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

[flopster]

Obviously 70% of the people taking this survey disagree with me, but it's opinion.  Neither right or wrong.

For me there are several factors:

1)  Competitive accomplishments, which are at this point still remarkable.  Beyond just the total number of major victories at 18:

18 Major victories (current record)

19 Major 2nd place finishes (current record)

56 Major Top 5 finishes (current record)

73 Major Top 10 finishes (current record)

1st Major victory at age 22 and last at age 46, a span of 25 years showing longevity of Major relevance

Masters:

6 Victories (current record)

4 2nd place (current record)

15 top 5 finishes (current record)

22 top 10 finishes (current record)

Youngest 2 time champion (current record)

Youngest 3 time champion (current record)

Oldest Champion (current record)

Most cuts made 37 (current record)

Most birdies 504 (current record)

Most eagles 24 (current record)

US Open:

4 Victories (current record)

Only player to win the title in 3 different decades

The Open:

3 wins

7 second place (current record)

16 top 5 finishes (current record) 11 of those in a row from 1970 - 1980

33 rounds in the 60s (current record)

NEVER finished worse than 6th place from 1966 - 1980

PGA Championship:

5 first place (current record)

4 second place

12 top 3 finishes (current record)

41 rounds in the 60s (current record)

I also look at his commitment to the game and what he has given back to the game.  After his competitive golf career he has built a golf empire in golf course design and architecture.  His prominence in the number of golf courses he has personally been involved in designing and building throughout the world in phenomenal.  His total golf career and impact on he game spanning a 50+ year period and the records he still holds after that much time speaks volumes to me.  So no, I'm not just looking at "18 Majors", I'm looking at 50+ years of accomplishments.

Others opinions will obviously vary.

Wow, thank you for putting this out there, clearly the exception to most people who side with Jack.

[soon_tourpro]

Obviously 70% of the people taking this survey disagree with me, but it's opinion.  Neither right or wrong.

For me there are several factors:

1)  Competitive accomplishments, which are at this point still remarkable.  Beyond just the total number of major victories at 18:

18 Major victories (current record)

19 Major 2nd place finishes (current record)

56 Major Top 5 finishes (current record)

73 Major Top 10 finishes (current record)

1st Major victory at age 22 and last at age 46, a span of 25 years showing longevity of Major relevance

Masters:

6 Victories (current record)

4 2nd place (current record)

15 top 5 finishes (current record)

22 top 10 finishes (current record)

Youngest 2 time champion (current record)

Youngest 3 time champion (current record)

Oldest Champion (current record)

Most cuts made 37 (current record)

Most birdies 504 (current record)

Most eagles 24 (current record)

US Open:

4 Victories (current record)

Only player to win the title in 3 different decades

The Open:

3 wins

7 second place (current record)

16 top 5 finishes (current record) 11 of those in a row from 1970 - 1980

33 rounds in the 60s (current record)

NEVER finished worse than 6th place from 1966 - 1980

PGA Championship:

5 first place (current record)

4 second place

12 top 3 finishes (current record)

41 rounds in the 60s (current record)

I also look at his commitment to the game and what he has given back to the game.  After his competitive golf career he has built a golf empire in golf course design and architecture.  His prominence in the number of golf courses he has personally been involved in designing and building throughout the world in phenomenal.  His total golf career and impact on he game spanning a 50+ year period and the records he still holds after that much time speaks volumes to me.  So no, I'm not just looking at "18 Majors", I'm looking at 50+ years of accomplishments.

Others opinions will obviously vary.

Its Jack and Eldrick will never come close to what Jack did no matter what he does the rest of his career.

That Open record just speaks volumes.

[Ernest Jones]

Its Jack and Eldrick will never come close to what Jack did no matter what he does the rest of his career.

That Open record just speaks volumes.

Well then, that settles it...

[Phil McGleno]

Your predictions about this are probably worth about as much as your prediction that youll be a tour pro soon.[quote name="soon_tourpro" url="/t/2203/jack-or-tiger-whos-the-greatest/4158#post_937624"] Its Jack and Eldrick will never come close to what Jack did no matter what he does the rest of his career. That Open record just speaks volumes. [/quote]

[Golfingdad]

Obviously 70% of the people taking this survey disagree with me, but it's opinion.  Neither right or wrong.

