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

[samadams46]

If Tiger can get back to his original form we can have that discussion.  Right now he's not in the top four.

[lewisgl]

This is a very interesting thread.  i  put a LOT  more weight on what Jack's and Tiger's contemporaries have to say than amatteur golfers in this debate. Would really be interesting to get a vote from all the tour players dating back to Jack's time and before.   There are a pretty good number of tour players who say Tiger is the greatest, right now, even though he is 4 short of Jack in the majors, but undoubtedly there are many who say Jack still  is.   If you strictly go by the number of majors won there can be only one answer at this point but if you weigh in everything than there are a lot of votes for Tiger.  As far as I am concerned, if Tiger wins his 18th major he will definitely get my vote.   If he doesn't win another one, he probably won't.

[jbishop15]

If Tiger can get back to his original form we can have that discussion.  Right now he's not in the top four.

Like, top 4 in the world? Or top 4 all time? Because if it's the latter, then I have to disagree, because worse case Tiger is 1b to Jacks 1a.

[Wally Fairway]

This is a great thread - only getting warmed up at 8 years and 246 pages...and nothing is settled (well except to those who keep arguing "their" side of the discussion)

I think I'll keep checking this thread every 6 months or 10 pages to see if there is any new points to consider...and I'll have to post as a placeholder for where I was the last time.

Keep calm

&

debate away

[samadams46]

There was a point in time when I think Tiger was the best that ever played.  He could intimidate the field like Jack did.  I just think that time has passed and we won't ever see it again.

[turtleback]

This is a very interesting thread.  i  put a LOT  more weight on what Jack's and Tiger's contemporaries have to say than amatteur golfers in this debate. Would really be interesting to get a vote from all the tour players dating back to Jack's time and before.   There are a pretty good number of tour players who say Tiger is the greatest, right now, even though he is 4 short of Jack in the majors, but undoubtedly there are many who say Jack still  is.   If you strictly go by the number of majors won there can be only one answer at this point but if you weigh in everything than there are a lot of votes for Tiger.  As far as I am concerned, if Tiger wins his 18th major he will definitely get my vote.   If he doesn't win another one, he probably won't.

If you go strictly by the number of majors won then it is definitely Jack because indisputably 18>14.

It is when you take in the totality of the career that you realize that 18>14 is the ONLY serious metric in which Jack leads.  Almost any other way you choose to compare, Tiger is head and shoulders above Jack.  Winning percentage, money titles, Vardon trophies, POY awards, wins in a season, most wins in a row, etc.  Upthread it is all laid out.  Other than silliness like Jack finishing second in majors 19 times, or being a nice guy or designing lots of golf courses there is nothing that has been argued in favor of Jack as GOAT other than the simple (some of us call it simplistic)  18>14 fallback.

[lewisgl]

Tiger has a ways to go to before he is done, and he may win some more majors.   His winning percentage is great, but it will most likely drop.  No doubt Jack's winning percentage dropped because he played in PGA tournaments and majors until he was what, about 60 years old.  Tiger is great, but so is Jack, and it is really hard to believe the lack of respect for Jack from some Tiger fans, many of which are not tour players.   18 majors and a bunch of other PGA tournament wins, are you kidding me?   I can guarantee you that Jack's peers have a ton of respect for him, and very deservedly so.

[BigBaffy]

Well, without Jack, there might not have been a Tiger, just like there might not have been a Jack without Hogan or Bobby Jones. So,  I'll go with Jack.

[14ledo81]

Well, without Jack, there might not have been a Tiger, just like there might not have been a Jack without Hogan or Bobby Jones. So,  I'll go with Jack.

By your own reasoning, you should go with Hogan or Bobby Jones????

[ChrisP]

If you go strictly by the number of majors won then it is definitely Jack because indisputably 18>14.

It is when you take in the totality of the career that you realize that 18>14 is the ONLY serious metric in which Jack leads.  Almost any other way you choose to compare, Tiger is head and shoulders above Jack.  Winning percentage, money titles, Vardon trophies, POY awards, wins in a season, most wins in a row, etc.  Upthread it is all laid out.  Other than silliness like Jack finishing second in majors 19 times, or being a nice guy or designing lots of golf courses there is nothing that has been argued in favor of Jack as GOAT other than the simple (some of us call it simplistic)  18>14 fallback.

A lot of people judge by majors and how they did in those majors regardless of competition, so while we may take into account other facts and stats, there are a lot of others, golfers included, that look at majors alone (1sts and 2nds) and draw their conclusion. That's why I think there will also be a public opinion split IF Tiger fails to catch Jack in majors. I think a lot will take into account all the stats and say Tiger, and others will look at majors alone and say Jack.

