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

[juanrjackson]

It is a fun conversation but I would say it is impossible to say who is the greatest golfer ever because like it is in most sports you can't really compare players from different eras.  Jack was best player of his era just like Tiger is the best of his era.   Jack might have had better competition but again, that is subjective.

Jack has more majors so that puts him tops in that category.

I don't know if Jack moved the TV ratings the way Tiger does?  Maybe not because there were more top notch players in his era.  I know today ratings are double if Tiger is in the field or on the leader board on Sunday.  You probably say I like to see parity & other people win besides Tiger.....but TV ratings show that Tiger brings in people that normally that do not watch golf.  Sadly, guys like Mark Wilson don't get fans to watch lol

[Fourputt]

So far it's still Jack.

Tiger will have to get his act together again sometime soon if he ever wants to claim the title.  The biological clock is ticking for him, and I think the most disturbing thing for him is his erratic putter.  Many other potential greats have faded out early because of putting woes.

[max power]

Very true-Tom Watson might have won 12 or 13 majors if his putter hadn't gone balky in his mid 30's.

Originally Posted by Fourputt

So far it's still Jack.

Tiger will have to get his act together again sometime soon if he ever wants to claim the title.  The biological clock is ticking for him, and I think the most disturbing thing for him is his erratic putter.  Many other potential greats have faded out early because of putting woes.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by max power

Very true-Tom Watson might have won 12 or 13 majors if his putter hadn't gone balky in his mid 30's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

So far it's still Jack.

Tiger will have to get his act together again sometime soon if he ever wants to claim the title.  The biological clock is ticking for him, and I think the most disturbing thing for him is his erratic putter.  Many other potential greats have faded out early because of putting woes.

Yep... and look at how much time Langer lost searching a yip cure.  Johnny Miller also lost his putting touch, as did Tom  Weiskopf.

[Camo]

It is not impossible because it is a matter of personal opinion. All that is required is for you to have an opinion based on whatever critera is important to you. It is a simple opinion poll, not a scientifically based universal law of the universe. For me Jack is the greatest of them all. tiger would be further down my top 10 list somewhere. But that's just my opinion. I bet if every golfer in the country were to vote on it, tiger would win the vote.

[johnthejoiner]

When the golfing world was running scared of tiger, they came up with an ingenious way of protecting the great gentleman's game by tiger proofing golf courses. In effect all they done was make it easier for tiger to win by eliminating 90% of the field. I wonder how many more majors jack would have won if he had been afforded this massive advantage

its  jack all the way

[mkdrep]

Jack Nicklaus is the greatest golfer ever, hands down. He played against much better competition because he played most of his career during the time when you had to finish in the Top 60 to retain your PGA Tour card, which produced much better golfers and stronger fields.  Not like today's tour where you just have to be in the Top 125 to keep your tour card.

Let's compare Jack's major record from the period of 1962 to 1986 (which spans the time frame of Jack's major wins) and from 1997 to 2010 (which spans the time frame of Tiger's major wins).

Jack time frame (TF): (20) players that won (2) or more majors in their career for a total of (71) majors Tiger timeframe (TF): (10) players that won 2 or more majors for a total of (26) majors.

Jack TF: These same (20) players won (383) PGA and (191) European events.  Tiger TF: These same (10) players won (146) PGA and (86) European events

Jack TF: (6) players won 4 or more major's (Player(9), Watson(8), Palmer (7), Trevino(6), Seve(5), Floyd(4))  Tiger TF: (1) player has won 4 or more majors: Mickelson

Jack TF: Jack finished in Top 3 in Majors 25 times.  Tiger TF: Tiger finished in Top 3 (10) times

Jack TF: (18) majors. 54 hole position - (8) times ahead, (8) times behind, (2) tied.  Tiger TF: 54 hole position - (11) ahead, (3) tied.  NEVER came from behind to win.

Jack TF: Won (2) majors in '63,'66,'72,'75, '80 Won (1) major in 8 other years.   Tiger TF: Won (3) majors-'00, (2) majors - '02, '05, '06. Won (1) major in 5 other years.

