Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
IGNORED

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


Greatest Golfer (GOAT)  

222 members have voted

  1. 1. Tiger or Jack: Who's the greatest golfer?

    • Tiger Woods is the man
      1628
    • Jack Nicklaus is my favorite
      820


Recommended Posts

Posted
30 minutes ago, iacas said:

@Vinsk Jack people think they have facts too. And they do have some.

Oh yeah I know. So do the Flat Earth people.😃

  • Like 1

:ping: G25 Driver Stiff :ping: G20 3W, 5W :ping: S55 4-W (aerotech steel fiber 110g shafts) :ping: Tour Wedges 50*, 54*, 58* :nike: Method Putter Floating clubs: :edel: 54* trapper wedge

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Posted
8 hours ago, NJpatbee said:

Jack still has the greatest career of all time.

Just curious, what are you basing this on?

Bill

“By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.” - Confucius

My Swing Thread

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
10 hours ago, lastings said:

It honestly wouldn’t surprise me if Tiger won all 4 majors this year, passed Snead, won the grand slam, tied Jack’s majors record and people would still say, “but jack has more top 10’s!”

A dozen or so years ago, when it looked like Tiger was on pace to win 25 majors, I was debating a guy on the old Golf Channel board, now defunct.  He had scientifically analyzed the number of majors Jack's top opponents had won compared to Tiger's, completely oblivious not only to the strength of the fields in the 60's, but to the fact that he was comparing a 25-year span to a ten-year span. 

And he concluded that Jack's competition was five times as strong as Tiger's, and that Tiger therefore needed to win 90 majors before he would challenge Jack as the GOAT.  I am not joking.

  • Like 1

Posted
10 hours ago, Beastie said:

I wouldn't say "cherry picking" just out all the names Pretzel listed, it struck me straightaway that DiMarco didn't really match up to the others on that list , never mind to a guy with 8 majors........... 

 

DiMarco would have won two majors within about 15 months if Tiger didn't pull off some incredible golf to beat him. Who knows where DiMarco's career might have gone if Tiger wasn't standing in the way.

Likewise for Sergio Garcia who would have gotten the major monkey off his back at age 19 instead of it sitting there for almost 20 years. The career trajectory for these guys probably would have turned out a lot better without TW in the way. 


Posted
8 hours ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

 

Who knows where DiMarco's career might have gone if Tiger wasn't standing in the way.

Likewise for Sergio Garcia who would have gotten the major monkey off his back at age 19 instead of it sitting there for almost 20 years. The career trajectory for these guys probably would have turned out a lot better without TW in the way. 

Interesting, or we can go with what Phil says (even if he's just being political) that Tiger raised the bar and this made them all play better.

Bill - 

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
2 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

Interesting, or we can go with what Phil says (even if he's just being political) that Tiger raised the bar and this made them all play better.

yep, thats normally the case in most sports. Nothing makes you play better than getting your arse kicked week in week out.

I say normally the case as my football team have had their butts kicked all season and didn't improve :cry:

Russ, from "sunny" Yorkshire = :-( 

In the bag: Driver: Ping G5 , Woods:Dunlop NZ9, 4 Hybrid: Tayormade Burner, 4-SW: Hippo Beast Bi-Metal , Wedges: Wilson 1200, Putter: Cleveland Smartsquare Blade, Ball: AD333

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
20 hours ago, Vinsk said:

They will. Some people simply can not grasp that facts don’t care about feelings. They feel putting is where the real money is. They feel Jack having 18 majors is better than Tiger’s 15. If any current top ten player went and played on the Mckenzie Tour and picked up a bunch of wins (he would) then those same people would say...’yeah but that’s among a lot weaker field.’ But if you then point out that several of Jack’s early major wins had a large number of club pros who had no chance of winning they would then reply, ‘oh yeah...well he had to beat Player, Watson, Weiskop and Plamer...you call them weak players!?’ They’ll never get it because they don’t want to get it.

 

There are folks who, as you say, base their views purely on emotion (or feelings) - and they are on both sides of this issue.  There are also people who bring facts and figures to support their side of the issue - but not facts that can be prove the answer to the question.

 

This entire thread is discussing a hypothetical.

 

There is no proof available and never will be, regardless of the side of the fence that you stand.

