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

[mvmac]

Not trying to fan a fire here because I believe Tiger is clearly the better golfer but one has to wonder if Payne Stewart hadn't died in a plane crash as well what would Tigers major total look like, the only thing with Tiger is he didn't just edge a couple guys in the end he would just run away with it and not look back.

Why would Tiger's major record be different if Payne had lived?

[turtleback]

Why would Tiger's major record be different if Payne had lived?

I think the theory is that it is one more proven player he would have had to compete with.  But as flopster said, he was 42 when he died so it really is not a valid point.

Tony Lema,OTOH, had a better record than Payne, died at age 32, and existed in a field where he was one of the dozen or so guys Jack had to worry about at majors.

So if either player "benefitted" by the premature death of a rival it was clearly, IMO, Jack far more than Tiger.

[Mulligan Jeff]

14 Major Championships along with 18 World Golf Championships - no question who the GOAT is...

[Gunther]

I think the theory is that it is one more proven player he would have had to compete with.  But as flopster said, he was 42 when he died so it really is not a valid point. Tony Lema,OTOH, had a better record than Payne, died at age 32, and existed in a field where he was one of the dozen or so guys Jack had to worry about at majors.   So if either player "benefitted" by the premature death of a rival it was clearly, IMO, Jack far more than Tiger.

Jeez, that's a pretty dark Tiger better than Jack argument. I know that wasn't your intent but when I read it I thought, wow.

[turtleback]

Jeez, that's a pretty dark Tiger better than Jack argument. I know that wasn't your intent but when I read it I thought, wow.

Well, it was more a rebuttal of an incorrect argument than putting forth what is, after all, a true argument.

[Wally Fairway]

14 Major Championships along with 18 World Golf Championships - no question who the GOAT is...

Gee, I wonder why Jack never won an WGC events?

[iacas]

Gee, I wonder why Jack never won an WGC events?

Roughly the same reason Hogan only won one British Open.

[14ledo81]

From the latest issue of Golf Digest.

[boogielicious]

Rest of article.

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/nicklaus-woods-hes-best/

Quote:

Nicklaus on Woods: 'He's the best'

By

Will Gray

September 18, 2014, 5:52 pm

Facebook

Email

RSS

It remains to be seen whether Tiger Woods can match Jack Nicklaus ' haul of 18 majors, but perhaps Woods doesn't need to lift trophy No. 18 to be considered the greatest - even in the eyes of the Golden Bear.

CBS Sports' Kyle Porter gleaned a Nicklaus-Woods nugget from the recent Golf Digest profile on U.S. Ryder Cup captain Tom Watson . In the piece, Watson describes a conversation he had with Nicklaus while watching Woods in action.

"Nicklaus and I were watching Tiger play on TV," Watson said. "I can't remember where it was. I think it was at the Senior Skins Game. So we were in Hawaii . I said, 'Bear, he's the best, isn't he?' Jack said, 'Yeah, he's the best.'"

The statement isn't exactly a surprise coming from Nicklaus, who has been complimentary of Woods throughout his career and has remained confident that the 38-year-old will one day break his record for the most majors won, despite the fact that Woods' most recent major title came more than six years ago.

The Tiger vs. Jack debate will likely rage on should Woods fall short of Nicklaus' major mark, but it appears that even based on his current list of accomplishments, he might have Nicklaus' vote.

[Wildcatfan]

Irresolvable issue--which is what makes this fun I suppose. But: Snead had the best swing--a matter about which there seems little controversy. Hogan was the most consistent ball-striker--again not a matter about which there is much controversy. Nelson surely had the greatest attitude to win (and, remember, he retired at 34). Best putter: a little more open, but you would have to consider Bobby Locke. Around the green, pretty hard to say. Sand traps: again hard to say. Best athlete: Snead's athletic skills were simply beyond anything anyone can achieve by training. Best playing hurt: Hogan by a mile.

So now we turn to Jack and Tiger. By the time Jack reached Turnberry he was playing in tournaments only occasionally but with great intensity . . . still his interest in other golfish type things lessened his numbers. I suspect he could have passed Snead--but he didn't, so suspicions do not count.

In terms of effort and commitment to tournament play Tiger and Hogan seem to be tied--at least in my head.

The problem with all these comparisons is this: when the World War II generation was playing the prize monies were so low that they HAD to play relentlessly. Hogan once played an entire tournament on fruit grown locally because he could not afford. The physical toll eliminated great golfers who could not stand the grind. So the competitive field was different. Golf before the TV era was a war of attrition and those who lasted trained relentlessly if informally. It made some players great through relentless pressure. The rest it killed.

Almost no one was coached from childhood to become a pro . . . which is certainly not the case today.

Could Jack and Tiger have been Jack and Tiger if they had to play under the conditions of that one generation of greats. It is hard to see Tiger's body taking the immense physical strain of that era. Jack is a little harder to judge. He could have very easily, like Nelson, simply turned his attention to something less stressful and more rewarding.

[Big Dick]

I think Jack is the best. In my opinion if Jack was playing at the same time as Tiger he would have been able to elevate his game to another level. I heard Travino and Jack one time and Travino wondered why Jack's chip and pitch shots weren't far better. Jack replied he hit so many greens he didn't spend a lot of time on them. They both are at the top mentally.

[golffitnessguru]

As the physical therapist working for the PGA Tour, I been fortunate enough to have the opportunity to work with BOTH Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods.  They are truly both great golfers BUT until Tiger actually beats Jack's records, we have to say that Jack is the greatest golfer.

[Jakester23]

As the physical therapist working for the PGA Tour, I been fortunate enough to have the opportunity to work with BOTH Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods.  They are truly both great golfers BUT until Tiger actually beats Jack's records, we have to say that Jack is the greatest golfer.

