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

[zipazoid]

There's plenty for each side of this debate to use for justification -

Jack's record & longevity.

Tiger's amazing stretch of 14 majors in 12 years.

Jack never won 4 majors in a row, the US Open by 15 or the Masters by 9.

Tiger hasn't won 18 majors & hasn't won a major in damn near 4 years.

So...pick what you feel is relevant. To me, it comes down to the numbers: Jack 18, Tiger 14.

[leist22]

Jack...as of right now.

18-14.

[Wally Fairway]

I didn't read all 160 pages before this, so it has probably been covered - but -

Jack has more majors (and seconds) 18-14 (19-6), did it for a longer period, dominated a decade+ (1966-1981), finished in the top 10 in majors in 35 of 40 majors in the 1970's....Tiger on the other hand had the best 2 1/2 year stretch '99 PGA  - '02 US Open and again in '05-'06....but he isn't the greatest yet, and probably won't reach that summit now that he has physical problems and is again tinkering with his swing.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Wally Fairway

I didn't read all 160 pages before this, so it has probably been covered - but -

Jack has more majors (and seconds) 18-14 (19-6), did it for a longer period, dominated a decade+ (1966-1981), finished in the top 10 in majors in 35 of 40 majors in the 1970's....Tiger on the other hand had the best 2 1/2 year stretch '99 PGA  - '02 US Open and again in '05-'06....but he isn't the greatest yet, and probably won't reach that summit now that he has physical problems and is again tinkering with his swing.

So Jack dominated from 66-81 but Tiger is only notable for 2 1/2 years?  Really?

Well, sadly there are facts to contend with.  In the 16 years from 66-81 Jack won 58 times including 14 majors.  In the 14 years from 96 through 2009 Tiger won 71 times, including 14 majors.  As I said before, at his best Jack was nowhere near as dominant as Tiger was for almost all of his pre-2010 career.

As soon as someone starts citing Jack's second place finishes you know they really know deep down inside that they have no case.

No one in all of golf history has won as high a percentage of golf tournaments in which a significant percentage of the world's best players participated than Tiger Woods.

[brocks]

No one in all of golf history has won as high a percentage of golf tournaments in which a significant percentage of the world's best players participated than Tiger Woods.

Well, maybe Bobby Jones, and some players like Vardon and Young Tom who preceded him. But in Jones's day, with few exceptions, "the world's best" meant only a small talent pool from the US, plus a handful from the UK. And in Young Tom's day, "the world's best" meant a few UK club pros.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by brocks

Well, maybe Bobby Jones, and some players like Vardon and Young Tom who preceded him. But in Jones's day, with few exceptions, "the world's best" meant only a small talent pool from the US, plus a handful from the UK. And in Young Tom's day, "the world's best" meant a few UK club pros.

By necessity, very few of the top US players played in the British Open and very few of the top British players played in the US Open.  Which was my point.  Jones probably never played in an event that included 60% of the world's best players.  Nor did Vardon.

[Chas]

I'm no expert but I've watched a lot of golf since the 60s and there is no doubt in my mind that the competition, in terms of depth of talent, is much greater now that it ever was.  Jack is right.  The $$$ in the game have attracted many who otherwise would not be playing professional pro golf, including some who would be making money in another sport.   This trend will continue as long as the financial base broadens.  The increasingly global nature of the game is making a difference as well.

Follow the money.

[k-troop]

Some of these posts have me thinking about a different way to evaluate strength of fields, and particularly the relevance of the bottom third of the field (numbers 51-150 in modern golf).

Tiger's win at Sherwood last December was against a field of 18 players.  I originally minimized the significance of this win, since it wasn't against much of a field.  In the last chapter of his book, HH congratulates Tiger for making some birdies and holding off Zach on the final few holes, and particularly for the oh-so-important final winning putt.  That got me thinking....

Every tournament comes down to a few guys on the final 9 holes who have to close for the win.  In effect, every tournament is ultimately about just a handful of players with a chance to win, it's just that we don't know who that "field" will be until Sunday afternoon.  This was true in Vardon, Jones, Hogan, Nicklaus, and Tiger eras.  The champion ultimately has to play only a handful of challengers at the end, and that handfull--regardless of who they are--all have a chance to win.