 

It is interesting to discuss and debate, I suppose, but in the end it is simply a question that cannot be answered with anything resembling 'proof' (except in the minds of those who 'feel' that they are right).

 

I don't know who the best golfer was.  I just know that they were both the greatest of their time.


  • Administrator
Posted
23 minutes ago, Hardluckster said:

This entire thread is discussing a hypothetical.

No it isn’t.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
15 minutes ago, Hardluckster said:

 

There are folks who, as you say, base their views purely on emotion (or feelings) - and they are on both sides of this issue.  There are also people who bring facts and figures to support their side of the issue - but not facts that can be prove the answer to the question.

 

This entire thread is discussing a hypothetical.

 

There is no proof available and never will be, regardless of the side of the fence that you stand.

 

It is interesting to discuss and debate, I suppose, but in the end it is simply a question that cannot be answered with anything resembling 'proof' (except in the minds of those who 'feel' that they are right).

 

I don't know who the best golfer was.  I just know that they were both the greatest of their time.

Well I get your point but don’t entirely agree. It’s really being a bit stubborn to not recognize that Jack’s fields in his earlier major wins were not nearly as deep and competitive as Tiger’s. The point made regarding the chances of winning with x number of ranked, quality players compared to y is true. It’s not opinion. It’s also a fact that Tiger’s winning percentage is greater than Jack’s. It’s also fact that Tiger has won more tournaments and in a shorter time period than Jack. 

This isn’t a question of taking Jack from his day and playing Tiger who would win. And that doesn’t matter because it’s golf. Any golfer can beat any golfer. That of course is impossible to know. The question is taking both their careers who is the greatest golfer of all time. More stats, data, and facts point to Tiger. At least if you read through the points that @iacas, @turtleback and @brocks have presented It appears that way.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

:ping: G25 Driver Stiff :ping: G20 3W, 5W :ping: S55 4-W (aerotech steel fiber 110g shafts) :ping: Tour Wedges 50*, 54*, 58* :nike: Method Putter Floating clubs: :edel: 54* trapper wedge

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
11 minutes ago, iacas said:

No it isn’t.

Sure it is.  You cannot prove that either is better than the other.

 

But I'm sure that you disagree with that, and its ok.

 


Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Well I get your point but don’t entirely agree. It’s really being a bit stubborn to not recognize that Jack’s fields in his earlier major wins were not nearly as deep and competitive as Tiger’s. The point made regarding the chances of winning with x number of ranked, quality players compared to y is true. It’s not opinion. It’s also a fact that Tiger’s winning percentage is greater than Jack’s. It’s also fact that Tiger has won more tournaments and in a shorter time period than Jack. 

This isn’t a question of taking Jack from his day and playing Tiger who would win. And that doesn’t matter because it’s golf. Any golfer can beat any golfer. That of course is impossible to know. The question is taking both their careers who is the greatest golfer of all time. More stats, data, and facts point to Tiger. At least if you read through the points that @iacas, @turtleback and @brocks have presented It appears that way.

Up front, I want it to be clear that I don't think that Jack is the GOAT.  I also don't think that its Tiger.  I believe that the GOAT in any sport is a mythical creature that can never truly be identified.  That is just my view (that doesn't make it correct 😊).

I don't disagree with you, Vinsk.  I'm not disputing that there are facts that can suggest which golfer might be the best.  More of those facts point to Tiger than to Jack.  I totally agree that many of the fields that Jack competed against were not nearly as deep as the current fields of golf.  Tiger's win percentage is higher than Jack's percentage at the same age.  Tiger's win total is higher than that of Nicklaus.  All are facts.

My view is that we simply cannot know which golfer possessed the most skill because there are too many variables.  Head-to-head, both in their prime with equal equipment, training, and preparation it would have been an incredible thing to watch I'd bet.  

If numbers are all that you use to determine which of these two was the greatest, then Tiger wins I think - even with the 18>14 argument that is espoused by so many.  I simply don't necessarily think that numbers can tell us which was the greatest golfer of all time - to me that would be the most skillful golfer ever to play and I don't think that numbers can tell us that (again, just my view).

Who is the greatest?  It might well be Tiger.  It might be Jack.  It may even be someone else completely.

Just my $0.02.