For me there are several factors:

1)  Competitive accomplishments, which are at this point still remarkable.  Beyond just the total number of major victories at 18:

18 Major victories (current record)

19 Major 2nd place finishes (current record)

56 Major Top 5 finishes (current record)

73 Major Top 10 finishes (current record)

1st Major victory at age 22 and last at age 46, a span of 25 years showing longevity of Major relevance

Masters:

6 Victories (current record)

4 2nd place (current record)

15 top 5 finishes (current record)

22 top 10 finishes (current record)

Youngest 2 time champion (current record)

Youngest 3 time champion (current record)

Oldest Champion (current record)

Most cuts made 37 (current record)

Most birdies 504 (current record)

Most eagles 24 (current record)

US Open:

4 Victories (current record)

Only player to win the title in 3 different decades

The Open:

3 wins

7 second place (current record)

16 top 5 finishes (current record) 11 of those in a row from 1970 - 1980

33 rounds in the 60s (current record)

NEVER finished worse than 6th place from 1966 - 1980

PGA Championship:

5 first place (current record)

4 second place

12 top 3 finishes (current record)

41 rounds in the 60s (current record)

I also look at his commitment to the game and what he has given back to the game.  After his competitive golf career he has built a golf empire in golf course design and architecture.  His prominence in the number of golf courses he has personally been involved in designing and building throughout the world in phenomenal.  His total golf career and impact on he game spanning a 50+ year period and the records he still holds after that much time speaks volumes to me.  So no, I'm not just looking at "18 Majors", I'm looking at 50+ years of accomplishments.

Others opinions will obviously vary.

I couldn't help but notice that, although you clearly have a lot of criteria here, not just 18>14, all of your criteria is still in regards to the 4 majors.  You also (oddly) are including Jack's golf course architecture career as a tick in his favor as to who's the greatest golfer of all time.

Honest question:  Do non-major related stats - regular tour victories, scoring records, cuts streaks, player of the year awards, etc, etc - factor in to your comparison at all??

Wow, thank you for putting this out there, clearly the exception to most people who side with Jack.

Yeah, he definitely thought it through.  Well done bugdude.

Its Jack and Eldrick will never come close to what Jack did no matter what he does the rest of his career.

That Open record just speaks volumes.

I was told that if you can't say anything nice then you shouldn't say anything at all, so in response to this, I would like to say:

[flopster]

Its Jack and Eldrick will never come close to what Jack did no matter what he does the rest of his career.

That Open record just speaks volumes.

This reply is definitely winter rules being used in the summer.

[turtleback]

I think Jack.  But anyone who grew up watching Jack play in his prime and then was watching the back 9 at the 1986 Masters as it unfolded live would understand why.

I fit that profile exactly and it is still Tiger for me for the reasons I have (exhaustively) sited upthread.  Majors are important, but there is a lot more to golfing greatness than majors.  And in almost every other respect Tiger completely dominates Jack.  Certainly by a lot more than Jack leads Tiger in the majors.

So while you dress it up, it still boils down to 18>14 by your criteria.

Its Jack and Eldrick will never come close to what Jack did no matter what he does the rest of his career.

That Open record just speaks volumes.

Maybe if Tiger pays a Hooters tour event every year he can compile a record like Jack's in the Brtish Open.  Because for most of Jack's career the strength of the field in the British Open was about comparable to a modern day Hooters tour event.

[BugDude]

Majors are important, but there is a lot more to golfing greatness than majors.  And in almost every other respect Tiger completely dominates Jack.  Certainly by a lot more than Jack leads Tiger in the majors.

So while you dress it up, it still boils down to 18>14 by your criteria.

I couldn't help but notice that, although you clearly have a lot of criteria here, not just 18>14, all of your criteria is still in regards to the 4 majors.  You also (oddly) are including Jack's golf course architecture career as a tick in his favor as to who's the greatest golfer of all time.

