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

[Trav]

Yes, I know this won't change anyone's mind and we are not suffering from lack of opinions, which I am now contributing to, but I thought this was an interesting assessment:

http://www.franklygolf.com/QA_weekly.html

[tpar89]

I've got to go with Tiger. I've grown up watching him.

[misty_mountainhop]

I've got to go with Tiger. I've grown up watching him.

Nothing personal tpar89, but really. What on Earth sort of justification is that?? Too many are using this kind of logic. It's like saying "I've got to go with Dubya as a better President than FDR; I've grown up watching him".

It's hardly a rational poll when this kind of motivation for voting is used is it?

[Golden]

franklygolf.com and others always seems to forget that the main competitors of Jack Or Tiger are also laid back or help by the equipment technology, maybe the difference with jack and it's competitors would have been smaller (have less wins?) if they all had the equipment of today. same is true the other way around for Tiger.

Side Note:
Who's the girl on your avatar misty_mountainhop?

[iacas]

franklygolf.com and others always seems to forget that the main competitors of Jack Or Tiger are also laid back or help by the equipment technology, maybe the difference with jack and it's competitors would have been smaller (have less wins?) if they all had the equipment of today. same is true the other way around for Tiger.

And that fairway width, green size, pin locations, etc. aren't the same.

I found Frank's analysis, frankly, embarrassing for Frank.

[lazystar]

I really never saw Jack in his prime. I do know that if Tiger is on TV I can watch it all day.

[misty_mountainhop]

franklygolf.com and others always seems to forget that the main competitors of Jack Or Tiger are also laid back or help by the equipment technology, maybe the difference with jack and it's competitors would have been smaller (have less wins?) if they all had the equipment of today. same is true the other way around for Tiger.

You seem to be suggesting that if you could see them play, side-by-side at their primes, Tiger would be way better? I'll have to disagree with you there!

Re. my avatar, not 100% sure but I think she's a naughty little minx called Renata Daninsky. Not your typical girl next door if it is....

[Acropo]

I found Frank's analysis, frankly, embarrassing for Frank.

I didn't watch the video but I found the statistics (written underneath) interesting.

[flatom]

I played with Jack when we were both young men. I also followed his career for most of my life and attended many of his tournaments. I have also watched Tiger over the years.
Jack is heads above Tiger for one reason: maturity. Tiger issues F bombs, throws clubs, ignores fans, walks past little kids who idolize him, acts like a brat to everyone, spits constantly in public and generally is rude, arrogant and conceited.
Jack never did any of these things and his era was mostly full of very accomplished players who were also fine gentlemen who respected the game.
There is no way Tiger will ever be the man Jack was and is.

[Trav]

I didn't watch the video but I found the statistics (written underneath) interesting.

I should have been clearer - I was referring to the stats, too. I didn't/still haven't watch this video either, although I have sometimes watched them before because I love to listen to Valerie (sp.) even if I can't understand what she is saying.

[Golden]

You seem to be suggesting that if you could see them play, side-by-side at their primes, Tiger would be way better? I'll have to disagree with you there!

Not really suggesting that, my point is more : Surely newer equipment would have help jack, and older equipment would have been less permissive for tiger... but the how much it help/not help is really hard to tell. Same thing for the rest of the field which may also modify the number of career wins for jack/tiger. And because most people seems to say "number of majors=greatest golfer", not having the information above means we can never really tell.

I sure like to watch tiger play and wish he finish with more major/wins, because I like to see records fall. Nothing against Jack. A+

[Mongoose]

Only seen highlights of Jack. I've witnessed Tigers madness as it happens. I can relate to Tiger better.

[Paulbee]

I'll go with Jack for the time being. It's always difficult to compare players from different eras as the only thing anybody can do is be the best on the day.

As far as rating anything goes, then Major tallies is probably the best yardstick, in which case I've opted for Jack.

Will Tiger surpass Jack's record? Not a lot of doubt in my mind at which point his claim to being the best ever will have a measurable yardstick.

Also little doubt in my mind that Jack would have won majors in the Tiger era and Tiger would have won majors in the Jack era.

Great players are great players, equipment not withstanding.

[Hank3rd]

I have to say Tiger, but I am reading Jack's book now.

[Golf Rev]

Got to go with Tiger.

[newbgolfer]

As with any other "younger" user in this thread, I've only had the chance to see Tiger play live.

[rockinrebel]

I'm 50 years old.
Until Tiger passes 18 , Jack is the greatest.
I believe Tiger will pass 18.
I grew up with Jack. I have the greatest respect for Mr. Nicklaus.
When Tiger passes 18 I won't have a problem calling him the greatest.
Chuck

[letthebigdogeat]

One thing I think is big attribute to Tiger being the greatest is how marketable he made golf. In my earlier years before Tiger I was never interested in golf. It was only after Tiger started dominating and you started hearing more about him and the sport that it made me interested in this game.

Also he's created a lot for golf with the involvement of Nike. I don't think they would be this serious about golf if it weren't for Tiger.