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

[Seth0194]

Jack did it with gear that was no where near what wehave today, The gear Tiger has is top of the line,If both would of been from the same time then we could tell, Jack was the greatest and Tiger is carrying the torch for a diffrent Generation.

[sofingaw]

Is Jimi Hendrix better than Charlie Patton (Pre-WWII blues guitar pioneer and absolute songwriting legend, for those who know) Who knows? Different times. Different equipment (electric vs. acoustic guitar) Different audiences, and numbers of total who have heard each player. Both give me a chill and a fright to hear...

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Seth0194

Jack did it with gear that was no where near what wehave today, The gear Tiger has is top of the line,If both would of been from the same time then we could tell, Jack was the greatest and Tiger is carrying the torch for a diffrent Generation.

Yeah, lucky for Tiger that he is the only one who gets to use modern equipment.  And too bad for Jack that he couldn't use whatever he thought was the best equipment of his time.

Seriously, this is the most ridiculous argument yet.

[kcarile]

At this moment, i think it is too early to tell...tiger has only played for 7 years so just give it time

What do you mean 7 years.. Tiger has been playing for a while lol.. He has been dominating since atleast 2000 in my opinion

[Seth0194]

If u dont think gear has something to do/ with between the two, ur ridiculous, and. Cause a fair way wood from 70's is even with a a titanium fair way wood today will give u the same results, thats like saying if we would had f-16s during WWIi it would of made no difference during the war it would played out the same way.... my point if Jack would had better gear he would of had better oppertunities.

[clutchshot]

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

I disagree, the competition is as hard as its ever been. Tiger introduced the athlete to golf and now there are so many strong players because of it.

[clutchshot]

If u dont think gear has something to do/ with between the two, ur ridiculous, and. Cause a fair way wood from 70's is even with a a titanium fair way wood today will give u the same results, thats like saying if we would had f-16s during WWIi it would of made no difference during the war it would played out the same way.... my point if Jack would had better gear he would of had better oppertunities.

But all the players would also have that gear, it's no advantage to have the same thing everyone else on the field has....

[Deryck Griffith]

Originally Posted by dfreuter415

I saw them both and I give the edge to Jack.

a) Jack faced more "Hall of Fame" competition

c) And, as so many have stated, "The sign of a true champion is how they perform in the Majors.  Let's see - Jack 18 major victories and 19 seconds.  Tiger 14 major vctories and 6 seconds.  Jack finished second to Arnie, Gary, Lee Trevino, Johnny Miller, Tom Watson and Seve. Tiger finished second to Rich Beem, Zach Johnson, Trevor Immelman, and Y.E. Yang.

The only thing in Tiger's favor is that his career still has a number of years remaining.

The field during Tiger's era is far stronger than it was during Jack's time.  Jack's second finishes to the names that you have mentioned makes sense because they were the only other good players during that era.  Aside from those 15-20 players, the remaining players were in no way as good as the 100+ players today that Tiger has to beat every time he tee's up.

Also, regarding records, Jack won his last Major at 46.  Tiger is 9 years younger than that.  Technically, we aren't comparing apples to apples when Tiger has 9 more years to reach the age that Jack won his last major which makes this whole debate somewhat unfair...

[Dave H]

Originally Posted by Seth0194

If u dont think gear has something to do/ with between the two, ur ridiculous, and. Cause a fair way wood from 70's is even with a a titanium fair way wood today will give u the same results, thats like saying if we would had f-16s during WWIi it would of made no difference during the war it would played out the same way.... my point if Jack would had better gear he would of had better oppertunities.

The equipment debate is silly. Jack used the best gear available at the time, so did his competitors. Tiger uses the best gear available now, so do his competitors. What advantage is Tiger gaining?

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Seth0194

If u dont think gear has something to do/ with between the two, ur ridiculous, and. Cause a fair way wood from 70's is even with a a titanium fair way wood today will give u the same results, thats like saying if we would had f-16s during WWIi it would of made no difference during the war it would played out the same way.... my point if Jack would had better gear he would of had better oppertunities.

And yet Jack himself, in his 1996 autobiography, said exactly the opposite.  He said that the improvements in equipment actually have made it harder for the top players to separate themselves from the lesser players.  This was one of the reasons he gave for explaining why there weren't any and wouldn't be any more superstars in golf.  Of course a year later Tiger burst on the scene and became the most dominant golfer ever.  But Jack was still correct and his point makes what Tiger has accomplished even more amazing.

This is what he wrote:

“Even more unfortunate to my mind than the impact of equipment advances on our finest courses is their contribution to the homogenizing of the players. Simply put, the more forgiving the tools, the tougher it becomes for the best to rise above the rest”. …

[Deryck Griffith]

Originally Posted by turtleback

And yet Jack himself, in his 1996 autobiography, said exactly the opposite.  He said that the improvements in equipment actually have made it harder for the top players to separate themselves from the lesser players.  This was one of the reasons he gave for explaining why there weren't any and wouldn't be any more superstars in golf.  Of course a year later Tiger burst on the scene and became the most dominant golfer ever.  But Jack was still correct and his point makes what Tiger has accomplished even more amazing.