Edited by Hardluckster

Posted
32 minutes ago, Hardluckster said:

Sure it is.  You cannot prove that either is better than the other.

Huh? Of course you can. And it’s been well presented. 

:ping: G25 Driver Stiff :ping: G20 3W, 5W :ping: S55 4-W (aerotech steel fiber 110g shafts) :ping: Tour Wedges 50*, 54*, 58* :nike: Method Putter Floating clubs: :edel: 54* trapper wedge

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
14 minutes ago, Hardluckster said:

Head-to-head, both in their prime with equal equipment, training, and preparation

The topic of equipment has been discussed  and even Jack himself admitted that the improvement of equipment has lessened his advantage because it helped the lesser skilled stay closer to beating him.

Training? Nobody forced Jack to smoke and eat ice cream rather than hitting the gym. He trained as he saw fit. Even if you disagree with that, it’s still falls as a reason Tiger is better whether it’s an advantage to Tiger or not.

Preparation. Jack had his own preparation. Nobody prevented him from preparing. And how many times did Jack have to fly to Asia for a PR event then return immediately and play a four day event? If you want to say there are advantages for Tiger in preparation that weren’t available for Jack then again..just another reason Tiger’s better. 

It’s not a hypothetical argument. When we discuss athletes and their accomplishments it’s their accomplishments that we use to evaluate their status. Serena is easily considered a superior tennis player to Gabriella Sabatini. Why? They never played so how can we say that? 

:ping: G25 Driver Stiff :ping: G20 3W, 5W :ping: S55 4-W (aerotech steel fiber 110g shafts) :ping: Tour Wedges 50*, 54*, 58* :nike: Method Putter Floating clubs: :edel: 54* trapper wedge

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

The topic of equipment has been discussed  and even Jack himself admitted that the improvement of equipment has lessened his advantage because it helped the lesser skilled stay closer to beating him.

I never said otherwise.

9 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Training? Nobody forced Jack to smoke and eat ice cream rather than hitting the gym. He trained as he saw fit. Even if you disagree with that, it’s still falls as a reason Tiger is better whether it’s an advantage to Tiger or not.

Preparation. Jack had his own preparation. Nobody prevented him from preparing. And how many times did Jack have to fly to Asia for a PR event then return immediately and play a four day event? If you want to say there are advantages for Tiger in preparation that weren’t available for Jack then again..just another reason Tiger’s better. 

You don't think that players of Jack's era would have trained and prepared differently if their fellow competitors were doing so?  Jack trained and prepared in accordance with what was required to compete during his era.

9 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

It’s not a hypothetical argument. When we discuss athletes and their accomplishments it’s their accomplishments that we use to evaluate their status. Serena is easily considered a superior tennis player to Gabriella Sabatini. Why? They never played so how can we say that? 

It's all subjective, based on statistics.  If they didn't compete against one another then you can never know for certain who had the highest amount of skill and talent.

I suppose we'll just agree to disagree. 👍

You can believe that Tiger is the GOAT (that's ok by me).  I'll continue to believe that both were the greatest golfers of their time, but that beyond that we can never be certain.

Edited by Hardluckster

Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, Hardluckster said:

My view is that we simply cannot know which golfer possessed the most skill because there are too many variables.  Head-to-head, both in their prime with equal equipment, training, and preparation it would have been an incredible thing to watch I'd bet.  

I (and I feel like most others in this thread) look at this from the point of view for what player had the best overall career, not what player is the most skillful to ever play. 

You can use numbers to compare two players and determine which one had the better career without talking about which one was a more skillful golfer.

I dont agree with looking at it from the "which golfer possessed the most skill" perspective because at the end of the day, they play to win the tournament, they're not playing to be the most skillful. 

My question to you now is, which golfer had the better career, Jack's career or Tiger's career thus far?

43 minutes ago, Hardluckster said:

even with the 18>14 argument that is espoused by so many.  

It's 15  ;-)

Edited by klineka

Driver: :titleist:  GT3
Woods:  :cobra: Darkspeed LS 3Wood
Irons: :titleist: U505 (3)  :tmade: P770 (4-PW)
Wedges: :callaway: MD3 50   :titleist: SM9 54/58  
Putter: :tmade: Spider X

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
10 minutes ago, Hardluckster said:

If they didn't compete against one another then you can never know for certain who had the highest amount of skill and talent.