Obviously, you have to play well for the first 63 holes to get into this field.  However, in the cases of Jack and Tiger, it's practically a given (or at least was) that they would be in this sub-field more often than not.  In this sub-field, focus and the ability to handle pressure are everything.  Obviously they're playing good golf, and have the ability to play good golf, or they wouldn't have made it into contention on Sunday.  The difference in winning and losing, particularly in Major Championship golf, comes down to heart and nerves.

Maybe looking at it this way gives Jack the edge in strength of fields.  Far more often than Tiger has, Jack faced seasoned champions on Sunday afternoon.  Men who had closed Majors before, and would go on to do so again.  We'd have to look at who was within 4 or 5 shots of the lead on Sunday of Majors (in the years that Tiger/Jack won) to really evaluate the strength of fields using this method.

And again, this argument rests on simply accepting that, in the cases of Jack and Tiger, they were going to be within 5 shots of the lead going into the final 9 holes about half the time, or maybe more.  In that sense, the strength of the overall field doesn't really matter, because Tiger and Jack were simply playing whoever had the hot hand that week.  The difference is in whether that "hot" player was Michael Campbell or Johnny Miller.  I don't know whether this methodology would produce a clear winner, but I suspect that Jack's fields were leagues beyond Tiger's.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by k-troop

Maybe looking at it this way gives Jack the edge in strength of fields.

Jack's competitors ALSO faced weaker fields, allowing a few guys to rack up more wins in majors and thus artificially "strengthen" their perceived abilities as well.

In Jack's day few of the "51-150" were capable of winning majors. Today, they almost all are.

Ridiculous argument. Those 51-150 are in the tournament too. Their abilities matter too. They weren't as good in Jack's day, they're much better now.

I still say it's Jack (by 3 to 4, depending on your position on U.S. Ams), but let's not go silly.

[x129]

You can't use the success of a few members of the field to demonstrate the depth of the field. In fact that is a sign of lack of depth.  The odds of one guy standing out from a pack is low. When 4 guys do it, it means the pack isn't as  talented.

I am curious though. If Tiger ends up with 19 majors and 83 PGA wins, will ever Jack supporter switch over and say by the number it is clear Tiger is #1 or will they switch to talking about other stuff (Jack had more top 5s or comeback wins, faced "better" competition,....)? I am guessing they will keep trying to prop Jack up.

Originally Posted by k-troop

Some of these posts have me thinking about a different way to evaluate strength of fields, and particularly the relevance of the bottom third of the field (numbers 51-150 in modern golf).

Tiger's win at Sherwood last December was against a field of 18 players.  I originally minimized the significance of this win, since it wasn't against much of a field.  In the last chapter of his book, HH congratulates Tiger for making some birdies and holding off Zach on the final few holes, and particularly for the oh-so-important final winning putt.  That got me thinking....

Every tournament comes down to a few guys on the final 9 holes who have to close for the win.  In effect, every tournament is ultimately about just a handful of players with a chance to win, it's just that we don't know who that "field" will be until Sunday afternoon.  This was true in Vardon, Jones, Hogan, Nicklaus, and Tiger eras.  The champion ultimately has to play only a handful of challengers at the end, and that handfull--regardless of who they are--all have a chance to win.

Obviously, you have to play well for the first 63 holes to get into this field.  However, in the cases of Jack and Tiger, it's practically a given (or at least was) that they would be in this sub-field more often than not.  In this sub-field, focus and the ability to handle pressure are everything.  Obviously they're playing good golf, and have the ability to play good golf, or they wouldn't have made it into contention on Sunday.  The difference in winning and losing, particularly in Major Championship golf, comes down to heart and nerves.

Maybe looking at it this way gives Jack the edge in strength of fields.  Far more often than Tiger has, Jack faced seasoned champions on Sunday afternoon.  Men who had closed Majors before, and would go on to do so again.  We'd have to look at who was within 4 or 5 shots of the lead on Sunday of Majors (in the years that Tiger/Jack won) to really evaluate the strength of fields using this method.

