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

[rfan2]

I’d have to say Jack, for now. However, I think both Jack and Tiger; when asked the question of who’s the greatest, would reply: Bobby Jones.

[applejr]

Who'll end up better? Tiger.

Who's a better guy to have a beer with? Jack.

[olkev]

Looks like a lot of people here never saw Jack play . . .

[1quickturbosix]

Gotta go with the ol' boy.

[cwsample]

I love Tiger's swing. I could watch videos of that all day. Plus, his famous chip shot into the hole is epic.

[americanfighter]

I would have to say Jack.

I understand why most have said tiger but in reality its not a fair comparison.
Woods may be more impressive at the moment but if you gave Jack the technology we have today he would have done much better and won many more masters. If it was the two of them in their prime and they both had equal technology then i would say jack.

[psgolf7]

Too early to tell .. my money is on Tiger.

[max power]

I would have to say Jack.

Think about what you're saying here. Why would Jack have won more majors with better technology? His competition would have the same technology. If you could pit Jack and Tiger in their prime against each other, they'd undoubtedly have access to the same technology. Tiger's competition has always had access to the same technology that Tiger has. In fact, Tiger has been a reluctant adapter of new technology, and won a lot of tournaments and majors against guys using bigger, better heads and more advanced shafts.

[erniemel]

Initially voted for Jack, but now that I think about it, Tiger still has a lot of Golf left before he retires...

[olkev]

Think about what you're saying here. Why would Jack have won more majors with better technology? His competition would have the same technology. If you could pit Jack and Tiger in their prime against each other, they'd undoubtedly have access to the same technology. Tiger's competition has always had access to the same technology that Tiger has. In fact, Tiger has been a reluctant adapter of new technology, and won a lot of tournaments and majors against guys using bigger, better heads and more advanced shafts.

I don't think you really understand just exactly what is being said here.

There is an entry in another golf forum with a thread entitled "Jack Nicklaus's clubs and ball" There is a post which states the following:

"Jack was under contract to play MacGregor clubs and balls, the balls sucked but because the technology and testing (quality control as well) Jack played an inferior ball for many years and didnt really know it. After Frank Thomas and some people at the USGA used the Iron Byron to test all of the balls they found the MacGregor ball to be vastly inferior. As for hitting it 300, he stated in his book that during his prime in the 1970's he hit it about 260-270 in the air an avg. This is with the aforementioned ball and a 42 3/4" persimmon driver. When he was young and really strong he could hit it farther. You have to remember back then the drivers hit the ball no longer than the 3w of today, and the ball was much shorter as well.

He held the PGA long drive record for some time with a shot of 340 yds with a steel shaft and persimmon. From an article on Nicklaus' own website :

"The Precept ball he used at PGA Tour's Genuity Championship in March is a far cry from the MacGregor ball Nicklaus used in the 1960s, when he won seven of his record 18 professional major championships. Recently, Frank Thomas of the U.S. Golf Association told Nicklaus about tests that were done on the MacGregor ball he used in the 1960s. "They didn't point it out 30 years ago; they didn't want to," Nicklaus said. "Frank said one would go 20 yards left and the next one 20 yards right on its own. And he says, `if you had a decent golf ball, there's no telling how many majors you would have won.' I didn't necessarily agree with him because I felt like my golf ball was fine because I tested other golf balls at the time." Nicklaus was using a sub-standard ball for the time and had some idea that it might be but kept using it and still won majors with it. He was winning majors in spite of the equipment, specifically the ball.

Johnny Miller and Greg Norman have both previously voiced the same sentiment as Thomas regarding Nicklaus’ record. The Sand Trap even has an article on this, The Long Ball: Distance is Everything?

Forgiveness First, today's clubs are more forgiving. Jack Nicklaus, playing thirty years ago with a small-headed persimmon driver, could not really go after a ball. Modern drivers have "expanded sweet spots" that are larger than some of the older persimmon clubs! A pop-up or a heel job thirty years ago is 290 in the left edge of the fairway today. Put 460ccs in someone's hands and they can let out a bit more shaft. A "miss" in the persimmon-wood days landed 50 yards out of bounds. Today you're in the first cut of rough.

From the Frank Thomas with The Golf Channel, "The Truth About Driving Distance"

So here are the facts. The chart below shows how the PGA Tour's average driving distance has changed since 1968 – distance data was not recorded between 1969 and 1980. The big jump came between 1995 and 2003 when spring-like effect in drivers was permitted to avoid litigation. The multi-layered ball and spring-like effect – commonly referred to as increased COR (Coefficient of Restitution) – has allowed pros to launch balls higher with less spin, creating optimum launch conditions (i.e. a unique launch angle and spin rate for a particular ball speed to achieve the maximum distance given average turf conditions). These conditions were not achievable by Jack Nicklaus or others of his era with the equipment available to them at the time.

