Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
IGNORED

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


Greatest Golfer (GOAT)  

222 members have voted

  1. 1. Tiger or Jack: Who's the greatest golfer?

    • Tiger Woods is the man
      1627
    • Jack Nicklaus is my favorite
      820


Recommended Posts

Posted
Hard to say, give Jack Tiger's equipment in his prime and see.

Bag: SunMountain KG:3 Cart Bag
Driver: Titleist 913 D3

Fairway: Nike VR_S Covert Tour 3

Hybrid: Nike VR_S Covert 3
Wedges: 51° ,55°, 59° Trusty Rusty

Irons: Adams CMB
Putter: TM Ghost Spider

Glove: LeviTee Golf Glove

Shoe: True LinksWear Sensei, Proto

Ball: Srixon Z Star XV

 


Posted
I decide to stop in to The Trap and this argument's STILL going on. It's been going on for years. Awesome.

"I played like shit." -Greg Norman after the '96 Masters.


Posted
I wasn't alive at jack's prime so I go with tiger being the greatest golfer, also tiger can rip it further, has a better short game, and he's a built athlete, what else is their to say?

I wasnt alive when Jack was at his climax either......but i still think he was the best golfer to ever walk the fairway. He has more majors than any other golfer in the pga currently.

Whats in my bag?
909 D 10.5 Driver

-Hippo exp3 3 wood and hybrid

-Hippo exp3 irons

56 degree wedge

Rosa Monte Carlo putter

Dt roll golf ball


Posted
definitely tiger.
What's in my Bag:
Driver-TaylorMade 09 burner 10.5* | 3 wood-TaylorMade 09 burner | 3 hybrid-TaylorMade Rescue 09 | 4-GW-Titliest AP1 710s | 54.08 wedge-Titliest Vokey spin milled | 60.04 wedge-Titliest Vokey spin milled | Putter-Odyssey white hot #7 | Ball - whatever i find

Posted
I think there is deeper field of players today. Very hard to compare the two head to head

PGA Championship

Don Massengale Don January-1967 Julius Boros-1968 Masters George Archer -1969 Billy Casper-1970 British Open 1970&71-Trevino 1972-Weiskopf US open Johnny Miller-1973(Nicklaus palmer trevino tied for fourth...) Hale Irwin-1974 Pga championship Davis Love 3-1997 Vijay-1998 Masters Olazabel-1999 Vijay-2000 British open Duval-2001 Els-2002 US Open Furyk-2003 Goosen-2004 I don't know about deeper fields. That's a random smattering of majors from both their eras & it's pretty diverse. Also, if you look at the leaderboards for those years it's apparent how much talent there was behind the winners. So in Jack's era, when you look down the list you see weiskopf, miller, watson, palmer, trevino, snead, irwin, etc. Those are some pretty heady names to have on a top ten/twenty behind you. Tigers era, mickelson, els, vijay. Sometimes furyk, goosen, sergio(ok i'm just being mean...). I could look at it a couple of different ways. The field could be conceivably deeper these days, or the top players are complete headcases who cannot finish for more than a season or two at a time. It seems like theres a more consistant group in Jacks era in & around the top ten/twenty. & they're all regarded fairly highly in the ranks of golf elite. But that's the field. & this about Jack vs Tiger. Really until Tiger passes Jack's records there's no contest. People said Jack was the greatest. Then Tiger came along & everyone wasn't so sure anymore. Until a couple of years ago Michael Jordan was pretty much the undisputed greatest basketball player ever as well. But now there's Kobe & people aren't so sure anymore. Just wait 20 years. "Jack was good, & Tiger was alright, but JB is the undisputed greatest!"

Posted
Not having been alive during Jack's reign, I have to go with Tiger. Seems when he is on his game, nobody can stop him. The only thing that seems to screw with him is off the field shenanigans that he has to put up with.

2013 Goal:

 

Single digit handicap


Posted
Tiger.

Jack came first. Tiger came second.

Tiger is better.

A) You need to hit alot of different clubs.
B) Whatever works for you.
C) It's the indian, not the arrow.
D) A 5 wood, 19* hybrid or a lob wedge.


Posted
Tiger is a beast!!! Jack is also but I am a huge Tiger fan.....I think they both share a common ground, on the course that is...;)

Posted
Hard to say, give Jack Tiger's equipment in his prime and see.

Don't forget to give all the other players of his time the same equipment.

I suppose talent was more important before, without the high tech equipment available today. Balls, clubs, swing speed, club speed, trackman, high speed video. I would say it is easier to get good at golf today, but of course that goes for everyone, which makes it harder again to compete in the top. You see players on the tour today that is there almost only on talent, with a swing not honed by cameras. You also got players that use a lot of equipment to their benefit. Earlier, you didn't have this equipment, so those with the talent and ability to play good golf had an advantage over those who didn't.