And again, this argument rests on simply accepting that, in the cases of Jack and Tiger, they were going to be within 5 shots of the lead going into the final 9 holes about half the time, or maybe more.  In that sense, the strength of the overall field doesn't really matter, because Tiger and Jack were simply playing whoever had the hot hand that week.  The difference is in whether that "hot" player was Michael Campbell or Johnny Miller.  I don't know whether this methodology would produce a clear winner, but I suspect that Jack's fields were leagues beyond Tiger's.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by k-troop

Maybe looking at it this way gives Jack the edge in strength of fields.  Far more often than Tiger has, Jack faced seasoned champions on Sunday afternoon.  Men who had closed Majors before, and would go on to do so again.  We'd have to look at who was within 4 or 5 shots of the lead on Sunday of Majors (in the years that Tiger/Jack won) to really evaluate the strength of fields using this method.

The difference is that on those (much rarer than you think) occasions when Jack came up against the other top players in his era he frequently LOST!  You will have a hard time finding more than a handful of times when Jack was up against some of the other top guys and actually won.  Watson beat him, Trevino bet him.

And the top players in Jack's time weren't as great as they look by comparing their major wins to the major wins of guys like Els, Singh, Phil, Cabrera, etc..  When there are 8 guys who can compete in majors on a fairly consistent basis they are going to win more majors and compile more impressive records than an era where that are 30 guys who play at that level.  There is no one in Jack's era other than Jack who I would put in the same class as Phil.  With the thin level of competition in Jack's era (Jack himself said there were really only a half dozen guys he had to worry about in the majors) Phil probably would have gotten to double digits in major wins.  And his 40 PGA tour wins would be seen as astounding if it wasn't for Tiger's other-worldly accomplishments overshadowing him.

[VOX]

Phil who?

[k-troop]

For starters guys, I was just posing this as an alternative means of looking at it.  I still think that the argument has merit and is worth considering, just based on the fact that both Tiger and Jack were in the top-5, or within 5 shots of the lead on Sunday, in somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of all majors they played in.  Looking at a sub-field of those players who met the same criteria in those same tournaments might give us some insight on who faced tougher competition where it counted on Sunday.

Originally Posted by iacas

Ridiculous argument. Those 51-150 are in the tournament too. Their abilities matter too. They weren't as good in Jack's day, they're much better now

I would have expected you to give this line of thought some consideration.  You were the one who roasted me for saying that Tiger's win at the Chevron last December was meaningless, because it was against a field of 18.  Something about "[when it comes down to it on Sunday afternoon, he still has to beat the other two guys who are playing well and trying to win]".  As I thought about it, I began to think you were right:   for guys like Tiger and Jack, one just assumes they'll be there on Sunday most of the time.  In a sense, their tournaments don't start until Sunday afternoon.  And, on Sunday afternoon, the field is effectively 10 or less.

Originally Posted by x129

You can't use the success of a few members of the field to demonstrate the depth of the field. In fact that is a sign of lack of depth.  The odds of one guy standing out from a pack is low. When 4 guys do it, it means the pack isn't as  talented.

I am curious though. If Tiger ends up with 19 majors and 83 PGA wins, will ever Jack supporter switch over and say by the number it is clear Tiger is #1 or will they switch to talking about other stuff (Jack had more top 5s or comeback wins, faced "better" competition,....)? I am guessing they will keep trying to prop Jack up.

I'm not talking about the depth of the field as a whole, I'm talking about the depth of the field where it counts:  the back-9 on Sunday of a major when Tiger/Jack were in the top-5 or within 5 shots of the lead (or something like that).  I freely concede that the fields are deeper today from top to bottom on Thursday.  On Sunday, where tournaments are won or lost, the field is cut down to 10 guys (at the most) who have a chance to win.

And you probably didn't mean it this way, but "prop Jack up"?  Seriously?  Jack does not need to be propped up.  He's Jack Nicklaus.  If Tiger gets to 19, then there will be no question for most people about who is the greatest of all time.  Some folks might still debate whether closing out Bob May is the same as closing out Tom Watson, but it's just a debate--it's not as if we have to invent random statistics to prove that Jack was, for a very long time, the undisputed GOAT.

Originally Posted by turtleback

The difference is that on those (much rarer than you think) occasions when Jack came up against the other top players in his era he frequently LOST!  You will have a hard time finding more than a handful of times when Jack was up against some of the other top guys and actually won.  Watson beat him, Trevino bet him.

