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

[ChrisP]

Tiger Woods said himself on an ESPN interview that in order to be the greatest of all time, he has to hit 18. In fact, Mike Tirico kept probing him about it citing all the wins he has, and he kept repeating "18."

The bottom line is we're talking about the greatest career player of all-time. I don't think there's any doubt Tiger Woods is better than Jack during the first 15 years of their career. But golf keeps going after age 35, and although Jack did slow down, too, he was able to total up several more majors after his mid-30s. So far Tiger has zero. And this has been the point Jack has been making. He's repeated over and over that if Tiger stays healthy he'll shatter his record and be the greatest ever. But that's been the problem.

Tiger needs 18 majors. Fifty years from now when most of us and they are all dead, they're going to be judged by major championships. That's the bottom line. There aren't going to be any astericks about how strong the field was. He needs 18. When you have 14 at age 32, you need to finish the job and get those last 4. No excuses.

[iacas]

Tiger Woods said himself on an ESPN interview that in order to be the greatest of all time, he has to hit 18. In fact, Mike Tirico kept probing him about it citing all the wins he has, and he kept repeating "18."

That tells us how one person defines GOAT. We aren't obligated to follow that same line of thinking.

The bottom line is we're talking about the greatest career player of all-time.

And many would say that Tiger has done more in his career already - against stiffer competition, no less - than Jack did.

So far Tiger has zero.

And turning 38, he has the same number as Jack had when he turned 38.

Tiger needs 18 majors. Fifty years from now when most of us and they are all dead, they're going to be judged by major championships. That's the bottom line.

No, that's your bottom line. And perhaps Tiger's, and Jack's too. But again, the great thing about humans is that we get to have our own opinions. We don't have to consider only a single number in comparing careers against various competitors, etc.

[geauxforbroke]

Hogan, Hagen, Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, Casper, would own this guy.  .

Those guys would be so far back after 54 holes that Tiger would never have to come from behind to win.

[mvmac]

Does anyone think Tiger is as fierce and determined as this man? Not me.

I would say Tiger is a pretty determined competitor. Guy played 5 rounds in a US Open and won without a left knee.

Just as a last thought. Check out how many multiple "majors" winners Jack played against v. how many Tiger has played against.

As @iacas said, this has been covered pretty extensively on this thread. You're going to have less multiple major winners when a guy wins 14 majors in 11 years. And it's a lot harder to win these majors than it was in the 60'/70's. There might have only been 20-25 guys that had a realistic chance of winning, now that pool is much larger.

[turtleback]

Quote:

Just as a last thought. Check out how many multiple "majors" winners Jack played against v. how many Tiger has played against.

. . .

This is not the golden age of golf; this is the golden age of equipment.

You were doing great there for a while but then you had to spoil an interesting analysis with this silliness.  Look upthread and you will find that the reason that there are more mltiple major winners in Jack's time is actually support for the notion that the fields back then were weaker.

You would also find that the improvements in equipment actually makes it HARDER for the top players to separate themselves and therefore worked against Tiger, not in his favor.  No less an authority than Jack himself has made this very point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

That tells us how one person defines GOAT. We aren't obligated to follow that same line of thinking.

And if that person (Tiger) were to turn around and say that the only fair way to compare players of different eras is by their combined major, WGC, and Players wins (which, of course, would make him the GOAT by an insurmountable margin), these same people would scream bloody murder.  Even though that is EXACTLY what Jack did when, after realizing he was not going to meet any of his original goals, he decided that the only fair way to compare players in different eras is by the number of wins in events that he had more than twice as many opportunities in as the the guys in the other eras.

[bplewis24]

Those guys would be so far back after 54 holes that Tiger would never have to come from behind to win.

He has come from ahead a lot to win.  That makes up for all of the come from behind losses.

[turtleback]

He has come from ahead a lot to win.  That makes up for all of the come from behind losses.

The funny thing is that the Jack supporters simultaneously claim that a) Jack's competitors were tougher, don't back down, kind of players as compared to Tiger's competition, and b) that Jack is better because of his come from behind victories.  Raising the question of just who was it against whom Jack was coming from behind?  It couldn't be those steely eyed competitors we are always hearing about because they would have stood up to the Bear, right?  And yet, Jack himself said that he won many (most?) of his majors by just playing conservatively, not making mistakes, and waiting for his competitors to fall away and give him the title.  How can that be when those competitors were so tough and competitive?

[Crim]

I wasn't alive at jack's prime so I go with tiger being the greatest golfer, also tiger can rip it further, has a better short game, and he's a built athlete, what else is their to say?

I realize this original post was typed out years and years ago...but wasn't Jack known to absolutely BOMB the ball?