Honest question:  Do non-major related stats - regular tour victories, scoring records, cuts streaks, player of the year awards, etc, etc - factor in to your comparison at all??

OK, here's a side-by-side comparison by category:

		Jack		Tiger
Majors 1st		18		14
2nd		19		6
Top 3		46		24
Top 5		56		31
Top 10		73		38
PGA Tour Wins		73		79
2nd		58		29
Top 3		167		127
Top 10		182		185
Senior PGA Tour wins		10		0
Senior Major wins		8		0
Amateur Wins		18		21
Amateur Majors		2		3
Total Professional Wins		116		106
US National Team Appearances:

Ryder Cup Record, Player       17-8-3                         13-17-3

Amateur:
Walker Cup	1959	Winners
Walker Cup	1961	Winners	1995	Loss
Eisenhour Trophy	1960	W T&I;	1994	Winners
Americas Cup	1960	Winners
Americas Cup	1961	Winners
Pro:
Ryder Cup	1969	Tie	1997	Loss
Ryder Cup	1971	Winners	1999	Winners
Ryder Cup	1973	Winners	2002	Loss
Ryder Cup	1975	Winners	2004	Loss
Ryder Cup	1977	Winners	2006	Loss
Ryder Cup	1981	Winners	2010	Loss
World Cup	1963	W T&I;	2012	Loss
World Cup	1964	W T&I;	1999	W T&I;
World Cup	1965	Winners	2000	Winners
World Cup	1966	Winners	2001	Loss
World Cup	1967	Winners
World Cup	1971	W T&I;
World Cup	1973	Winners
Dunhill Cup			1998	Loss
Presidents Cup			1998	Loss
Presidents Cup			2000	Winners
Presidents Cup			2003	Tie
Presidents Cup			2005	Winners
Presidents Cup			2007	Winners
Presidents Cup			2009	Winners
Presidents Cup			2011	Winners
Presidents Cup			2013	Winners
Captain:
Ryder Cup	1983	Winners		0
Ryder Cup	1987	Loss		0
Presidents Cup	1998	Loss		0
Presidents Cup	2003	Tie		0
Presidents Cup	2005	Winners		0
Presidents Cup	2007	Winners		0
Ryder Cup Record Player		17-8-3		13-17-3
Total Team Record		20-2-2		10-10-1

Over the course of their entire careers up to this point, one can hardly say that Tiger totally dominates Jack in every other regard.  When evaluating the entire golfing career in terms of amateur, PGA, majors, total professional wins, Senior tour, and representing the entire United States as a golfer in Team competition, it appears Jack edges him out in the entire body of work.  Don't just count majors?  OK, count total professional wins.  Jack 116, Tiger 106.

And just for giggles Jack has designed and constructed more golf courses than any single person in the world.  That's not playing golf, but it sure takes a lot of total golf knowledge, vision, and impact on the game.

If you care to look up all of his accomplishments, the number of records he still holds, and the awards he has received please feel free to do so.  I'm not going to post them all, but when you compare them it's obviously weighted towards Jack.  But Jack has done that over 50+ years.  Perhaps Tiger will eclipse those marks by the time he reaches Jack's age and then I would agree.  But at this particular point in time, he's not there yet.  He could suffer a career ending injury tomorrow and he'd be done.  We're not counting potential, but where they both stand in their entire respective bodies of work at this point in time.

Just my opinion.

[iacas]

Over the course of their entire careers up to this point, one can hardly say that Tiger totally dominates Jack in every other regard.

I disagree.

First, Senior Tour, seriously?

Second, team events - you throw those out too. The competition in Jack's day was far, far paler than it is now.

OK, count total professional wins.  Jack 116, Tiger 106.

How do you figure? 73 + 10 is 83.

And just for giggles Jack has designed and constructed more golf courses than any single person in the world.

That has no real bearing for the majority on "Greatest GOLFER of all time" or else Pete Dye would be in the discussion. Plus, Jack hasn't designed or constructed more golf courses than anyone. He's probably personally had a hand in only a percentage of his company's designs.