Ogio Grom | Callaway X Hot Pro | Callaway X-Utility 3i | Mizuno MX-700 23º | Titleist Vokey SM 52.08, 58.12 | Mizuno MX-700 15º | Titleist 910 D2 9,5º | Scotty Cameron Newport 2 | Titleist Pro V1x and Taylormade Penta | Leupold GX-1

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
Jack, and I'm not just talking about golf.

ETA: I thought that Watson's performance in the Brit. Open last year would silence those who argue that competition is tougher now. I was disproved; idiots remain idiots regardless of empirical evidence. Imagine, one of Jack's rivals outplaying Tiger and all the other youngsters minus one, at the age of 60, and some folks still think Tiger has tougher competition.

MOST of the idiots who thought Tiger was a "good guy" still think he's a good guy. It should have been obvious since around 1996 (US Am playoffs vs. Steve Scott).

Posted
Jack, and I'm not just talking about golf.

One good day doesn't make a summer.....

fair play to watson, he did well at his specialty. Links golf in bad weather. But tiger would kill him even the way he is playing at the moment at any other course. Tiger DOES have tougher competition. Back then there was only a few guys playing on tour. Now you've got thousands of pro's all over the world trying their best to get on tour. Only a few of those people make it to the top and that's who Tiger has had to face to get his 14 majors.

My Clubs
Driver - LV4 10* R flex
Wood - sam snead persimmon 2 wood (for windy days)
Hybrid burner tour launch 20* stiff flex.
Irons - Tour Mode 3i,4i stiffIrons - FP's 5-PW R-flexWedge - spin milled 54.14Wedge - spin milled 60.07Putter - Victoria Lowest round 2010: 79 (par 70)Latest rounds at...


Posted
The point about equipment is this: Jack's peers played the same equipment. Tiger's peers play the same equipment.

Actually, if each of their peers played the same equipment, peer wise it is a wash. Say Jack's equipment = X and Tiger's = Y. So Jack, and all of his competition, would have the co-efficient of X and for Tiger and his cohort, Y. Basically, if each set has it's own similar equipment, it impacts each set equally.

Too soon to tell but I might have a new obsession.


Posted
One good day doesn't make a summer.....

Yes, it is hard to play consistently, day to day, for an entire summer, WHEN YOU ARE 60 YEARS OLD!!! I'm curious, how old are you?