When I first saw this thread, I voted Tiger...now I'm starting to change my opinion on things.

I firmly believe that Tiger is more talented, better athlete, greater aura.

But I also believe that Jack is the more intelligent player. Where as Tiger is better all around, Jack played to his strengths extremely well and was rewarded for it.

As of right now I'm going to change my mind and give a slight edge to Jack as far as the greatest goes. But Tiger is right there, I don't think he needs to surpass Jack's major record to become the greatest...but I do want to see his approach to the game after he's all recovered.

[ChrisP]

That tells us how one person defines GOAT. We aren't obligated to follow that same line of thinking.

And many would say that Tiger has done more in his career already - against stiffer competition, no less - than Jack did.

And turning 38, he has the same number as Jack had when he turned 38.

No, that's your bottom line. And perhaps Tiger's, and Jack's too. But again, the great thing about humans is that we get to have our own opinions. We don't have to consider only a single number in comparing careers against various competitors, etc.

But when that one person is the most important person, it's taken a lot more seriously.

If Tiger wins 0-2 majors the rest of his career and finishes short of Jack Nicklaus.....50 years from now, how do you think history will view him? Personally, I think history will see him as a guy who was the best player in the world for the younger part of his career but had a disappointing end of his career (in the majors) and will not be viewed as GOAT.

History views players on MAJORS. That's the bottom line. History doesn't weigh strength of competition or when they won their majors or how many non-majors they won....they judge them on MAJOR CHAMPIONSHIPS. And 50 years from now, I think Jack will be viewed by a majority of people as still the best ever when all of us on this board are dead...assuming nobody else challenges their marks.

I also think Tiger's personal life will be seen, unfortunately, as a major turning point. I'm not saying in any way it should be seen that way, but I'm telling how history and the media will portray it because before "that night" Tiger was on top of the world. Since then, it's been a downhill ride from both the public's perception of him and the injuries he encountered. Like I said, I'm just telling you how I think history will perceive it.

Of course, if he wins 3 majors, one idiot's call to Augusta National on that bad drop could influence history altogether.

[jamo]

But when that one person is the most important person, it's taken a lot more seriously. If Tiger wins 0-2 majors the rest of his career and finishes short of Jack Nicklaus.....50 years from now, how do you think history will view him? Personally, I think history will see him as a guy who was the best player in the world for the younger part of his career but had a disappointing end of his career (in the majors) and will not be viewed as GOAT. History views players on MAJORS. That's the bottom line. History doesn't weigh strength of competition or when they won their majors or how many non-majors they won....they judge them on MAJOR CHAMPIONSHIPS. And 50 years from now, I think Jack will be viewed by a majority of people as still the best ever when all of us on this board are dead...assuming nobody else challenges their marks. I also think Tiger's personal life will be seen, unfortunately, as a major turning point. I'm not saying in any way it should be seen that way, but I'm telling how history and the media will portray it because before "that night" Tiger was on top of the world. Since then, it's been a downhill ride from both the public's perception of him and the injuries he encountered. Like I said, I'm just telling you how I think history will perceive it. Of course, if he wins 3 majors, one idiot's call to Augusta National on that bad drop could influence history altogether.

I've never met History. He/She sounds like a short-sighted moron.

[ChrisP]

I've never met History. He/She sounds like a short-sighted moron.

So you disagree that the game is measured by majors??? Maybe bring some insight instead of calling history a moron. Just like any other sport, it's about the championships...in golf, the majors. Peyton Manning and Dan Marino are the two greatest quarterbacks that I've ever seen and won a ton of games, but yet many see Tom Brady and Joe Montana as the GOAT over them because they have 7 combined rings between the two of them.

Obviously this is a never ending argument. It will go on forever. But we've all been around long enough to see how all the other sports are measured as time passes, and they're measured by who wins the big titles. That's just the way it is. Tennis is another perfect example. It's a majors game.

[jamo]

So you disagree that the game is measured by majors??? Maybe bring some insight instead of calling history a moron. Just like any other sport, it's about the championships...in golf, the majors. Peyton Manning and Dan Marino are the two greatest quarterbacks that I've ever seen and won a ton of games, but yet many see Tom Brady and Joe Montana as the GOAT over them because they have 7 combined rings between the two of them. Obviously this is a never ending argument. It will go on forever. But we've all been around long enough to see how all the other sports are measured as time passes, and they're measured by who wins the big titles. That's just the way it is. Tennis is another perfect example. It's a majors game.