And the top players in Jack's time weren't as great as they look by comparing their major wins to the major wins of guys like Els, Singh, Phil, Cabrera, etc..  When there are 8 guys who can compete in majors on a fairly consistent basis they are going to win more majors and compile more impressive records than an era where that are 30 guys who play at that level.  There is no one in Jack's era other than Jack who I would put in the same class as Phil.  With the thin level of competition in Jack's era (Jack himself said there were really only a half dozen guys he had to worry about in the majors) Phil probably would have gotten to double digits in major wins.  And his 40 PGA tour wins would be seen as astounding if it wasn't for Tiger's other-worldly accomplishments overshadowing him.

Agree with pretty much everything here, except the part in red is what I'm really curious about.  I wonder what the data would show if you analyzed every major in which Jack/Tiger finished in the top-5 or were within 5 shots of the lead on Sunday.  In those events, who else was in the top-5 or within 5 shots of the lead on Sunday.  Look at who was in this sub-field when Jack/Tiger won, and who among this sub-field beat Jack/Tiger on Sunday.  I don't really know what the data would show (I don't know if you do, but it sounds like you're citing anecdotes), but I think it would be interesting to look.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by k-troop

I would have expected you to give this line of thought some consideration.  You were the one who roasted me for saying that Tiger's win at the Chevron last December was meaningless, because it was against a field of 18.  Something about "[when it comes down to it on Sunday afternoon, he still has to beat the other two guys who are playing well and trying to win]".  As I thought about it, I began to think you were right:   for guys like Tiger and Jack, one just assumes they'll be there on Sunday most of the time.  In a sense, their tournaments don't start until Sunday afternoon.  And, on Sunday afternoon, the field is effectively 10 or less.

I'm going to have to retract part of my last comment.  I recall having this discussion with someone; I thought it was with Iacas.  I've been searching back through the related threads and I can't find anything about it, so it's very possible that it was with someone else, and possibly not even on this forum.  It was 4-1/2 months ago...but sorry for the post.

[x129]

The depth of the last 10 is higher today also. You might say guys like Tom and Gary are better than Phil and Ernie since they have more majors but that is a result of the weaker fields.  If a +7 (Jack), and couple of +6s (Gary, Tom) play with a field of +3s (the rest of the field), the top 3 guys have a good chance of winning. Change it to a +8 (Tiger), +6(Ernie, Phil, Vijay), and field of +5s, the +5s will win a lot more.  Now those numbers are made up but as the field gets closer to the top guys, the field will win more and more (out of a 150 guys you will have some shooting 4 and 5 strokes better than expected). This is basic math.

But lets not belittle Jacks competition either. Phil is great but I am not going to say he was better than Gary Player or Tom Watson.

Originally Posted by k-troop

I'm not talking about the depth of the field as a whole, I'm talking about the depth of the field where it counts:  the back-9 on Sunday of a major when Tiger/Jack were in the top-5 or within 5 shots of the lead (or something like that).  I freely concede that the fields are deeper today from top to bottom on Thursday.  On Sunday, where tournaments are won or lost, the field is cut down to 10 guys (at the most) who have a chance to win.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by k-troop

I would have expected you to give this line of thought some consideration.  You were the one who roasted me for saying that Tiger's win at the Chevron last December was meaningless, because it was against a field of 18.  Something about "[when it comes down to it on Sunday afternoon, he still has to beat the other two guys who are playing well and trying to win]".  As I thought about it, I began to think you were right:   for guys like Tiger and Jack, one just assumes they'll be there on Sunday most of the time.  In a sense, their tournaments don't start until Sunday afternoon.  And, on Sunday afternoon, the field is effectively 10 or less.

As you noted I don't think I did (and really, you should stop exaggerating by saying things like "roasted.").

And I did consider what you said, thank you. :) Just because I didn't agree with you doesn't mean I didn't consider it. :)

Let's imagine that we give players skill ratings. Let's give Tiger and Jack a 10. Let's give all of the multiple major winners between an 8 and a 9.

The "rest of the Tour" in Jack's day contains a bunch of guys who are 3-7. Currently the "rest of the Tour" is a bunch of guys who are 6 and 7s.

