaving. Jack was overshadowed by Arnold Palmer the first six years of his career from what I can tell, even though Arnie practically stopped winning as soon as he arrived.

So you playing it off as though you remember how it was when Jack was playing, despite the fact that you probably weren't cognizant of golf or Jack Nicklaus until he'd won 16 or 17 of his majors, is almost as strange.

"Some things cannot possibly happen, because they are both too improbable and too imperfect. The US hockey team cannot beat the Russians in the 1980 Olympics. Jack Nicklaus cannot shoot 65 to win the Masters at age 46. Nothing else comes immediately to mind."

None of which has anything to do with the fact that Tiger's pace is well, well ahead of Jack's.

Personally I call it a dead heat right now. Tiger's won them faster. Jack won more. Until Tiger passes Jack, I'll keep considering it a dead heat. But that's me - you think what you like. Won't bother me one bit.

[Acropo]

Me too, but I don't claim to have seen Jack in his prime or attest to how people were behaving. Jack was overshadowed by Arnold Palmer the first six years of his career from what I can tell, even though Arnie practically stopped winning as soon as he arrived.

My father was a very keen golfer and used the example of Nicklaus to drum good behaviour into me. I watched golf from a very early age - from before I can really remember, in fact! But I do remember 1986 (The Masters), very, very clearly, and 1980 pretty well.

(I've also tried to use equipment from the 1960s and 70s - I find the irons, especially, very, very difficult to hit consistently and the woods go nothing like as far. Hats off to anyone who could make them work! )

None of which has anything to do with the fact that Tiger's pace is well, well ahead of Jack's.

Tiger's 33 and has won 14. By the same age, Jack had won 12. Yes, Tiger's ahead, but not by much.

My opinion may be coloured by what I have been told but I'm with those who believe that the relative competition today (at the top end) is not as high as it was in the Nicklaus/Palmer/Trevino (etc) era. But it's so easy to find information, DVDs, on-line films, etc from earlier times - I've got a short video of Bobby Jones' swinging, for example. Just puzzles me that others don't seem to bother. In all of that, I've never seen nor come across any reports of spitting, swearing, club-smashing, etc by Jack. Jones, yes. Same with Faldo, when younger. Must be honest - I don't like that aspect of Tiger and, again, it has an influence.