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

[ChrisP]

That's one of the big arguments I spent time on in my article. Is Walter Hagen the third best golfers of all time? I doubt it. But he'd got 11, behind only Jack and Tiger.

Difference is Hagen has 45 wins total, which I think gets weighted into the whole conversation. That's why Hogan is considered by many a better golfer with less majors because he has over 60 PGA wins.

I think majors are huge, but regular wins carry a lot of merit as well. Jack backed up his 18 majors with 73 PGA Tour wins and 2 US Amateurs. Tiger is on the same level as Jack, if not slightly behind or ahead in the argument because he has 82 PGA wins to go along with it. The more wins he's able to pile up from here on out, the stronger his argument.

However, he's at a critical point in his career now with this injury. I am hoping Tiger can have that all-around career like Jack did when he was able to win majors in his 20s, 30s and 40s. That's what made Jack stand out a lot to me, and I think if Tiger can get these injuries fixed (which is a big if), he can match Jack in that department.

[jbishop15]

What is even more amazing is how deeply entrenched is the 18>14 position (I will no dignify it by calling t an argument) when the fact is that Jack is the ONLY player EVER to have been widely considered the GOAT based on this metric.  Before he got his 12th no one ever considered Hagen the GOAT, yet by the EXACT reasoning they use now he should have been.  They SAY that majors is the ultimate determining factor yet they would never use that in other contexts.  Or are we supposed to think they all believe Peter Thompson (5 majors) was a greater player than Billy Casper (3 majors).  John Daly is a greater player than Tom Kite?

Exactly. Hagen had five PGA championship victories; the only problem with that is that the best players in the game were almost exclusively amateurs. He never had to go against Bobby Jones or Francis Ouiment or Jerry Travers or George Von Elm (well, later on he did; but no in George's prime). Sarazen was playing well around the same time, but there was very few pros that were any good; most were just making a little bit of cash in the offseason before they headed back to their clubs.

[turtleback]

Exactly. Hagen had five PGA championship victories; the only problem with that is that the best players in the game were almost exclusively amateurs. He never had to go against Bobby Jones or Francis Ouiment or Jerry Travers or George Von Elm (well, later on he did; but no in George's prime). Sarazen was playing well around the same time, but there was very few pros that were any good; most were just making a little bit of cash in the offseason before they headed back to their clubs.

This is a common misconception that is not supported by the facts.  Look at the list of winners of the 2 events where pros and amateurs competed against each other, the US and British Opens, and there are very few winning amateurs.  No one other than Jones was able to compete on anything like a competitive basis consistently with the pros.

Ouimet caught lightening in a bottle in 1913.  Von Elm never won squat against the pros when he was an amateur.  Travers won a US Open in 1915, but he is one of only 5 amateurs ever to have won the event.

It is even more stark on the other side of the pond.  The last amateur to win the British Open before Jones was Harold Hilton in 1897.   He, Jones, and John Ball (1890) are the only amateurs to ever with the British Open.

So Jones was an outlier and was certainly able to compete very successfully against the pros multiple times.  But the other amateurs were not.  Just as now, pros were the best players and pros dominated the game competitively.

Difference is Hagen has 45 wins total, which I think gets weighted into the whole conversation. That's why Hogan is considered by many a better golfer with less majors because he has over 60 PGA wins.

I think majors are huge, but regular wins carry a lot of merit as well. Jack backed up his 18 majors with 73 PGA Tour wins and 2 US Amateurs. Tiger is on the same level as Jack, if not slightly behind or ahead in the argument because he has 82 PGA wins to go along with it. The more wins he's able to pile up from here on out, the stronger his argument.

However, he's at a critical point in his career now with this injury. I am hoping Tiger can have that all-around career like Jack did when he was able to win majors in his 20s, 30s and 40s. That's what made Jack stand out a lot to me, and I think if Tiger can get these injuries fixed (which is a big if), he can match Jack in that department.

I cannot disagree with what you say because you are not an 18>14 guy.  Like you I think we have to look at a lot of things  You put tiger slightly behind, I put him ahead by a head.  Looking at  alot of things and still disagreeing is fine.

So you have nothing to defend in the case of Hagen.  Like you I would have had Hogan as GOAT prior to Jack, not Hagen, and I think he STILL belongs in the conversation.  Jack's 18 majors in 130+ attempts isn't measurably better, IMO than Hogans 9 majors in about 60 attempts.