If you care to look up all of his accomplishments, the number of records he still holds, and the awards he has received please feel free to do so.  I'm not going to post them all, but when you compare them it's obviously weighted towards Jack.

I disagree. It may have been twenty pages ago for all I know, but I think @turtleback posted a list of the records and things Tiger holds, including things like winning Player of the Year, Vardon trophies, margins of victory, winning percentages, etc.

He could suffer a career ending injury tomorrow and he'd be done.

And yet, in the minds of 70%, Tiger's career has already surpassed Jack's. They must be doing more than asking themselves which number is larger: 18 or 14.

P.S. A great many people couldn't care less how many times Jack finished second in a PGA Tour event. Wins matter. Second is just the first loser. :D

[BugDude]

In one breath you say "Wins Matter and that's all.  Nobody cares who came in second."  OK, 18 vs 14.  Then it's "That's just majors, what about everything else"  OK, why limit it to JUST the PGA Tour.  Why not world wide professional golf wins all tours = 116 vs 106 ***

So which is it?  Wins only matter or they don't, or is it that just some wins matter and others don't?

Just Pick and choose whatever stats support your argument, but It is clear that there is no "Total Domination".  All Major, Jack wins.  All pro events, Jack wins.  Team golf, Jack wins.  Top 3 finishes in either Majors or all PGA events, Jack wins.  That's not being totally dominated.

And I don't think you can ignore Golf in which one represents their Country.  The Ryder Cup records represent their records as players, and that is a reflection of them as a golfer on a world wide stage, playing not for money but for Country.

But hey, it's just my opinion (which 70% of people disagree with).

*** Total Profession Wins includes more than just PGA Tour, and it excludes amateur.

[iacas]

In one breath you say "Wins Matter and that's all.  Nobody cares who came in second."  OK, 18 vs 14.  Then it's "That's just majors, what about everything else"  OK, why limit it to JUST the PGA Tour.  Why not world wide professional golf wins all tours = 116 vs 106 ***

I still don't know how you get to 116. You didn't list European Tour victories or anything else, so show your work.

So which is it?  Wins only matter or they don't, or is it that just some wins matter and others don't?

Wins matter, but are you counting Tiger's wins in his 16-man event? What's your method?

Wins matter, but the field against which the players are competing matters too. There are many people who, even if you allow them only to consider the numbers 18 and 14, will still place Tiger ahead of Jack because 14 wins in the modern era is more impressive (to them) than 18 in Jack's era.

Just Pick and choose whatever stats support your argument, but It is clear that there is no "Total Domination".  All Major, Jack wins.  All pro events, Jack wins.  Team golf, Jack wins.  Top 3 finishes in either Majors or all PGA events, Jack wins.  That's not being totally dominated.

No, Jack doesn't clearly win those things. He wins them only if you consider the number (and you still haven't shown your math for the "total pro wins" totals).

Besides, 116 to 106 (if we accept your numbers) isn't "domination" either. And again, I'll tag @turtleback in the hopes that he posts his lump of facts that show the many ways in which Tiger can be shown to have dominated Jack Nicklaus - including things like scoring titles, money titles, player of the year honors, margins of victory, cuts made, winning percentage, percentage of prize money earned per event, and so on.

And I don't think you can ignore Golf in which one represents their Country.

Yes you can. Europe (GB&I;) sucked when Jack was beating up on them. Seriously, the 1973 Ryder Cup team had such stalwarts as Clive Clark, Eddie Polland, Neil Coles, Brian Huggett, John Garner, and Maurice Bembridge!

But hey, it's just my opinion (which 70% of people disagree with).

And I'm simply telling you why that may be the case (that you're in the minority). I currently have them as pretty darn equal. One more major or some unknown number of PGA Tour wins and I may very well put Tiger permanently in the lead (in my own opinion).

[BugDude]

Google "List of Career Achievements" for both Jack and Tiger then do some simple comparisons.  It's all laid out.  Both the total number for Jack and Tiger are broken out by event type and event.