So that not only makes it easier for Jack to win more majors, but it makes it easier for the 8s and 9s to win more majors too. Especially if there are relatively fewer 8s and 9s!

Heh, while I was typing it x129 said almost the same thing using handicap indeces.

Originally Posted by k-troop

I'm not talking about the depth of the field as a whole, I'm talking about the depth of the field where it counts:  the back-9 on Sunday of a major when Tiger/Jack were in the top-5 or within 5 shots of the lead (or something like that).  I freely concede that the fields are deeper today from top to bottom on Thursday.  On Sunday, where tournaments are won or lost, the field is cut down to 10 guys (at the most) who have a chance to win.

I think that's a silly way to look at things. In Jack's day you were more likely to get the same names more often because they too were playing against club pros. Today these people are separated by very little, so an extra putt, or a lucky bounce will get a "7" in contention one week. In Jack's day the "3s" almost never contended.

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by k-troop

Agree with pretty much everything here, except the part in red is what I'm really curious about.  I wonder what the data would show if you analyzed every major in which Jack/Tiger finished in the top-5 or were within 5 shots of the lead on Sunday.  In those events, who else was in the top-5 or within 5 shots of the lead on Sunday.  Look at who was in this sub-field when Jack/Tiger won, and who among this sub-field beat Jack/Tiger on Sunday.  I don't really know what the data would show (I don't know if you do, but it sounds like you're citing anecdotes), but I think it would be interesting to look.

I cannot take credit for any of the following, it was compiled by a guy whose screen name was Jugglepin on the old Golf Channel discussion boards before they imploded.  But it is illuminating in view of some of the mythology that has been built up either by people who were not there when Jack was playing or who see the past through rose-colored glasses:

Quote:

Just for fun, let’s look at this a different way. Ok, suppose Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson, Miller, etc were ‘greater’ than today’s current players. I’m not sure I agree but we’ll go with it for this discussion.

The argument seems to be that Jack’s wins were greater because these guys were in the field, or that Jack had so many 2nd’s because these guys stepped up and took championships from him.

Let’s look at Jack’s victories and see what the ‘name’ players did to put pressure on Jack:

’62 US Open –Palmer had 10 3-putts in regulation, and took 38 putts on Saturday; with any kind of putting from Palmer there never would have been a playoff.
’63 Masters – Player bogeyed the last two holes to finish 3 shots back; Palmer shot 37 on the back 9 the last day and finished 5 shots out.
’63 PGA – Player was 7 shots back, Palmer 14 shots back, never in it.
’65 Masters – Jack blew the field away, just like Tiger did in ’97.
’66 Masters – Palmer shot 38 on the back 9, finishing 2 shots out of the Brewer – Nicklaus – Jacobs playoff; Player finished 11 shots back.
’67 US Open - Jack legitimately beat Palmer in this one, though by then he knew he could beat Palmer; unheard of Trevino finished 5th 8 shots back, Player was 11 shots back.
’70 Open – best known for Sanders blowing the 3-footer to give Jack a chance; nonetheless Trevino finished 2 shots back, Palmer 7 shots back, and Player missed the cut.
’71 PGA – Player was the only one close at 4 shots back, Trevino 7 shots back, Palmer 8; Player shot a final round 73 so he didn’t exactly put the pedal to the metal.
’72 Masters – Player finished 5 shots back, Trevino and Palmer both finished 14 shots back at +12; this tournament was similar to 2002 for Tiger in that absolutely no one challenged Jack the last day.
’72 US Open- Palmer shot 76 to finish 4 shots back; Trevino shot 78 to finish 5 shots back, and Player never contended, finishing 15 shots back.
’73 PGA – Watson finished 8 shots back, Trevino and Miller 9 shots back; Player 17 shots back; and Palmer missed the cut.
’75 Masters – Miller admits he chickened out shooting at the pin on 18 when he needed a birdie to tie Nicklaus; Watson was 9 shots back, Trevino 10 shots back; Palmer 11 back.
’75 PGA – Watson was 9 shots back; Palmer and Player 15 shots back; Trevino 21 shots back.
’78 Open – Watson closed with a 76 to finish 6 shots back; Trevino was 10 shots back; Player 11 shots back; Miller was cut.
’80 US Open – Watson was 4 shots back, Trevino 11 shots back.
’80 PGA – Trevino was 11 shots back, Watson 14 back in a Nicklaus runaway.
’86 Masters – great comeback by Jack, but Norman did bogey 18 to miss out playing off.