I always say and continue to say it's just so hard to compare eras no matter what numbers are out there. It truly is. We just don't know if these two went head-to-head week in and week out who would come out on top. We can assume, we can question, we can argue, we can debate....but when it comes down to it, we simply just don't know. Same goes with other sports. We'll never know if Jordan is better than Lebron, Walter Payton better than Jim Brown, Messi is better than Pele, Manning over Montana....how I hope there's a heaven where we can answer these questions up there one day.

[turtleback]

A lot of people judge by majors and how they did in those majors regardless of competition, so while we may take into account other facts and stats, there are a lot of others, golfers included, that look at majors alone (1sts and 2nds) and draw their conclusion. That's why I think there will also be a public opinion split IF Tiger fails to catch Jack in majors. I think a lot will take into account all the stats and say Tiger, and others will look at majors alone and say Jack.

And looking at majors alone is the ONLY way one can say Jack.  And that is my point.

[ScouseJohnny]

Quote:

And looking at majors alone is the ONLY way one can say Jack.  And that is my point.

Quote:

It is when you take in the totality of the career that you realize that 18>14 is the ONLY serious metric in which Jack leads.  Almost any other way you choose to compare, Tiger is head and shoulders above Jack.  Winning percentage, money titles, Vardon trophies, POY awards, wins in a season, most wins in a row, etc.  Upthread it is all laid out.  Other than silliness like Jack finishing second in majors 19 times, or being a nice guy or designing lots of golf courses there is nothing that has been argued in favor of Jack as GOAT other than the simple (some of us call it simplistic)  18>14 fallback.

You could toss Nicklaus's Ryder Cup record in there, too: http://www.rydercup.com/usa/history/2014-ryder-cup-team-records

Not that I have a strong opinion on who is the goat, so to speak.

Nicklaus? Without doubt the greatest golfer of the mid 1960s to the very early 1980s.

Woods? Without doubt the greatest golfer of the mid-to-late 1990s to the late 2000s.

[BigBaffy]

Fair enough. Hogan would kick both their asses.

[jbishop15]

Fair enough. Hogan would kick both their asses.

Based on what? Hogan played in an era with even less competition that Jack. I'm a Hogan fanatic but, I mean, come on.

[ChrisP]

And looking at majors alone is the ONLY way one can say Jack.  And that is my point.

Understand...and I agree with you....but to probably half the public opinion out there, the majors are the only way to compare the two.

In my opinion, Tiger doesn't have to pass Jack in majors, but he needs to at least creep a little bit closer and prove that he can win majors later in his career, not just in his 20s and early 30s. I think majors are the most important factor in comparing the two (though not the only one). I think he'll win a couple more, but not sure he'll get to 18.

[flopster]

Understand...and I agree with you....but to probably half the public opinion out there, the majors are the only way to compare the two.

In my opinion, Tiger doesn't have to pass Jack in majors, but he needs to at least creep a little bit closer and prove that he can win majors later in his career, not just in his 20s and early 30s. I think majors are the most important factor in comparing the two (though not the only one). I think he'll win a couple more, but not sure he'll get to 18.

A couple more will get him within 1 major when Jack was first counting all his majors including his 2 US amateur championships as majors, obviously the pro Tiger crowd will say a tie is a win for Tiger since he has 3 amateur titles to Jacks 2.

[turtleback]

A couple more will get him within 1 major when Jack was first counting all his majors including his 2 US amateur championships as majors, obviously the pro Tiger crowd will say a tie is a win for Tiger since he has 3 amateur titles to Jacks 2.

No, but we might point out that while Jack used the Ams (only while it was to his advantage to do so), Tiger never did. And I doubt if he does if what you say comes about.

[ScouseJohnny]

Quote:

No, but we might point out that while Jack used the Ams (only while it was to his advantage to do so), Tiger never did. And I doubt if he does if what you say comes about.

I seriously doubt whether Mr. Nicklaus gives a damn. I don't think he's looking for any advantage in this contest.

Jack Nicklaus's place in sporting history is secure and deservedly earned. He's coming up on 75; the great elder statesman of golf - loved and revered - again, deservedly so.

No record stands for ever - it's like when Bannister broke the 4 minute mile - he must have known that very same day that his record would eventually be smashed.

Even if Tiger Woods does get to 19, what's to say some Chinese wunderkind won't show up a decade from now and win 20 majors by his 30th birthday? And even if that happens, it won't diminish Tiger's achievements as a golfer (nor anyone else's).