But I would like to encounter an 18>14 person who DID have Hagen as GOAT prior to Jack.  At least it would given them some consistency and intellectual honesty.  But alas, I have never found such a person.

[jbishop15]

This is a common misconception that is not supported by the facts.  Look at the list of winners of the 2 events where pros and amateurs competed against each other, the US and British Opens, and there are very few winning amateurs.  No one other than Jones was able to compete on anything like a competitive basis consistently with the pros.

Ouimet caught lightening in a bottle in 1913.  Von Elm never won squat against the pros when he was an amateur.  Travers won a US Open in 1915, but he is one of only 5 amateurs ever to have won the event.

It is even more stark on the other side of the pond.  The last amateur to win the British Open before Jones was Harold Hilton in 1897.   He, Jones, and John Ball (1890) are the only amateurs to ever with the British Open.

So Jones was certainly able to compete very successfully against the pros multiple times.  But the other amateurs were not.  Just as now, pros were the best players and pros dominated the game competitively.

I think you're underplaying the impact of the amateurs a little bit, but you make good points.

[metrybill]

I AM one of the 18>14 men.  Jack IS the greatest of all time, at least until unseated by Tiger.  The latter is quickly losing ground in his quest, but there is still time.

Not sure I like the GOAT moniker for the Greatest Golfers of All Time.

Having said that, let me express my admiration for Nicklaus, Tiger, and so many others and my perspective as a 66 y.o. player of 50 years. Please bear with me. Please.

It's interesting to note that most of the following came from very humble, even poor backgrounds, notwithstanding the fact that golf has long been considered the game of the elite.  No; well before the Tiger, the game was largely dominated by men of very humble beginnings. Notwithstanding much due respect to Bobby Jones.

Francis Ouimet; enough said. Very, very poor. Golf for the very, very poor became a possibility over the wealthy, advantaged elite.

Walter Hagen almost single-handedly created the PGA "tour," which became The Tour of today and "outings."  It is well-documented that Hagen was not allowed into country club clubhouses, changed his clothes in his expensive cars with the help of his valet-driver-caddie (if he changed them at all), and competed against players that spent most of their time as club pros and part-time tour players.  There may be no way of telling how many exhibitions Hagen played for guaranteed and (oft-times) split purses in advance of the finish. (btw, this practice was still in existence in the late '60's when I caddied in two tour events.  I have no idea of this practice was outlawed, although I suspect and hope that it was long ago.)

Bobby Jones was an amateur, at least as defined at the time.  His father and grandfather were both wealthy.  Jones also worked for Spalding, receiving a salary and who knows what other incentives for designing golf clubs with his name on them.  An extraordinary talent, he competed against the best amateurs and pros at Home and abroad.  A slight man by all accounts, he hit the ball extraordinary distances with equipment that would be considered extremely primitive by today's standards.  If you have the interest and the time, check out his movie-star type instructional videos and let us know what you think.  He was a Renaissance-man type golfer, learned in engineering (Ga. Tech.), literature (Harvard), and read for the law to become a lawyer after a little more than a year at Emory law school.

Sarazen (an even smaller man), Byron Nelson, Snead, Gary Player, Hogan, Demaret, Palmer, Trevino, Rodriguez, and Ballesteros all came from very humble backgrounds.  (I would almost include the diminutive, short game genius Paul Runyan in this category, just b/c of his short game prowess).

NIcklaus' dad was by all accounts somewhere between upper middle class and barely "rich."

Now for the Tiger.  By all appearances, Tiger, the son of a retired Army officer, also came from very humble beginnings.  However, my own personal suspicion is that is only an appearance. Earl traded heavily on his son's potential as a prodigy. Tiger was his father's "ticket" and "property" from a very, very early age. Think Johnny Carson. I would argue that Earl was paid for his son's potential before Tiger was paid for it. How does one explain Tiger's travels, equipment, lessons from Ledbetter, entry fees, ... go on and on?  A free ride to Stanford.

Tom Watson, Johnny Miller, Ray Floyd ... advantaged upbringings, yes, but also self-made, hard working, and vastly competitive, improved golfers. Put Wadkins and Kite in there, too. (Kite practically invented the modern L-wedge, altbeit at a 34", 58*Cleveland gap wedge.)

Tiger's injuries, past and present, are not remotely as bad as those of Ben Hogan.  Check it out.  IMHO Tiger's course management has been second only to Jack's, but still a distant second. IF Tiger can bring himself back to the field in driving distance, improving accuracy and fairways hit, and absolutely BEG for the opportunity to shine on and around the greens, he may find himself in contention and winning majors again.