The inescapable conclusion that I came to looking at all this is that while these guys may have been great players and great champions, they pretty much stunk when it came to putting pressure on Nicklaus in his wins. The fact is guys like Bruce Crampton and Doug Sanders pushed Jack harder in his victories than these guys. Say what will about Di Marco, May, etc. – I contend they did more to force Tiger to play great shots and/or rounds than Palmer, Player, etc. ever did with Jack.

If time and energy allows, we can look at some of Jack’s 2nd place finishes and see where these guys really ‘took’ championships from Jack. There are a few, but not as many as legend would have many believe.

and

Quote:

With all the hoopla about Tiger versus Jack, how Jack’s 19 seconds shows how much other players of his era stepped up, etc. it seemed like looking at Jack’s second place finishes warranted closer scrutiny.

After looking closer, they seemed to fit into 3 categories:

Runaways (6) – Jack was 2nd or T2 but never had a chance

Close but not that close (5) – Jack was 2nd or T2 but it wasn’t as close as it looked

Close calls (8) - either Jack blew it (which happened more often than many realize), the competitor made some great shots, or some combination thereof.

Before laying out the categories, a few observations:

o Trevino and Watson were the only players that fought Jack tooth and nail down the stretch and won.

o While some players clearly did step up against Jack, Jack did play his share of giveaway.

o Jack realistically could have won the close calls. Of these he gave away about half, so perhaps Jack lost 4-5 majors due to competitors really stepping up.

Here they are:

Runaways:

’64 Masters – Palmer won going away by 6 strokes; Jack was T2 with Dave Marr.

’64 Open – Tony Lema won going away by 5 strokes. Jack finished 2nd but was never in it.

’64 PGA – Bobby Nickols won by 3 strokes going wire-to-wire; Jack was T2 with Palmer.

’68 US Open – Trevino won going away by 4 strokes; first player to shoot four US Open rounds in the 60’s; Jack had to shoot a final round 67 to get within 4 strokes. Never close.

’76 Open – Johnny Miller won going away by 6 strokes. Jack shot 69 the last round to get a back-door T2 with Seve Ballesteros, who shot 74 the last round.

’79 Open – Seve Ballesteros won going away by 3 strokes and it wasn’t that close. Jack got a back-door T2, but Crenshaw was the only serious challenger until he double-bogeyed the 17th hole.


Close, but not that close:

’65 PGA – Dave Marr won by two – Jack tied second with Billy Casper. The pivotal hole was the par 5 11th where Jack bogeyed with two poor chips while Marr birdied.

’67 Open – Robert De Vicenzo beat Jack by two strokes – no one else was close. Can you say Rich Beem or Michael Campbell?

’68 Open – Gary Player beats Jack and Bob Charles by two strokes. Player actually battled all day with Charles and Billy Casper. Jack was the chaser all day and never could get closer than 2 shots.

’81 Masters – Jack and Johnny Miller were T2 behind Watson by 2 strokes. Jack had to birdie 15 and 16 to get within 2 shots of Watson, who played a conservative back 9 and cruised home.

’83 PGA – Jack lost by a stroke to Hal Sutton. Sutton had a 5-stroke lead with 7 to play. Sutton got a little sloppy and let Jack get close, but never let him close enough to tie for the lead.


Close calls

’60 US Open – While Palmer ‘charged’ to victory by 2 shots, Jack had to work pretty hard to lose this one. With a one-shot lead, he missed an 18-inch putt on the 13th hole, 3-putted the 14th hole, missed a 3-footer on 16, then missed a 5-footer on 18. Ben Hogan was later quoted as saying he played with a kid 'who should have won by 10 shots’.

71 Masters – Tied for the lead after 3 rounds, Jack 3-putted 4 greens in route to an indifferent 72 and lost by two shots to Charles Coody; Johnny Miller was T2 with Nicklaus.

’71 US Open – Trevino caught Jack with a final-round 69 and won the playoff the next day by 3. Remember that in the playoff Jack gave away the lead early by failing to get out of bunkers on both #2 and #3.