A few points: First, of course majors matter, but they don't have to be the only factor. We're all smarter than that. We can look at the strength of competition in 1975 and that in 2005 and we know how much deeper the fields are today. Tiger didn't have to beat a 6 guys like Jack did, he had to beat 60. Second, comparing Montana to Marino is very different than Tiger to Jack. Tiger didn't go winless in majors, he's second all time, and he's several majors clear of the guy in third (Walter Hagan with 11). Comparing Jack to Tiger is much more like comparing Joe Montana to Tom Brady. Sure, Montana has one more Super Bowl win, but Brady has plenty other things going for him (more TDs, fewer interceptions, higher QB rating, he made it to more AFC Championships and Super Bowls, etc.). Furthermore, we're smart enough to look at those stats and realize that they might not mean what they appear to. Brady threw more TDs, sure, but he also played in an era where the game favored passing offenses. So yes, majors matter, but it's short-sighted to look at 18>14 and blindly accept that that's the only metric we're allowed to use to compare the two players. History will only recognize that as the sole deciding factor if we let it.

[ScouseJohnny]

As I grow older, I've become more and more acutely aware of the fact that any man can only move in the times in which he finds himself.

"Greatest of all time" is a wholly meaningless concept, because, (being utterly totally obvious, I know), any person only has few years to make their best contribution to their sport - not all time. Their challenges, in terms of the equipment they used and the competition they faced, are strictly contemporary to the time in which they played.

Hence: Jack was the greatest golfer of the mid-1960s through to the early 1980s; Tiger (for now, at least) the greatest of the late 1990s through to the late 2000s. Decades from now, they'll both just be interesting figures in the history books of golf - much like, say, Walter Hagen or Harry Vardon are to us, today.

[ChrisP]

A few points:

First, of course majors matter, but they don't have to be the only factor. We're all smarter than that. We can look at the strength of competition in 1975 and that in 2005 and we know how much deeper the fields are today. Tiger didn't have to beat a 6 guys like Jack did, he had to beat 60.

Second, comparing Montana to Marino is very different than Tiger to Jack. Tiger didn't go winless in majors, he's second all time, and he's several majors clear of the guy in third (Walter Hagan with 11). Comparing Jack to Tiger is much more like comparing Joe Montana to Tom Brady. Sure, Montana has one more Super Bowl win, but Brady has plenty other things going for him (more TDs, fewer interceptions, higher QB rating, he made it to more AFC Championships and Super Bowls, etc.). Furthermore, we're smart enough to look at those stats and realize that they might not mean what they appear to. Brady threw more TDs, sure, but he also played in an era where the game favored passing offenses.

So yes, majors matter, but it's short-sighted to look at 18>14 and blindly accept that that's the only metric we're allowed to use to compare the two players. History will only recognize that as the sole deciding factor if we let it.

Only flaw with that argument is we have no control over history, whether we like it or not. Unfortunately, it's the media that controls everything. The media dictates who's the best and who isn't, in particular 50 years down the road when most of us aren't alive. They go by numbers. That's just the way it is. We never saw Bobby Jones or Walter Hagen play, but we go by what the media tells us and the numbers.

I don't get into the whole competition arguments because it's all opinion and can be argued either way. Yeah, the field is deeper today, no doubt, but there's no way to compare whether the top-10 of 1960 or 1970 was better compared to 2000 and 2010. Watson, Nicklaus, Palmer, Player and Trevino may be better than Tiger, Mickelson, McIlroy, Scott and Westwood. Who knows. While it was easier to be in the top-10 30 years ago, it didn't mean it was easier to win against some of the top competition.

I just think in the long run, majors are the determining factor. Tiger and Jack both themselves have admitted it. Now it's one thing if Jack won the most majors but didn't win a lot of PGA events, but he's among the most in PGA wins as well and won a lot of different events.

As for what I personally think, I hold them in two categories. Tiger at his peak was the greatest of all-time, but career-wise, I think Jack still has the edge of the best player of all-time. I think if Tiger can get to 16 or 17, even if he's one short, I will probably give Tiger the edge. But he needs to win some majors later in his career like Jack did or else he's going to be seen by myself and others as someone who peaked early and wasn't as strong later on in his career, particularly in the majors. I think when we talk about GOAT, you need to have that complete career from beginning to end, and Tiger has not capitalized in the later part of his career yet.

[Crim]

As for what I personally think, I hold them in two categories. Tiger at his peak was the greatest of all-time, but career-wise, I think Jack still has the edge of the best player of all-time. I think if Tiger can get to 16 or 17, even if he's one short, I will probably give Tiger the edge. But he needs to win some majors later in his career like Jack did or else he's going to be seen by myself and others as someone who peaked early and wasn't as strong later on in his career, particularly in the majors. I think when we talk about GOAT, you need to have that complete career from beginning to end, and Tiger has not capitalized in the later part of his career yet.