This I guess is where we disagree. An athletes results/accomplishments are based on their skill and talent. The better skill and talent, the more accomplishments.

So by your logic Bjeergard is a greater golfer than Tiger because they did compete and Tiger lost. 

:ping: G25 Driver Stiff :ping: G20 3W, 5W :ping: S55 4-W (aerotech steel fiber 110g shafts) :ping: Tour Wedges 50*, 54*, 58* :nike: Method Putter Floating clubs: :edel: 54* trapper wedge

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, klineka said:

I (and I feel like most others in this thread) look at this from the point of view for what player had the best overall career, not what player is the most skillful to ever play. 

You can use numbers to compare two players and determine which one had the better career without talking about which one was a more skillful golfer.

I dont agree with looking at it from the "which golfer possessed the most skill" perspective because at the end of the day, they play to win the tournament, they're not playing to be the most skillful. 

My question to you now is, which golfer had the better career, Jack's career or Tiger's career thus far?

It's 15  ;-)

So it is.  Creature of habit, I am...... 😳

Qualifying it in that manner, in my opinion, it becomes a more objective discussion.  Discussing accomplishments during a career to attempt to quantify who had the best career is much more doable, imo.

Tiger clearly has the statistical advantage if you are basing your decision on that criteria (except for the 18>15 category).  If choosing one or the other based solely on current stats, I'd choose Tiger in spite of the 18>15 (which Tiger, I think, said was the benchmark).

I was blessed to be able to watche both Jack and Tiger play.  They were both great golfers, but I think that Tiger is the more skillful of the two.  I think that, given an even playing field and a career to compete against each other, Tiger would have beaten Jack more than he would have lost.  My contention is that we simply cannot know that.

11 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

This I guess is where we disagree. An athletes results/accomplishments are based on their skill and talent. The better skill and talent, the more accomplishments.

Its not quite that simple, imo.  There can be a multitude of factors that could potentially affect the statistics.

11 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

So by your logic Bjeergard is a greater golfer than Tiger because they did compete and Tiger lost. 

Now, you are just being silly and trying to put words in my mouth.

One tournament does not make a career.  One victory does not make one team or individual better than all others for perpetuity.

Edited by Hardluckster

Posted
1 hour ago, Hardluckster said:

 

There are folks who, as you say, base their views purely on emotion (or feelings) - and they are on both sides of this issue.  There are also people who bring facts and figures to support their side of the issue - but not facts that can be prove the answer to the question.

 

This entire thread is discussing a hypothetical.

 

There is no proof available and never will be, regardless of the side of the fence that you stand.

 

It is interesting to discuss and debate, I suppose, but in the end it is simply a question that cannot be answered with anything resembling 'proof' (except in the minds of those who 'feel' that they are right).

If you mean 'prove' in the mathematical sense of taking agreed upon postulates and applying rigorous logical reasoning to arrive at a result that is 100% guaranteed to be true forever (say the way we prove the Pythagorean Theorem) then obviously you are correct - but irrelevant.

Because that isn't how we use that term in a sports context.  But the fact is that there is nothing on Jack's side of the argument other than the simplistic 18>14, now 15.  Nothing.  Not.A.Thing.  Every other argument for Jack (fields, technology, etc.) has been completely and comprehensively debunked - usually by Jack himself, (maybe inadvertantly) in his '96 autobiography.  

The other thing I find interesting is how we went from 'Jack is the GOAT' to 'it is impossible to say who the GOAT is' as soon as it became evident that he wasn't the GOAT anymore.  The same people who had no trouble ignoring previous generations to pronounce Jack the GOAT (and in an old thread we had a spirited discussion on whether Hogan had a strong claim that was being completely ignored due to major mania) now claim it is impossible to compare players from different generations.

  • Like 1

But then again, what the hell do I know?

