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

[erniebanks]

OK, can the great "Tiger" come back from a deficit? He hasn't yet!!
Until Mr. Woods can show me that he can play under pressure, he will not be even number 3.
Until Tiger makes a come from behind win that even comes close to the 1986 Masters win by Jack, he is just another guy that did well on the PGA tour.
If you didn’t see it(the final 9 at the 1986 Masters) , you missed the greatest 9 holes in golf EVER!
Tiger just doesn’t measure up, and I for one don't think he ever will.

[iacas]

OK, can the great "Tiger" come back from a deficit? He hasn't yet!!

Jack never won majors by 12 and 15 shots, either.

I think it's unfair to criticize Tiger for being such a great front-runner. Jack lost 54-hole leads in the majors, too. Tiger hasn't, and Tiger's lapped fields, too, along with setting scoring records. Jack also never held all four majors at one time either. Tiger's pace is faster than even Bobby Jones' pace. For that reason, I say Tiger's #1, with Bobby and Jack tied for second (Bobby didn't have quite the competition of Jack or Tiger). I'm a "pace" guy - if Tiger's pace slows, he'll drop in my mind.

[The Bogey Man]

Jack never won majors by 12 and 15 shots, either.

Well said... Tiger IS #1 in my book... and will surpass Jack's record with time...

[Benefactor]

Well said... Tiger IS #1 in my book... and will surpass Jack's record with time...

Um, no, his pace isn't faster than Jones'. Jones started winning majors at the age of around I believe 21 or 22, 6 or 7 years later, at the age of 28, he retired with 13 majors to his name. Tiger didn't do that. Tiger wasn't even close. I think by the time Tiger was 28 he had 8. Not even close to 13.

[Tim S]

I watched Jack nearly his whole career. The fields were tough. Often Jack dominated, often he came in 2nd or worse. He won more than his peers, but he did not rise above the competition like Tiger has ... so far.

It is too early to give Tiger "the best." Obviously, if he breaks the records, he'll have the best record.

I'll tell you this, I loved watching Trevino, Watson, Player, Chi Chi, Hubert Green, Weiskopf and all...then Seve, Norman and that crew. All were distinct shotmakers and, to me, great and innovative golfers. When Tiger isn't in contention or playing, I don't have the same thrill -- and the players absolutely are not as fiery and hungry.

And that's not just an oldtimer speaking. It's the experience of an eyewitness.

But the only way you younger folks can judge "the best" is by the record book. For me, books are for reading. It ain't all of golf. Golf is a little more thrilling.

Today, if I had to choose between watching Jack Nicklaus at his prime or Lee Trevino at his prime, I choose Lee. Lee always had a good chance of winning...but winning isn't everything. :)

TS

[dbriley]

I will go with Tiger based on early career.

[williethekid]

byron nelson?

[Guest]

Tiger has the advatange of exceptional technology...I can only imagine what Jack would have done with such equipment in his prime...Tiger would have only seen Jack's dust...he will always be THE MAN!!

[iacas]

Tiger has the advatange of exceptional technology...I can only imagine what Jack would have done with such equipment in his prime...Tiger would have only seen Jack's dust...he will always be THE MAN!!

So does Tiger's competition.

[Guest]

Tiger will surpass him eventually

[AbsoluteTruths]

I think Tiger is the best. I think he took this as an off year with the birth of his child and new swing.

[tpicciani]

Both are awesome.

Sometimes though I think Tiger is the best thing and worst thing that's happened to golf. If he's in a tournament, people flock to see him. But if he is out, nobody watches the game!

The interesting thing is that he has competition all around him. But the powers that be aren't marketing rivals well enough. I keep thinking that golf needs a big hype event (one on one, perhaps) in prime time, like a skins game.

Anyway, we're fortunate to have such talent in the sport!

later.
Tom P.

[tpicciani]

Honorable mention to Lee Trevino. My favorite moment. 1987 skins game from WAILEA, Maui. Lee hits first and holes it!

His competition? Hale Irwin, Gary Player, and Jack!

Wow

[fluxcapacitor]

I kinda agree with iacas on this one. You kinda have to look at the entire era surrounding each golfer. There are plenty of people hitting farther, and better than tiger. Look at his stats on ESPN's golf page, the only categories he's 1st in is eagles, earnings, and fedex cup points.

As of right now, Nicklaus is the greatest of all time. When Tiger's career is over, then a true comparison can be made based on tournaments they one, popularity, etc. Just my $0.02

[bigwilly319]

i am a new golfer and part of the newer generation of golf fanatics so i would have to say, Tiger is the greatest. its hard to say right now, because Tiger is not close to the end of his career. But from what i've heard, read and watched, jack had more mental strength, especially in the back nines and he would consistantly step up his game physically and mentally when he neede to. Plus, his competition was more aggressive back then, from what i've heard....

[Smilesy]

I think Tiger has the most complete game. There really isn't much he isn't best at, apart from driving. I really think that if he could hit more fairways he would be untouchable. So Tiger gets my vote

[alf174]

Jack has been a true ambassador for the game. Tiger is technically phenomenal at the mechanics of the game but I believe he'll have to pay his dues that only time can bring for him to get to Jack's level.

[Leek]

Depends how you look at it. Tiger has a more complete game. Nicklaus was comparatively much longer than Tiger off the tee. I think Nicklaus was the better clutch putter. Tiger has better short irons and is much better with a wedge in his hands.

If you go by results, then today Nicklaus was better. Tomorrow Tiger will surely catch and pass him.