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

[doctork]

Someone has likely made this point already (I didn't read all 255 pages ), but this argument should take into account more than major championships.

Fact is, Nicklaus won 73 total tour events, majors included, during his career. Tiger has already won 71 times, majors included, and will obliterate Jack's mark as well as Sam Snead's all-time (men's) record of 82.

And it's not like Tiger is picking off wins against weak fields. Like Jack, he's been highly selective when scheduling and plays only those tourneys with the best fields, on the best courses.

Here's my question: If Tiger finishes with 17 majors and, say, 100 total victories, who's the greatest?

Cheers,
DoctorK

[dszalla]

Tiger may surpass Jack in wins, But Jack has class and my respect.

[authentic_golfer]

I know this is blasphemy, but a lot of folks inside golf find Nicklaus to be insufferably arrogant.

Not a crime, nor anywhere near Tiger's sins, I know. But let's not make Nicklaus out to be all class, all the time either. (Granted, his on-course demeanor was immeasurably better than TW's.)

As for competition, if everyone agrees the depth of quality golfers now is superior to Jack's era, doesn't it stand to reason that fewer players would have won more majors back then? (Nicklaus 18, Player 9, Watson 8, Palmer 7). Believe that's just basic logic & math, and the reason Nicklaus' competition appears to have been stacked with more historically great players.

BTW I grew up idolizing Nicklaus, lest anyone think I'm a young turk dissing the older generation.

Sean

[Backspinalot]

Jack is beast

[olkev]

Jack had tougher competition and won 18 majors but even more unbelievable he finished second something like 15 times!!

While first place may be the overriding factor, golf is an individual sport the overall record is relevant. To me the greatest player in golf must be measured by the totality of the record. I would be quite surprised if Tiger ever comes close to that.

The question shouldn't come down to just Jack or Tiger. It does because we have become fixated on winning the four modern majors. That leaves out dominant golfers who played before that test became the standard, and before some of those tournaments even existed.

I don't think anyone would argue that the standard of class in the world of golf was set by Bobby Jones. It's too bad his memory is not more vivid.

I prefer Jack. He is a class act.

His on course demeanor is head and shoulders above Tiger. Just ask Tony Jacklin. Nicklaus plays in his first Ryder Cup and concedes a two-foot putt to Tony Jacklin — results in the first tie in the Ryder Cup history. As he handed Jacklin the marker, he said, ''I don't think you would have missed that putt, but under these circumstances I would never give you the opportunity.'' The match was halved, the tournament ended in a tie for the first time in its 42-year history and the two players walked off the green, arm in arm.

I do think Tiger is a great golfer but have never been on his "band wagon" Wish Jack was back!

If Nicklaus were playing today, in his prime, with today's equipment and especially with the golf balls available today, this thread would be non existent.

My vote is for Jack!

[doctork]

If there's one area in which one is clearly superior to the other, it's the short game. Tiger's one of the best ever around the greens; Nicklaus was average, at best. And that's one part of golf where equipment has had little if any effect.

Spare me the argument that Nicklaus never missed greens and thus didn't need a good short game. Tiger's GIR stats are always at or near the top.

Cheers,
DoctorK

[authentic_golfer]

I think this argument will be moot soon enough. Still say Tiger will go over 20 majors. Only a matter of time before a 50-something wins a major, and Tiger's health regimen should keep him competitive with the young-uns until age 55 or so. That's 20 more years!

Sean

[v1c70r]

Its a good toss up here. I really like Jack although I likr Tiger too. I am going to say Tiger because he is such an athelete.

[Galactica_Actual]

All the talent in the world wont make you the most respected golfer in the game. You also need to have class and humility. Tiger doesn't quite have it yet.

[FV593]

Jack has always had my vote.

[pitchinnate]

Tough question. It is hard to compare players from any professional sport to players from decades ago. Technology has changed and the game has changed. Hard to say if Jack would have been even better with today's training and technology.

[ksmoguy]

Jack was before my time so I guess I have always pulled more for Tiger. What Jack did though was amazing considering how far technology has came in the game of golf.

[isampark]

I believe Tiger is greatest so far because of his short game and accuracy.
And yet he has tremendous atheletic ability to rip the ball apart from the tee.

His escape shots from roughs and trees also contributed to my bias.

[RobS]

I'm gonna have to go with Nicklaus until proven otherwise.

[bflanigan1100]

I'd have to go with Tiger. With the way the world has globalized and how much more people are exposed to golf, he's definitely up against a better pool of golfers. As time goes on with any sport, you're competing against a greater number of better athletes than ever before.

[Bumpychef]

Tiger woods

[motteler621]

tigers a player

[GolfLove]

Tiger, no doubt.