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

[WUTiger]

I suggest the two are the top players of the respective eras in which they played. Due to vastly different circumstances under which they played, I can't really say who's best.

Nicklaus dominated in a time when the player was key, before modern equipment refinements of the late 1980s started taking hold.
* He won more majors - 18 total - than any golfer of the 20th Century. Plus, he finished second another 18 times in majors.
* He was one of the first modern golfers to emphasize physical training, and often played tennis to improve his conditioning.
* He assembled a system of alignment and movement which remains one of the top swing standards of all times. "Golf My Way" by Nicklaus ranks with "Five Lessons" by Hogan as a classic of 20th Century golf instruction and fundamentals.

Woods was groomed from the time he was a toddler to be a "Tiger." When he's on his game, he dominates in all the golfing skill areas. He has had the benefit of:
* Capitalizing on his natural physique and talent
* Using modern physical training techniques
* Using modern medical technology to repair injuries that would have ended golf careers in an eralier era
* Working with golf manufacturers to make minute refinements in his clubs to give him a playing edge; players of the Nicklaus era were constrained with a much smaller set of options for equipment

Both have excelled not only as players, but also course designers.
Jack was the top player of the 1960s to 1980s, and Tiger is the top player of the Millenium bridge group.

[mckennwa]

I wish I had been able to see Jack in his prime, but since I didn't, I have to vote Tiger. His precision and imagination are amazing.

[Ole_Tom_Morris]

Depends on how you define "greatest." Put them head to head, Jack at his best and Tiger at his best and I guess Tiger would probably win. 2 out of 3 anyway.

But we can't match the best Tiger and the best Jack against each other. Different men, different courses, equipment, competition. Money and it's availability are totally different now, if you want to compare their winnings or earnings form all sources.

What I find interesting is how they are the same. Both men were mentored by their fathers, who arranged for coaching. Jack was coached by Jack Grout for as long as he lived. Tiger had many, many coaches.

Tiger was groomed for competition from the time he could walk. Jack was started later. Jack competed in other sports, and might have gone into basketball if he were taller.

Both lived a life totally different from those I would consider as "the greatest": such as Chi Chi Rodriguez, Lee Trevino, Ben Hogan, more recently Seve Ballesteros. These were men who started out as caddies working to support their families and learned to play incidentally, often with one old club or a wrong-handed club. School of hard knocks, not mentoring and college.

[jbbets]

Tiger is better since he has had the much improved equipment plus the understanding of physical conditioning.

At least Jack knew how to behave himself.

[duplessisgolf]

Tiger, because the competition is a lot tougher now.

[sean_miller]

Tiger, because the competition is a lot tougher now.

The competition is tougher or the other players in the field are better than they were in Jack's day?

Based on how many times Jack barely won and how many times he barely lost, I'd say the level of competition in "Jack's day" (typically a Sunday) was miles ahead.

[Three Putt]

Lee Trevino basically said....The players as a whole are better than they were back in Jack's era, but there were better top notch players in Jack's era than there is today.

[wedge player]

Lee Trevino basically said....The players as a whole are better than they were back in Jack's era, but there were better top notch players in Jack's era than there is today.

agreed 100%

[Wazzer]

To be honest, Tiger can be over rated in his playing style. His presence however is not. Unlike Jack, Tiger has an effect on EVERY player in the field phsycologically. However, I am sure that Tiger will not catch Jack in number of majors won. So, it depends on how you look at what makes a great golfer, one who wins the most prestigious events, or one who's presence affects almost every player in the world. You decide!

[raycharles]

To be honest, Tiger can be over rated in his playing style. His presence however is not. Unlike Jack, Tiger has an effect on EVERY player in the field phsycologically. However, I am sure that Tiger will not catch Jack in number of majors won. So, it depends on how you look at what makes a great golfer, one who wins the most prestigious events, or one who's presence affects almost every player in the world. You decide!

I agree Wazz. After "Tigergate", I doubt he attains Jack's major records. Jack will forever be the most dominant golfer in history.

[Golfer250]

Jack over Tiger. Except in accumulative women strokes.

[Tom]

i think the way jack conducted himself throughout his life is/was exemplary. i think the way tiger is conducting himself is the sign of a scoundrel. personally, i think he's terrible for golf because the honor in him is gone.

[Dr. Manhattan]

I agree Wazz. After "Tigergate", I doubt he attains Jack's major records. Jack will forever be the most dominant golfer in history.

I disagree with the idea of a 25 year achievement as being proof of "the most dominant." Here's a list of guys who have put on more dominating performances in their careers than Nicklaus:

Jones, Hogan, Nelson, and Woods. Every one of them has done things that Jack never pulled off from a "dominance" standpoint. Jack never won 3 or more majors in a row (Jones, Hogan, and Woods). He never won 6+ tournaments in a row (Nelson, Hogan, and Woods). He never won a major by 15 shots (Woods). He never won more than 7 times in a season. I think Jack is the greatest, but not the most dominant. The greatest is a reflection of overall career achievement while the most dominant is a reflection of a specific point in time. But one thing to remember about Jack is that he faced the strongest group of great champions in one era. This is a good explanation for why he was never able to pull off some of the achievements mentioned above. It also bolsters the argument of him being the greatest. Being the most dominant doesn't mean being the greatest and being the greatest doesn't necessarily mean being the most dominant. The competition factor is a big one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest...ur_win_streaks http://golf.about.com/od/progolftour...awins1year.htm

[Acropo]

Jack never won 3 or more majors in a row

Yes he did. PGA 1971; Masters '72; US Open '72.

Pretty much agree with the rest of your post.

[Dr. Manhattan]

Yes he did. PGA 1971; Masters '72; US Open '72.

Not true. The 1971 PGA was played in February of 1971:

http://www.pgamediaguide.com/pgacham...=397&date;=1971

[iacas]

Not true. The 1971 PGA was played in February of 1971:

Score one for odd trivia.

[raycharles]

Not true. The 1971 PGA was played in February of 1971:

Very interesting indeed.

[Acropo]

Not true. The 1971 PGA was played in February of 1971:

Blimey!

I stand corrected. (February - hmmmmm. Could be better than some extremely humid place in August!)