Which record? He's beat basically all of Jack's records besides 1st's and 2nd's in majors.

[golffitnessguru]

Yes, he has but the 'majors' are still the standard that most experts use as the most significant criteria for evaluating who's the best.  I have no real argument with you, however, Tiger as his best was truly amazing.  In a few more years, we should really be comparing Tiger vs Rory...two players more in the 'modern' era of golf having more of the same performance factors (golf fitness, mental training, custom equipment and professional instruction) all working for them.  Jack never had all of those benefits in his era.

[Jakester23]

Yes, he has but the 'majors' are still the standard that most experts use as the most significant criteria for evaluating who's the best.  I have no real argument with you, however, Tiger as his best was truly amazing.  In a few more years, we should really be comparing Tiger vs Rory...two players more in the 'modern' era of golf having more of the same performance factors (golf fitness, mental training, custom equipment and professional instruction) all working for them.  Jack never had all of those benefits in his era.

I'm not going to debate all those thoughts with you read the previous 4700 post and sure you will learn why your opinion is wrong (at least I feel it is). Also Tiger is still playing so it's not really a question you can have a definitive answer to unless you think that Tiger has already passed Jack which I do.

[golffitnessguru]

OK, makes sense...no real argument coming back from me. Like I said before, I could just have easily chosen Tiger as the best ever.  But after working with and spending time with both golfers, I have never personally met a golfer who has overcome the physical limitations that Jack had to deal with and still play at his high level.  No debate beyond that.  Tiger was/is truly great!

[turtleback]

Yes, he has but the 'majors' are still the standard that most experts use as the most significant criteria for evaluating who's the best.  I have no real argument with you, however, Tiger as his best was truly amazing.  In a few more years, we should really be comparing Tiger vs Rory...two players more in the 'modern' era of golf having more of the same performance factors (golf fitness, mental training, custom equipment and professional instruction) all working for them.  Jack never had all of those benefits in his era.

OK, makes sense...no real argument coming back from me. Like I said before, I could just have easily chosen Tiger as the best ever.  But after working with and spending time with both golfers, I have never personally met a golfer who has overcome the physical limitations that Jack had to deal with and still play at his high level.  No debate beyond that.  Tiger was/is truly great!

This is what I love about you guys.  You start with the simple-minded 18>14.  The majors are not what most experts use it is what most casual fans use.  People who understand the game look at the whole career and there is no contest once we do that.  Go ahead and list Jack's years in order from most dominant to least.  I'll do the same for Tiger and we'll see how they match up.  Or we could look at cut streaks.  Or we could look at winning streaks.  Or we could look at POY awards.  Or Vardon Trophies.  Or most wins in a season.  Or . . . .   and all you have on the other side is 18>14.   And the embarrassing fact that Jack Nicklaus is the only player in the history of golf who was acclaimed the GOAT based on number of majors won.  Because I assure you, neither Walter Hagen nor Bobby Jones was considered the clearcut GOAT before Jack passed them.

Then you throw in nonsense about Jack not having the benefits of "golf fitness, mental training, custom equipment and professional instruction".  It is nonsense because the guys Jack was playing against didn't have those things either (although I think Jack Grout might be a little upset at your assertion that Jack didn't have professional instruction).

If we want to look at the difference in conditions then the truth is that Jack had a big advantage over the majority of his competitors.  Unlike almost everyone Jack could afford to fly from site to site and rent houses at the tournament sites, while other top players were schlepping their families around in station wagons and staying at the equivalent of a Motel 6. (Read Frank Beard's "diary" style book for the year he won the money title.)

And then there is the fact that unlike almost all of the other players, Jack built his schedule around the majors.  Billy Casper, a player who was clearly the best player in the world from 1966 to 1968 and clearly on any reasonable all time great  list played the British Open 3 times.  Snead, Hogan, and Nelson, played about 3 among them.

And this is the real shame of the silly 18>14 argument (and why I lost a lot of respect fr Jack, who was my favorite player, since he is the one who was instrumental n changing the criteria to the one he already satisfied after failing to get to his previous criteria).  It automatically writes out players from earlier eras who had, both de jure and de facto, far fewer majors to play.  Jack played waaaaaaaaay more majors than Ben Hogan.  How does having more opportunities automatically make you greater?  I've argued in this thread that Hogan should be in the conversation.  The ONLY basis Jack has for being in front of either Tiger or Ben is longevity.  On almost any other measure Jack comes in a clear 3rd among them.

As to Jack's physical limitations. I remember an early bursitis problem, but then after that I don't remember much of anything until as a senior he got his hip replaced.  And he really doesn't say much about there terrible  physical limitations.  I do not remember him overcoming bad knees and a stress fracture to win a US Open.  I also do not remember him winning majors after a major auto accident from which he was supposed to never walk, let lone play, again.  So maybe your statement that: "I have never personally met a golfer who has overcome the physical limitations that Jack had to deal with and still play at his high level." comes across as massive hyperbole.  And shows the underlying bias.

PS:  I'm guessing the next argument will be the field one.This is all so predictable.

[Golfingdad]

If we want to look at the difference in conditions then the truth is that Jack had a big advantage over the majority of his competitors.  Unlike almost everyone Jack could afford to fly from site to site and rent houses at the tournament sites, while other top players were schlepping their families around in station wagons and staying at the equivalent of a Motel 6.

Yeah, but, but, but ...

This just shows the "drive" that those guys had back in that day.  Players today have it too easy, what with their leer jets and their caviar, so they don't care, therefore, they're not as good.

Or something to that effect.

P.S.  Really good post, BTW.  (Even if it is stuff you've had to repeat to 1000 people 1000 different times. :))

P.P.S.  I am genuinely curious about the "previous criteria" that Jack failed to achieve though.