Tiger had the greatest year ever in '00, winning both Opens and PGA. Jack came close to replicating this feat twice. In  '72 Jack won Masters and US Open, finished 2nd in British and T13 in PGA. In '75 Jack won Masters and PGA, Finished T-7 US Open and T-3 British Open.

I have had the pleasure of watching both Jack and Tiger play in multiple majors on my home course. Jack in his prime at the '68 Open, "80 PGA, Tiger in his prime in the '03 PGA. I also saw Jack play in the '71 Open at Merion. In his prime, Jack was a much better driver of the ball than Tiger was. Jack was the best driver of the ball throughout his career, where Tiger was only a great driver of the ball from 1999 to 2001 when he worked with Butch Harmon. Since he went to Hank Haney, Tiger can't keep his driver on the fairway.  Jack was the best long iron player that game has ever known. Tiger can't be considered a great long iron player, because he seldom ever had to hit them. Mid-irons they are equal.  Short irons go to Tiger when became a much better short iron player under HH, but wasn't very good with BH.  Scrambling goes to Tiger hands down....but then again, Jack always hit 15 or more greens around so he didn't have to scramble like Tiger did/does. Jack is the better putter by a hair simply by taking in the length of his career, his number of majors and the fact that Jack didn't have the pristine greens for much of his career. Jack had to endure lousy greens from '62 until about the mid-1970's.  Tiger has played on nothing but fast and pure greens his entire career

If Tiger and Jack went head to head during their peak years at (10) majors, Jack would win (7) of them and Tiger (3).

[jpfiddle]

mkdrep, that was a very interesting and convincing post.  I do have to question your premise when you compare the records of people beaten by Jack and Tiger.

No doubt your numbers are right: Jack faced more multiple-major winners.  But I submit that this is actually evidence that it is harder to win now than ever before.

In Jack's day, the talent pool was so much shallower, a relatively small group of elite players   tended to do most of the winning.  Jack might face 6 serious contenders, plus another dozen who had a realistic shot at getting lucky and stealing a victory.

But today, with 10 times as many candidates for each tournament slot, with huge purses attracting more and more talent, and with modern training methods, darn near anyone in the field has a chance to win.  The skill levels are that much higher, especially among the "average" players.  Above them, the top echelons are teeming with incredibly gifted pros like Luke Donald and Steve Stricker.

For this reason, it is no surpass that there are so many one-hit wonders like Zach Johnsons and Trevor Immelmans than before.  The competition is tougher.

And since its harder to win then ever, Tiger's victories ought be given even more weight -not less - when comparing them to Jack's victories.

[jpfiddle]

Excellent point.  Tiger's popularity is not evidence of his greatness.  His on-the-course accomplishments are.

[camper6]

That certain intangible you are speaking of is the intimidation he held against other players.

They obviously are no longer intimidated as before since the scandal took place.  They no longer hold him in awe.

Jack had that intimidation factor also.

What they both had is the ability to make clutch putts.  Once that's gone it's ball game over.  Same with Tom Watson.

So if Tiger can continue to make clutch putts he will take over Jack's record.

As far as driving the ball etc. is concerned you simply cannot compare the equipment of today with the equipment Jack played with.

Jack was nicer to watch.

That fist pump has got to go.

[deasy55]

157 pages? Jesus Christ

[Tiger90]

Originally Posted by flap

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

Coming second doesnt count in golf...or any sport for that matter. Sure it is impressive that he came that close 15 more times, but in the end he didn't win the tournament and that is all that matters when judging who the greatest is.

And if anything, golf is more popular of a sport now than it was in the 60's and 70's, so i would argue that TIger had more competition, he just dominated the field so much it made it look as if there was no competition.

I've heard of a Tiger-Slam, but i've never heard of a Jack-Slam...

[Tiger90]

Originally Posted by camper6

That certain intangible you are speaking of is the intimidation he held against other players.

They obviously are no longer intimidated as before since the scandal took place.  They no longer hold him in awe.

Jack had that intimidation factor also.

What they both had is the ability to make clutch putts.  Once that's gone it's ball game over.  Same with Tom Watson.

So if Tiger can continue to make clutch putts he will take over Jack's record.