I'm not saying it means everything, I'm saying it means A LOT, over the course of four days. The fact that Watson can come back, as a "part-time" golfer and full-time OLD GUY and hang with the best in the world for four straight days at the age of 60 is absolutely huge, ON ANY COURSE! And he isn't even Jack Nicklaus. Your arguments that "back then there were only a few guys on tour" and that "now there are thousands of pro's all over the world trying their best to get on tour" are the typical arguments always used to make your point. I hear you. However, there WERE quite a few players trying to get on, and win tournaments back then, and the best still rose to the top. It's not like the 1975 Masters was a club championship. Additionally, many would argue that overall the older generation of players were mentally tougher and attitudinally superior to many of today's tour "prima donnas". Tiger's intimidation factor is huge because as far as mental toughness, he is a giant, and in regular tournament play and playoffs, world-class players often and obviously wilt like drying daisies in his presence (where are the "battles" of Nicklaus' era?). I'm not going to regurgitate the typical arguments by those who agree with my point of view. I would just offer this idea: Go out and play one round of golf with a set of irons and balls from Nicklaus' era. Just one round. Even if you have done this before, say 10 years ago, try it now. Leather grips, crappy steel shafts so comparatively poor that they easily bend and snap over the knee, sharp/straight blades with zero/negative bounce and comparatively crappy grooves, tiny persimmon woods, an "L" putter, and those ridiculous wound balls that cut and deform upon impact or get surface tearing when someone like Jack hit them 300 yards on the screws (he then had to hit that deformed ball in to the green and putt with it), etc. etc. etc. Then think about this; Tiger Woods' low score in the Masters is 18 under; Jack's is 17 under. ONE STROKE separates those records over the course of four days and around 270 shots. After playing that round with Jack-era equipment, you tell me how many strokes you think Tiger gained on Jack, due to equipment, and nothing more (we won't even go into superior course conditioning, health/dietary/fitness technology improvements, Lasik, computer club fitting etc.). 32 years separates 17 under and 18 under. I have to wonder, not just how Tiger would have done with Jack-era equipment, but how Jack would have done had he had those advantages. One stroke? I think Tiger's advantage is worth more than that. I realize this is just one example, from one tournament. This is just one way to try and compare. Heck, Hogan was 14 under in 1953, and I think that was after the bus wreck. There is a temptation to think that one's own generation is superior, especially since technological innovation makes today's players LOOK superior to yesterday's legends. Golf is a foremost a mental game. As for this discussion, the size of the field of POTENTIAL contenders throughout the world isn't what is important. This is a discussion about the greatest golfers of all time. What matters is the size of the field in terms of ACTUAL contenders who could post a challenge to Tiger or Jack. Jack had to fight off legendary players on a regular basis, and those guys didn't just fall apart when he stepped up to the tee for a playoff.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    Carl's Place
    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • He's not and GEARS doesn't really measure toward your midline. It's measured at the joint. That's not why his use of "midline" is bad (part of the reason is that your "midline" is twisted, the top of your sternum can be pointed at a different place than the belt buckle, and your shoulders protract and retract, too. I think he's just trying to use midline to say which way the arm is moving. But they have terms for that — adduction and abduction — so whatever.
    • They weren't necessarily short - I don't remember the exact specifics of all of it, but some of them were missing a little left or right or both. Day 1 they were landing on the edge and kicking on, where day 2 they were just missing and kicking down into the bunkers and did it a lot. I think all told I actually went into bunkers on 8 holes. Some of them were not good shots. Like a few examples, on 8, the pin was in the back. I hit it solidly, but pulled it and it went long, over the bunker into long grass. I had the ball in sandy earth with long grass around it and about a foot below my feet. That next shot I tried to do what I could but it went into the bunker in front of me. Into a footprint. That one I dug out of the footprint, but still in the bunker. Got that one out of the bunker, but into the fringe grass in front of me. Chipped that one on a bit hard and two putts later made a 7. Another was on 14. The flag was on the little finger of green front left. I tried to play a little past it and a little right. Shoved it maybe 10 yards right of where I wanted to and the carry over the bunker gets longer the further right you go and that one hit the grass between the green and the bunker and came back down into the sand, left it in there and didn't get up and down on the next one. I think carrywise it carried about as far as I was planning on it doing so. Another was on 6, leaked my drive a little right into the fairway bunker. Hit a nearly good shot from there that went a little left and a little short and kicked into the bunker front left. That was a strike thing and just a hard shot. Did similar on 18. Drive in the right bunker, slightly heavy second that hit the bank between green and bunker again and kicked back into the sand. I think the tiredness manifested more as not squaring the face up so well and less as slowing down.
    • Depends on how short you were coming up on these shots. A bit more wind? Also, maybe you were swinging at 2-3 mph slower the next day.  I think the biggest thing is not adjusting. Like making assuming your stock shot is not enough and taking 1 club up. Not sure what type of adjustments you were making in your decision making. 
    • No one should measure a joint mobility away from that joint. If you go to physical therapy, they are not measuring your knee mobility based on your midline. It is based at the joint. Shoulder mobility should be measured in reference to the shoulder joint. 
    • He's using a driver swing, while I used the iron swing. Bryson goes from about 65° B to 15° B, hence the 50°. If you bend your right elbow, you're going to pull your hands across your chest some. Conversely, if you abduct your right arm and hold onto a grip with your left arm, you can see how extending the right elbow as we do in the golf swing during the downswing will "pull" the right shoulder/humerus forward (adducting it, as going from 65° to 15° of abduction is). Even people who pull their right shoulder WAY too far around them eventually get it "back in front" when their right arm/elbow extends. So, such a motion shows up as shoulder adduction even though the movement that causes it is just widening the trail elbow. The left hand on the grip almost "pulls" the hands forward as the left arm can't stretch much (there's some shoulder protraction, but that's almost maxed out at P4). Oh, I downloaded it and watched it (and commented there) before he blocked me. It's what led to him posting the comment in the "update" above. 😄  Single shoulder range of 75°, and that's going out well into the follow-through. 50° Max range up to impact. Manavian's video is bad. He keeps saying "midline" which is just a horrible way to look at it. He also kept saying that the club was moving that amount — also wrong. Adding left and right together is really freaking dumb. Another golf instructor said "That's like saying the player has 100 degrees of knee bend (adding left knee bend to right knee bend) 🤦‍♂️" (similar to what the biomechanist said about squatting). Also, see my post above about elbow bend. That's why Plummer’s alignment stick demo is so intellectually dishonest. A golfer can't get anywhere near that position on the left with his left hand on the alignment stick (quoted below).  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.