Strength of field is also debatable.  Jack competed against historic world class players during his career, and probably a lot more of them, but who counts Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Tom Watson, Lee Trevino, Tom Kite, Johnny Miller, Greg Norman...all push overs and hacks.

The majors are the best of the best at that particular time and Jack consistently had better finishes against those fields.  Whether you count wins only or top 3 finishes.  He was more consistent against the strongest fields of his day at this point.  Scoring averages are hard to compare due to technology changes (more in ball technology).  But in each's day, they competed against fields that had the same technology they did.

Money titles.  When Jack won the 1986 Masters, he won $144,000.  Zach Johnson got $1.3 Million in 2007.

Despite leading the Tour in scoring average eight times, Nicklaus never won the Vardon Trophy because he often did not play the minimum required number of rounds to qualify for the trophy. Prior to 1988, the minimum number of rounds was 80 vs. 60 today.

There are all sorts of facts, figures, statistics, apple and orange comparisons due to different time frames, technology, whatever.  In the end, it is each individual's opinion and that only matters to them.  I don't think either player has "dominated" the other at this point but one of them has finished his career and the other hasn't.  So the opportunity is still there and may indeed occur.  Each has dominated their professional sport in their time.  The similarities between their accomplishments are amazing.  Yet 25 years from now someone may pop on the scene and blow them both off the map.

[Jakester23]

In one breath you say "Wins Matter and that's all.  Nobody cares who ame in second."  OK, 18 vs 14.  Then it's "That's just majors, what about everything else"  OK, why limit it to JUST the PGA Tour.  Why not world wide professional golf wins all tours = 116 vs 106 *** So which is it?  Wins only matter or they don't, or is it that just some wins matter and others don't?   Just Pick and choose whatever stats support your argument, but It is clear that there is no "Total Domination".  All Major, Jack wins.  All pro events, Jack wins.  Team golf, Jack wins.  Top 3 finishes in either Majors or all PGA events, Jack wins.  That's not being totally dominated. And I don't think you can ignore Golf in which one represents their Country.  The Ryder Cup records represent their records as players, and that is a reflection of them as a golfer on a world wide stage, playing not for money but for Country. But hey, it's just my opinion (which 70% of people disagree with). *** Total Profession Wins includes more than just PGA Tour, and it excludes amateur.

I just want to make sure you know tiger isn't eligible for the senior tour. Also he Is currently playing meaning the numbers will in all likelihood go up.

[BugDude]

I just want to make sure you know tiger isn't eligible for the senior tour. Also he Is currently playing meaning the numbers will in all likelihood go up.

Yes, I'm fully aware of both.

But Jack's accomplishments on the senior tour also show longevity over the course of a 40 year career.  Competing at an older age.  But, if we ignore his senior tour accomplishments, and team golf accomplishments, and other professional golf accomplishments on other tours, and say strength of field negates his 60s and 70s wins, and consistency of finishing in the top 3 vs just the win don't count, then what we are saying is "Only PGA Tour Wins from 1995 - Today count, therefore Tiger is the Greatest EVER."  In actuality, that would mean "Tiger is the Greatest from 1995 - Today"...which he without doubt is.  That's a fact.  "EVER" encompasses a much broader scope.  He may and most likely will reach that point at some point in the future...but we're talking about at this point in time.

[iacas]

Google "List of Career Achievements" for both Jack and Tiger then do some simple comparisons.

I don't have to. Why do you keep trying to share this kind of thing?

Strength of field is also debatable.

I disagree that they're debatable, and even Jack Nicklaus will tell you that the fields are MUCH stronger these days than in his day. We've already discussed strength of field several times. Jack competed against fields that had tons of club pros, and European golf had very few good players or stars during most of his career.

He was more consistent against the strongest fields of his day at this point.

The strongest fields in his day were weak fields in today's world.

Scoring averages are hard to compare due to technology changes (more in ball technology).

Adjusted scoring averages aren't. And "Vardon trophies won" isn't a measure of scoring average but rather a measure of where you finish relative to your peers. Additionally, improved technology makes it more difficult for a player to separate himself from the field - improved technology strengthens Tiger's case.