As far as driving the ball etc. is concerned you simply cannot compare the equipment of today with the equipment Jack played with.

Jack was nicer to watch.

That fist pump has got to go.

I agree with everyting you say, except

1. Jack was nicer to watch....I never saw him, but i know Tiger is amazing to watch, so Jack must have been something else

2. That fist pump has to go....ya right, the fist pump is what has been missing from my life for the past 2 years...best way to end a tourny is a Tiger fist pump

[UNDERGROUND GW]

I like Tigers edge and mental game....but think he will be lucky to win another major. He will pick up a few more wins. The field has gotten to good for him to dominate like he has in the past.

Matt

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by mkdrep

Jack Nicklaus is the greatest golfer ever, hands down. He played against much better competition because he played most of his career during the time when you had to finish in the Top 60 to retain your PGA Tour card, which produced much better golfers and stronger fields.  Not like today's tour where you just have to be in the Top 125 to keep your tour card.

I don't follow that logic... Tiger is playing against the Top 60 as well, just like Jack did - the difference is Tiger is *also* playing against 61-125, most of which have the potential to have one good weekend and be a contender in any given tournament.

Originally Posted by jpfiddle

In Jack's day, the talent pool was so much shallower, a relatively small group of elite players   tended to do most of the winning.  Jack might face 6 serious contenders, plus another dozen who had a realistic shot at getting lucky and stealing a victory.

But today, with 10 times as many candidates for each tournament slot, with huge purses attracting more and more talent, and with modern training methods, darn near anyone in the field has a chance to win.  The skill levels are that much higher, especially among the "average" players.  Above them, the top echelons are teeming with incredibly gifted pros like Luke Donald and Steve Stricker.

For this reason, it is no surpass that there are so many one-hit wonders like Zach Johnsons and Trevor Immelmans than before.  The competition is tougher.

And since its harder to win then ever, Tiger's victories ought be given even more weight -not less - when comparing them to Jack's victories.

I agree with that assessment.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by deasy55

157 pages? J***** C*****t

There is no right answer. Jack played an inferior ball (to the rest of the field) and had more top 3s. Even when he lost he was right there. Tiger plays an inferior ball and had a season like Johnny Miller's 1974 season . . . about 6 times. I think the only thing worth debating is who's the "third" best player of all time.

Snead? Hogan? Hagen? Morris? Someone else? New thread anyone?

[bwdial]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

There is no right answer. Jack played an inferior ball (to the rest of the field) and had more top 3s. Even when he lost he was right there. Tiger plays an inferior ball and had a season like Johnny Miller's 1974 season . . . about 6 times. I think the only thing worth debating is who's the "third" best player of all time.

Snead? Hogan? Hagen? Morris? Someone else? New thread anyone?

As far as I am concerned, Tiger is still behind Hagen.  Hagen won five Western Opens - when they were considered majors - before there was any such thing as a Masters.  Discounting those titles is kind of like saying the Green Bay Packers have only won the NFL Championship four times because that's how many Super Bowls they've won.  NFL Championships prior to the Super Bowl era still count, don't they?

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by bwdial

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

There is no right answer. Jack played an inferior ball (to the rest of the field) and had more top 3s. Even when he lost he was right there. Tiger plays an inferior ball and had a season like Johnny Miller's 1974 season . . . about 6 times. I think the only thing worth debating is who's the "third" best player of all time.

Snead? Hogan? Hagen? Morris? Someone else? New thread anyone?

As far as I am concerned, Tiger is still behind Hagen.  Hagen won five Western Opens - when they were considered majors - before there was any such thing as a Masters.  Discounting those titles is kind of like saying the Green Bay Packers have only won the NFL Championship four times because that's how many Super Bowls they've won.  NFL Championships prior to the Super Bowl era still count, don't they?

They don't count as Super Bowl wins, that's for sure.

I do know that Stanley Cup winners from every era are considered when talking about which team won the most. The only controversy is when a team changes names and ownership (Toronto St Patricks' two wins plus the Toronto Maple Leafs' 11 wins equals 13) or when an expansion team takes on the name of a long since disbanded team that won (e.g. Ottawa Senators).