This is what he wrote:

“Even more unfortunate to my mind than the impact of equipment advances on our finest courses is their contribution to the homogenizing of the players. Simply put, the more forgiving the tools, the tougher it becomes for the best to rise above the rest”. …

Bang on....

[Seth0194]

Well thats the great thing about opinions, everyone has one and none are wrong, I have watched Tiger since he came into golf, he is 3 months younger then I, and though hands down the worlds best I still believe in todays day golfers have more available to them then the legends of past. If Jack feels the gear today makes them handicapped then I personally feel he is meaning players can use gear to hide behind meaning a lot of players today would not of cut it 30 years ago. So I still thing Jack is better, but love watching Tiger and think he will shatter all records before he is done. Again my opinion.

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seth0194

Well thats the great thing about opinions, everyone has one and none are wrong, I have watched Tiger since he came into golf, he is 3 months younger then I, and though hands down the worlds best I still believe in todays day golfers have more available to them then the legends of past. If Jack feels the gear today makes them handicapped then I personally feel he is meaning players can use gear to hide behind meaning a lot of players today would not of cut it 30 years ago. So I still thing Jack is better, but love watching Tiger and think he will shatter all records before he is done. Again my opinion.

Actually lots of opinions are wrong.

Jack also wrote:

Quote:

“Whether for the above reasons or any others, the fact is that, to be able to hold onto their cards, and earn a decent living, the golfers in the middle of the pack today have had to become as good as the players at the top were when I started out thirty and more years ago, while those in the top have become the equals of superstars of my generation.”

So your interpretation of what Jack really meant is completely wrong.

But I am sure you can come up with some other rationalization of your original opinion.

[Seth0194]

Lol, so ur good at cutting and paste. There are more golfers now is what I take from that and I love that u keep trying to point that Jack is saying " hey the old guys suck" and ur argument is golfers and the topic is who is bettet Jack or Tiger and not mid range golfers from now and then. Regards keep posting Jacks book might save us all a few dollars and we wont have to buy it.

[dfreuter415]

Originally Posted by dfreuter415

Jack 18 major victories and 19 seconds.  Tiger 14 major vctories and 6 seconds.  Jack finished second to Arnie, Gary, Lee Trevino, Johnny Miller, Tom Watson and Seve. Tiger finished second to Rich Beem, Zach Johnson, Trevor Immelman, and Y.E. Yang.

Originally Posted by Deryck Griffith

The field during Tiger's era is far stronger than it was during Jack's time.  Jack's second finishes to the names that you have mentioned makes sense because they were the only other good players during that era.  Aside from those 15-20 players, the remaining players were in no way as good as the 100+ players today that Tiger has to beat every time he tee's up.

Jack or Tiger?  I love these debates because everyone has an opinion.

My original post agreed with you that Tiger still has a number of years to go before his career is complete, and he might rewrite the record books, but I politely disagree with you that the golfers that Jack Nicklaus competed against were inferior to the player's today.  Today's players are bigger, stronger, more physically fit, with technology that far surpasses that of years ago.  However, in golf, that does not necessarily equate to being better.

Your statement, "Jack's second finishes to the names that you have mentioned makes sense because they were the only other good players during that era," is not accurate. During Jack's early career he competed against the likes of Ben Hogan and Sam Snead. In his later years he went head-to-head with Seve, Nick Faldo, and Bernhard Langer. And, in between there were other golfers like Tom Weiskopf, Ray Floyd, Billy Casper, Al Geiberger ("Mr. 59"), Gay Brewer, Julius Boros, Craig Stadler, Bobby Nichols, Fuzzy Zoeller, Greg Norman, Miller Barber, Ken Venturi, Dave Stockton, Peter Thompson, Ben Crenshaw, and a number of others, as well as the ones mentioned as runners-up in the post above.  Most of the golfers mentioned above won one or more majors and would be very competitive on today's tour.

In addition, Jack competed against 10 golfers who have 4 or more major victories (Player, Palmer, Hogan, Watson, Snead, Floyd, Faldo, Trevino, Ballesteros, Thompson), while Tiger competed against 4 (Faldo, Mickelson, Els, Ballesteros).

As for me, after watching the PGA tour for more than 50 years, I'll still go with Jack.

[clutchshot]

So hard to judge which players are "great" when they are playing against different fields. Wouldn't it be fair to say Phil would have been great if he wasn't in the same time as Tiger?

[The Recreational Golfer]

Majors aren't everything in comparing these two, but they count for something. Here's the record so far.

Woods has now played in 70 major championships (through 2013 P.G.A.). Here is his record compared to Nicklaus’s first 70:

Jack:
1st - 14
2nd - 14
3rd - 8
4-10 - 14

Tiger:
1st - 14
2nd - 6
3rd - 4
4-10 - 14

Jack #71 - 2 (1977 Open Championship)          Woods #71 - ? (2014 Masters)

[Jakester23]

Until tiger is done its hard to say but I'd go with tiger. I'd say if tiger only wins 15 or 16 majors and 100 pga events he's better. The wgc events should almost count as 1&1/2 wins as should the players championship.