Tiger cannot count on beating McIlroy ever again head-to-head.  Tiger cannot out drive, hit more greens in regulation, make more putts, or intimidate today's players.

Tiger's narcissism will be his undoing, until he accepts his limitations and he adapts.  Fans don't pull for Tiger the Man, fans pull for Tiger the Talent, the Powermeister, the prodigy.  He is no longer The Talent. Tiger may, should, could become the Corey Pavin with world class but not premiere length.

Does anyone see Tiger becoming the Tom Watson of the next 25 years?  I don't; but I could be wrong.

Metrybill

OK; I cannot resist. Can anyone see Tiger becoming a true Gentleman? See narcissism, supra.

[Golfingdad]

Not sure I like the GOAT moniker for the Greatest Golfers of All Time.

LOL, totally agree.  It's pretty ironic, eh?  The acronym for best ever also happens to be the word given to choke artists?

Maybe we should replace Greatest with Best to avoid that?

News Flash:  Jack may by the GOAT, but Tiger is the BOAT!!!

[mvmac]

I AM one of the 18>14 men.  Jack IS the greatest of all time, at least until unseated by Tiger.  The latter is quickly losing ground in his quest, but there is still time.

Devil's advocate here....

Does that mean that Shaun Micheel is better than Colin Montgomerie? Todd Hamilton is  better than Steve Stricker?

[9iron]

Devil's advocate here....

Does that mean that Shaun Micheel is better than Colin Montgomerie? Todd Hamilton is  better than Steve Stricker?

No, it does not. But then again we are not comparing guys that never won a major to guys that, as Erik claims, are the "anyone" that can win these days.

Lee Janzen won 2 majors. Cary Middlecuff won 2 majors. The similarity ends right there. One of these players, Middlecuff, was considerably better than the other.

[metrybill]

I like the BOAT moniker. Thanks.

EVERY Major winner was at that point in time better than everyone else for that week.

Colin Montgomerie is a lesser version of Tom Kite, who DID win a major.

Montgomerie is not a gnat on Ben Crenshaw's buttocks btw.Lanny Wadkins,Time Kite., and Weikopf.

Steve Sticker IS the better player than any current player, who has one Major. Level of competition

Peter Thomson is the most underrated Majors Champion.

One Major does not make a great player,

But without at least one Major one should NOT be a Hall of Famer.

[MS256]

The thread that never dies. ;-) Out of curiousity I finally went back to see who started this thread. Figured they would have some sort of lifetime achievement award or a gold plaque under their name or something. :beer:

[jbishop15]

The thread that never dies.

Out of curiousity I finally went back to see who started this thread.

Figured they would have some sort of lifetime achievement award or a gold plaque under their name or something.

"Jack and Tiger are a flat circle"

In all seriousness, dude should receive a medal; this thread will be going on after we're all in rest homes

[jamo]

The thread that never dies. ;-) Out of curiousity I finally went back to see who started this thread. Figured they would have some sort of lifetime achievement award or a gold plaque under their name or something. :beer:

He had a big flame out.

[k-troop]

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 guess there was more to say.

[9iron]

Jack was a multi sport athlete in high school. Many said he could have played basketball at Ohio State, even though he did not. His father was a professional football player at one time. Why would anyone think he was any less an athlete than Tiger Woods?

[Patch]

One thing is for certain. Nicklaus never had the injuries Woods has had, and is now dealing with.

[boogielicious]

One thing is for certain. Nicklaus never had the injuries Woods has had, and is now dealing with.

I heard Nicklaus say in an interview that he had numerous shots in his back for pain.

[ChrisP]

I heard Nicklaus say in an interview that he had numerous shots in his back for pain.

Numerous shots in the back is a lot different than having back surgery, two knee surgeries and pulling out of tournaments for stiff necks, achilles pain, elbow pain and lower back pain. It's like playing "Operation" with TIger Woods. My guess is the hip is the next thing to go.

[The Recreational Golfer]

Exactly. Hagen had five PGA championship victories; the only problem with that is that the best players in the game were almost exclusively amateurs. He never had to go against Bobby Jones . . .

Actually, he did. All credit to Jones, but remember the the 72-hole challenge match the two played in 1926 that Hagen won 12&11, and the Open Championships Hagen won in 1928 and 1929.