You keep setting them up and I keep knocking them down.

Money titles.  When Jack won the 1986 Masters, he won $144,000.  Zach Johnson got $1.3 Million in 2007.

So? How many money titles did Jack win? How many has Tiger won? It's not a measure of how much money you win - but how much money you win relative to your peers.

Despite leading the Tour in scoring average eight times, Nicklaus never won the Vardon Trophy because he often did not play the minimum required number of rounds to qualify for the trophy. Prior to 1988, the minimum number of rounds was 80 vs. 60 today.

And Tiger's won nine (despite missing several years despite not having enough rounds - for example, 2008.) Nicklaus never won it. He was eligible for it several years.

In the end, it is each individual's opinion and that only matters to them.

Right. So why do you keep posting? I've shared my own opinion. I'm just playing devil's advocate. It's clear why you've come to your opinion. 70% of people disagree with you.

Still waiting on @turtleback . :-)

[BugDude]

You said "show your work", so I shared where to find it.  People are free to look at it if they care or not.  Makes no difference to me.

From 1962 to 1978 The British Open winnings were not included in the official money list rankings.  During that time, Jack won that event 3 times and had 14 top 5 finishes.  That would have changed the money title relative to his peers significantly.

The point of a forum is to share opinions, unless, as it appears, your opinion differs.  Then it appears you are supposed to apologize for your opinion being "wrong" and conform to the herd.

I'm simply sharing information that is publicly available to demonstrate that the so called "domination of Jack by Tiger" is not so apparent after all.  I have formed my opinion based on a wide base of various factors and am sharing them.  People are free to choose their own stats that matter to them, but people who weren't around back in the day may not be aware of all of that data.  Now that they are, it may mean nothing to them at all and may not change anything for them.  That's fine, they're not wrong.  Opinions aren't about "right or wrong."  I'm not saying 70% of the people are wrong or that I'm right.  Just discussing opinions.  I don't understand why you care so much about my opinion...I'm in the lowly 30% and that's not likely to change.  So what.  In 10 years when Tiger's numbers change, maybe my opinion will change.  But it will still only matter to me...and I'm nobody.

[iacas]

The point of a forum is to share opinions, unless, as it appears, your opinion differs.  Then it appears you are supposed to apologize for your opinion being "wrong" and conform to the herd.

Not even close to true. You drastically misread something if you think that's what's being communicated. You shared your opinion. I've shared some of the things that various people - including Nicklaus himself - have said about some of the pieces that form the foundation of your opinion.

I'm simply sharing information that is publicly available to demonstrate that the so called "domination of Jack by Tiger" is not so apparent after all.

You seem to be hung up on that phrase, but you keep responding to me when you should be asking @turtleback :

Majors are important, but there is a lot more to golfing greatness than majors.  And in almost every other respect Tiger completely dominates Jack.  Certainly by a lot more than Jack leads Tiger in the majors.

Moving on…

I don't understand why you care so much about my opinion...I'm in the lowly 30% and that's not likely to change.

I don't really care. I just like to play devil's advocate and you're clearly very stuck in your opinion. You're as close to "wrong" as an opinion can get about strength of field, and some other things, and I was pointing some of those things out.

I can be done if you are. :)

[turtleback]

Still waiting on @turtleback. :-)

It is all here already in this thread.  If he wants to find it he can.  Repeating it again will have no effect, as your exchange with him amply demonstrates.

I'm simply sharing information that is publicly available to demonstrate that the so called "domination of Jack by Tiger" is not so apparent after all.

He doesn't even understand the question.  It's not about domination of Jack by Tiger.  A player can only dominate another player if they are contemporaries.  The question is how dominant is Tiger over his contemporaries over his career versus how dominant was Jack over his contemporaries over his career.

Tiger was clearly the dominant player (not just the best player in the world for the year) for at least 10 years (1999, 2000-2003, 2005-2007 (2008 is arguable but let's not count it), 2009, and 2013).  I think you would be hard pressed to find 7 years where Jack was as dominant over his competition as Tiger was over his in these years.