This is EXACTLY how I feel right now. But like many have stated before us, it's our personal opinions. I really hope Tiger can come back strong...pun intended.

[iacas]

But when that one person is the most important person, it's taken a lot more seriously.

I am the most important person in determining my opinion of how to judge "Greatest of All Time."

If Tiger wins 0-2 majors the rest of his career and finishes short of Jack Nicklaus.....50 years from now, how do you think history will view him?

I don't know. Many already regard him as the GOAT. If nobody in 50 years has even gotten to 6 majors let alone 14, I think "history" could view Tiger as well above Jack.

History views players on MAJORS.

And Jack and Tiger didn't play in the same majors, so history is blind to the fact that they had varying strengths of fields if they're just going to say "18 > 14." Also, there's more to golf than majors, so I don't even agree with the premise.

History doesn't weigh strength of competition or when they won their majors or how many non-majors they won....they judge them on MAJOR CHAMPIONSHIPS.

I disagree. Do you honestly feel that Tiger is closer to Walter Hagen than Jack Nicklaus?

And 50 years from now, I think Jack will be viewed by a majority of people as still the best ever when all of us on this board are dead...assuming nobody else challenges their marks.

Dude, look at the poll results. He's not even viewed as the best NOW by the majority of people.

Of course, if he wins 3 majors, one idiot's call to Augusta National on that bad drop could influence history altogether.

The "idiot's" call actually didn't do anything (and if it did, it resulted in the option to not DQ Tiger, so it's better for Tiger that the "idiot" did call in). Plus, I won't apologize for my actions on that day, either.

Only flaw with that argument is we have no control over history, whether we like it or not.

Then do us a favor and stop being so certain that you know what History will say. Get back to us in 50 years, eh?

Only flaw with that argument is we have no control over history, whether we like it or not. Unfortunately, it's the media that controls everything. The media dictates who's the best and who isn't, in particular 50 years down the road when most of us aren't alive. They go by numbers. That's just the way it is. We never saw Bobby Jones or Walter Hagen play, but we go by what the media tells us and the numbers.

YOU might go by what the media "tells you." I make up my own opinions.

I don't get into the whole competition arguments because it's all opinion and can be argued either way.

It really can't.

Just ask Jack Nicklaus. He'll tell you.

[KillEveryGopher]

I admire Jack Nicklaus. I'm a Nicklaus person and not a Woods person. However, in the history of sporting events (Warning: Dramatic statement to follow), Tiger's cut streak is one of, if not THE, most amazing feats. Tiger didn't play many Puerto Rico Opens. He made cuts against the best fields in the best tournaments. Jack only missed around 22 or 23 I think. Not bad either. I am just flabbergasted at how well Tiger was able to play, tournament in, tournament out, on Thursday and/or Friday against very stiff competition.

[ChrisP]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

I don't know. Many already regard him as the GOAT. If nobody in 50 years has even gotten to 6 majors let alone 14, I think "history" could view Tiger as well above Jack.

I disagree. I think half do, half don't. That's the perception I get.

Dude, look at the poll results. He's not even viewed as the best NOW by the majority of people.

Yeah, because this forum's the ultimate barometer and judge. Most of us here haven't even seen Jack play in his prime...we're just going on Jack's numbers vs. actually witnessing Tiger Woods. It's like the Lebron-Jordan argument. I think those that never saw Jordan play would say Lebron's the best, but those like myself who saw both play in their prime give Jordan more of an edge. My dad saw both play in their prime and my dad's opinion I hold with a lot of respect because he actually made it onto the PGA Tour, albeit for a very brief stint. But he holds the same opinion as I do....that Tiger was the greatest at his peak, but Jack still has the greatest career, and in the end, it's the career that matters most.

Quote:

Then do us a favor and stop being so certain that you know what History will say. Get back to us in 50 years, eh?

If only I'm alive in 50 years. But I've seen this play out in other sports and was a journalist once myself and have listened to other experts opinion on this subject. In the end, just like any other sport, it's about the big title. Tennis is a perfect example. Federer is being looked at as The GOAT because he has the most majors. The other small tournaments are important, but in the end, they look at the majors in tennis....unless you disagree with that?

Quote:

YOU might go by what the media "tells you." I make up my own opinions.

As do I. But the media has a strong influence on things that happened in the past, whether you like it or not.

Quote:

It really can't.

Just ask Jack Nicklaus. He'll tell you.

As I said before, the competition and field is much more deep. That's without question. But Jack has never said that the top-10 of today is better than the top-10 of 1960 and 1970. That can't be compared. There's no telling whether Phil and McIlroy are better than Player and Watson and so forth. Deeper field, yes. Doesn't mean if Jack weren't alive today, he couldn't win 18 majors, though.