’72 Open – Well chronicled end to the Grand Slam hopes as Jack lost by one to Trevino. Tied for the lead the last round, Jack bogeyed the 16th hole and then failed to birdie the par 5 17th. Trevino of course did hit the miracle chip on 17 to stay one ahead, while Tony Jacklin fell apart and finished 3rd..

’74 PGA – Jack missed a makeable putt on 18 that would have tied Trevino (even though according to legend Jack never missed a putt he needed on 18), thus losing by a shot.

’77 Masters – Watson birdied 17 to take the lead. Jack, playing the group ahead of Watson, then bogeyed 18 and Watson cruised home with a 2-shot victory.

’77 Open – Well chronicled duel in the sun between Nicklaus and Watson. Remember though, that Jack missed a 4-foot birdie putt on 17 that would have kept him tied for the lead, as Watson did birdie 17.

’82 US Open – Well chronicled loss to Watson when Watson chipped in on 17, then also birdied 18 to win by 2.



Can't stop now...before posting this, I want to say that I, like Turtleback and others out here, had the honor of watching both Jack and Tiger play, and there is no greater admirer of Jack than I. His ability was only surpassed by his incredible sportsmanship.

That all said, the myth that Jack never missed a putt or never gave one away is fodder for Discovery Channel 'Myth Busters'. Here are just a few examples of where Jack missed some key putts in a major, many of which he didn't win. And Tiger has missed some as well, the only point here is that Jack was just human as Tiger, perhaps more so.

*******************

1960 US Open - with a one-shot lead, missed an 18-inch putt on the 13th hole, 3-putted the 14th hole, missed a 3-footer on 16, then missed a 5-footer on 18. He lost by two strokes to Arnold Palmer. Ben Hogan was later quoted as saying he played with a kid 'who should have won by 10 shots'.
1963 British Open - with a two-shot lead, three putted the 15th hole from 15 feet (the second putt missed being a 'tap-in') for a bogey, then missed big putts on 17/18 to finish bogey-bogey and lose by one shot.
1966 Masters – after taking 38 putts in round 2, in the final round he missed a 12-foot putt on 16, and then a 4-footer on 17 for birdie that could have won the championship outright. He still prevailed, winning the 18-hole playoff the next day.
1970 British Open – three-putted three of the last five holes, including 18, to give Doug Sanders a great chance to win outright. Sanders missed a 3-footer on 18 and they tied, with Jack winning the playoff the next day.
1971 Masters - four 3-putt greens in the final round and a ball in Rae's creek, lost by two shots.
1972 British Open – missed a 6-foot par putt on 16 to bogy and fall out of the lead in the final round with Trevino and Jacklin.
1974 PGA – left a putt in the jaws of the cup on 18 that would have tied Lee Trevino.
1975 US Open – bogeyed the last three holes to finish two shots out of the Lou Graham – John Mahaffey playoff.
1977 British Open – missed a 12-foot birdie putt on 15 to maintain the lead after Watson had bombed in a long birdie putt, then missed a 4-foot birdie putt on the par 5 17th hole that dropped him out of the lead. Watson birdied the 17th hole and went on to win when they both birdied 18.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by turtleback

I cannot take credit for any of the following, it was compiled by a guy whose screen name was Jugglepin on the old Golf Channel discussion boards before they imploded.  But it is illuminating in view of some of the mythology that has been built up either by people who were not there when Jack was playing or who see the past through rose-colored glasses:

Hey, Mods:  can we add a new category for "post of the year"?  This, more than anything I've ever read, adds some depth to the discussion about whether Jack or Tiger faced tougher competition.  Tiger has realistically lost maybe 2 Majors?  (I'm thinking 2009 PGA to Yang and 2010 US Open to McDowell.)

Looking at the 8 close losses Jack had, 5 of them were when he was in his first 4 years of playing at the highest level.  Three of them were to Trevino, three to Watson, and 1 to Palmer.  I don't know whether this means that Jack was better or worse in each major he won, but it's interesting.

It does show that when Jack went head-to-head against the best of his day in majors, it seems that he lost far more often than he won.  That sticks out to me more than anything:  the level of play by the "greats" of Jack's day seem to have prevented him from getting to maybe 24 majors.