Rich - in name only

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • The first post is here:   Do you have an overly long backswing that ruins sequencing and leads to poor shots? In nearly 20 years of teaching, I've found 5 common faults. You don't have to swing like Jon Rahm, but a shorter swing will probably help you #PlayBetter golf. Which is your fatal flaw? #1 - Trail Elbow Bend Average golfers ♥️ bending their trail elbows. It can feel powerful! Tour players bend their trail elbows MUCH less. A wider trail elbow creates a longer hand path and preserves structure. It also forces more chest turn; not everything longer is bad! Overly bending your trail elbow can wreak havoc on your swing. It pulls your arms across/beside your body. It requires more time to get the elbow bend "out," ruining your sequencing. The lead arm often bends and low point control is destroyed. The misconception is that it will create more speed, but that's often the opposite of what happens. Golfers often feel they swing "easier" but FASTER with wider trail elbows. Want to play better golf with a shorter backswing? Don't bend your elbow so much. #2 - Hip (Pelvis) Turn I see this all the time: a golfer's hips are only 5-10° open at impact, but he turns them back 60°+ in the backswing. Unless your father is The Flash, your hips are probably not getting 40° open at impact from there! That's more rotation than Rory! Golfers who over-rotate their pelvis often over-turn everything - trail thigh/knee, chest/shoulders, etc. They have more work to do in the same ~0.3 seconds as a Tour player who turns back ~40° and turns through to impact 40° or so. Want to shorten the pelvis turn a bit? Learn to internally rotate into the trail hip, externally rotate away from the lead hip, and do "less" with your knees (extending and flexing) in the backswing. Learn some separation between chest and pelvis. #3 - Rolled Inside and Lifted Up Amateurs love to send the club (and their arms) around them. You see the red golfer here all the time at your local range. The problem? Your arms mostly take the club UP, not around. Going around creates no height until you have to hoist the club up in the air because you're halfway through your backswing and the club is waist high and three feet behind your butt! 😄  Learn to use your arms properly. Arms = up/down, body = around. Most golfers learn how little their arms really have to do in the backswing. The picture here is all you've gotta do (but maybe with a properly sized club!). #4 - Wide Takeaway Width is good, no? Yes, if you're wide at the right time and in the right spots. Golfers seeking width often don't hinge the club much early in the backswing… forcing them to hinge it late. Hinging the club late puts a lot of momentum into the club, wrists, and elbow just before we need to make a hairpin turn in transition and go the other direction at the start of the downswing. When you're driving into a hairpin curve, you go into it slowly and accelerate out of it. Waiting to hinge is like coasting down the straightaway and accelerating into the hairpin. Your car ends up off the road, and your golf ball off the course. Give hinging at a faster rate (earlier) then coasting to the top a try. You'll be able to accelerate out of the hairpin without the momentum of the arms and club pulling in the wrong direction.   #5 - Sway and Tilt Some sway is good but sometimes I see a golfer who just… keeps… swaying… Their chest leans forward a bit for balance, resulting in a whole lotta lean. The green line below is the GEARS "virtual spine." Pros sway a bit, but stay ~90°. This sway often combines with the extra pelvis turn because this golfer is not putting ANY limits on what the "middle of them" (their pelvis) is doing in the backswing. These golfers spend a lot of energy just to get back to neutral! The best players begin pushing forward EARLY in the backswing. Often before the club gets much past their trail foot! Pushing forward (softly) first stops your backward sway and then begins to get your body moving toward the target. Push softly, but early!  
    • I  no longer spend the time and effort trying to sell something I no longer need. Instead, if the clubs are in good condition, I go to my local golf shop or even Dicks Sporting Goods. Trade the clubs in for store credit and pick up something I need, like a hat. Cause you always need another golf hat!
    • Day 205 3-10 Wider backswing, reconnecting arm in downswing/arching wrist through. Also worked on less pause at the top. Recorded and hit a few foam balls. 
    • I really enjoyed this episode with Nick from Callaway. I didn't know the problem with swing weight and female golfers, but it makes sense. I actually think swing weight might not matter that much. If everyone senses the club differently, then wouldn't it mean that people might feel swing weights differently? Swing weight is a way to classify how heavy a club feels during the swing. Yet for a 70-year-old golfer, a D0 might feel like a D4 for a 25-year-old golfer? I think stronger people would consider higher swing weights lighter. Maybe a C8 equals a D2 in terms of feel?   
    • Wordle 1,725 3/6 ⬜🟨⬜🟨⬜ ⬜🟨🟩⬜⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.