Also by Frank Thomas:

"The major advantages that Tiger has over Jack are the longer, lighter weight shaft - by almost 50 grams - and the higher COR (spring-like effect) and MOI (forgiveness) head. Tiger also uses the new low spin multilayered ball, which, along with other factors, gives him the ability to achieve optimum launch conditions for his ball speed. These all important launch conditions were not achievable by Jack or any other players using the equipment available in 1968. Knowing that both golfers hit the ball with similar clubhead speeds, it is estimated that if Jack had today's equipment he would have driven the ball approximately 30 yards farther than he did in 1968, and more accurately because of the more forgiving driver, low spin and better quality ball.

Sadly, the simple fact of the matter is that unless you were alive during Nicklaus' heyday and saw him play either on TV or in person (and the people who saw him in person really have some stories to tell) you simply don't know just how good he really was.

[adamg]

phil? i have to go with jack. old school

[Acropo]

Excellent post, Olkov. Thanks for the info.

[max power]

I'm not a Tiger fan, while I don't root against him (okay, sometimes I do), I don't really care if he's near the lead at a tournament. I'm just old enough to remember Jack at the tail end of his career, and I hope Jack keeps the majors record. It's undeniable that his run of wins, 2nds, top 10's, etc. was absolutely remarkable. But the equipment argument still doesn't hold water. Jack chose to play MacGregor, he says himself he tested other balls. But even conceding that argument, the persimmon driver Jack used back in the day was just as unforgiving for his competition. If anything, Jack's superior ball-striking and consistency gave him an advantage that Tiger does not have, because his competition uses the incredibly forgiving modern equipment. Jack was a big hitter, the biggest in his day, and he'd be a big hitter today, but the rest of the field has the benefit of modern technology to close that talent/swing speed gap.

[olkev]

I'm not a Tiger fan, while I don't root against him (okay, sometimes I do), I don't really care if he's near the lead at a tournament. I'm just old enough to remember Jack at the tail end of his career, and I hope Jack keeps the majors record. It's undeniable that his run of wins, 2nds, top 10's, etc. was absolutely remarkable. But the equipment argument still doesn't hold water. Jack chose to play MacGregor, he says himself he tested other balls. But even conceding that argument, the persimmon driver Jack used back in the day was just as unforgiving for his competition.

I think you just made the argument for the Nicklaus supporters. The rest of the field would still have a hard time closing the gap because that same technology you think would help them close it would propel Nicklaus even further. And don't forget Nicklaus' mental approach to the game. Players have always said that nobody could think their way around a golf course the way Nicklaus could. When Jack Nicklaus was at his best, his opponents knew they were beat. Nicklaus also knew that they knew they were beat. And they knew that Jack knew that they knew they were beat. He was THAT good!

[max power]

I think it's understood that technology has narrowed the gap between the best ball striker in the field and the worst. If Jack was already hitting it on the screws every single time with persimmon, they guys who missed occasionally would benefit far more from increased forgiveness than Jack would.

[TurfDr]

At this point, it is definitely Jack I believe. If tiger gets 19 majors, i will say Tiger.

[RC]

I watched Jack in the 1968 PGA, and it was the first time I had seen him in person. I can tell you, he hit drives unlike anyone else in that tournament. It was jaw dropping. During that era, drives would take off lower and bore through the air, sometimes rising then almost always curving a bit on the way down (and often curving a lot.) Jack would hit a shot and it was so much higher than anyone else's. The first few I thought were moon balls because I had never seen such towering shots... but then they would be there 290 yards+ and well past everyone. It was a totally different trajectory from Palmer's, or anyone else's. I would have loved to see what he could do in his prime with modern balls and drivers.

I was not a Jack fan. Like most, we idolized the dashing style of Arnold Palmer. I actually talked with Arnie on the practice tee watching him warm up. He hit bullets. Then Jack let go with a 3 wood... and it seemed like it went straight up, like a flop wedge, but landed in the air beyond Palmer's roll-out spots. Jack was a huge man then, very heavy, and looked like a football lineman. George Bayer was big and hit it a mile in his time, but Jack seemed to be able to hit it further with total control. To my peers at the time, it was like nothing we had ever seen before. To think he played an inferior ball on the course is news to me, but I know not many guys would play that ball. I almost never saw one and cannot recall ever hitting one. Titleist and Spalding balls were popular and yes, Virginia, before the rule changed, there were smaller balls like the infamous penfold heart (James Bond) that went a lot straighter in the wind than the the best Titleists or Dots. Yeah, I know... OT.

[Derek]

"I think tiger is better because
1) His swing is more consistent and mechanically correct
2) Tiger has a better short game and imagination "

I absolutely agree... tiger is like a machine when it comes to his swing.