Jump to content
sungho_kr

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

Greatest Golfer (GOAT)  

197 members have voted

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

    • Tiger Woods is the man
      1633
    • Jack Nicklaus is my favorite
      815


6,777 posts / 528374 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, ChetlovesMer said:

This is one of those arguments where I can see both sides. 

I used to think that until @iacas @brocks and @turtleback presented information that made it clear beyond any reasonable doubt that Tiger is the GOAT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Register for free today and you won't see this ad spot again!

5 hours ago, TryingtoPlay said:

Well, I am certainly not being obtuse. It just makes little sense when considered fairly. Furthermore, why would it apply only when comparing winners of major championships? Certainly, it must not. How about a great player who one major championship in the 70's as compared to a very strong player today, who has not. Kevin Kisner>Tom Weiskopf? Or how about one of my favorite players, who I would love to see win a major championship, but to this point has two top-ten finishes in majors, Kevin Na. Kevin Na>Tom Weiskopf?

You are right that Tiger set out to achieve what Nicklaus had achieved, particularly as to scoring, faster and earlier than Jack had. He used Nicklaus as a benchmark in this way. That doesn't change the fact that the most prized possession was Nicklaus' major championship record and that his ultimate goal in golf was to break it. He said so many times. It was certainly an absolutely extraordinary goal to set, but it was always the ultimate and final objective for him. 

 

There is a world of difference in Jack's statements in his '96 autobiography before his records and status were threatened and his later, defensive, statements once it was clear that Tiger was surpassing him.  Which is hardly surprising given his penchance for manipulating the standards, which shows a lamentable lack of intellectual honesty when it comes to his own legacy.


Other than that you are merely making assertions, all of which have been repeatedly debunked over the course of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

On 6/9/2019 at 11:14 AM, TryingtoPlay said:

The competition argument is really overblown, to be frank. We often hear people say that it is true that Jack played with other historic great players, but the depth of the field, top to bottom, was simply substantially weaker over his career than during Tiger's career. This is often said as a means of countering the argument as to Jack's absolutely unbelievable level of consistent competitiveness in major championships, therefore diluting, in relative terms, his records as to top-two, top-three, top-five and top-ten finishes in major championships. The problem is that this argument makes little sense because these other historic great players, the greatest of the greats, who we refer to here, Watson, Trevino, Player, Palmer, Casper, e.t.c. have records in major championships which look nothing like Jack's. If the competition issue was a substantial factor, as we are sometimes told, we should expect to see far higher rates of top-ten finishes for these players, as well, relative to the greatest players of later generations. Yet, that is not what we find, at all. Take Lee Trevino, for instance and compare his top-ten finishes in major championships to Ernie Els, or to Phil Mickelson.

No doubt about it.  Trevino had a lower rate of top tens than Ernie or Phil.

But he was a fortunate choice for you, because he's the only one of the players you named of whom that is true.

Here is the percentage of top tens in majors of the players you named, plus players in the Hall of Fame who were born after 1955, i.e., who hit their primes about the time majors started to have most of the world's best players in the field.  In all but two cases, I started counting with the first major in which they had a top ten, and stopped with the last major in the year of their 40th birthday.  The two exceptions were Vijay and O'Meara, who both had career years after age 40, so it didn't seem fair to stop there.  I stopped at age 41 for O'Meara, and 42 for Vijay.

Your examples:

Trevino: 14/42    33.3%        
Casper: 20/42    48.6%
Player:    38/69    55.1%
Watson:    36/62    58.1%
Palmer:    31/49    63.3% 

Every Hall of Famer born 1955 or later:

Phil:    31/67    46.3%            
Vijay:    22/48    45.8%    (thru age 42)
Els:    30/68    44.1%            
DLIII:    17/40    42.5%            
Norman:    24/59    40.7%            
Faldo:    23/61    37.7%            
Couples: 21/60    35.0%            
Stewart:    6/49    32.7%            
Goosen:    14/48    29.2%            
Seve:    20/74    27.0%            
Price:    13/56    23.2%            
Olazábal:    15/65    23.1%            
Strange:    12/55    21.8%            
O'Meara:    10/56    17.9%    (thru age 41)
Lyle:    4/45    8.9%

So, if my aging eyes and brain copied the data correctly, four out of five of your examples had higher top ten percentages than all 15 HOFers who began their careers in the modern era.  I don't claim that proves anything, but it sure doesn't help your case.

 

On 6/10/2019 at 2:56 AM, TryingtoPlay said:

I would also say that I think that several of Jack's statements in his autobiography have been used in a misleading fashion here.

That is insulting and false.  It's not like we used an offhand remark Jack made, and it's not like we took it out of context.  The context was a book that he wrote in his retirement, when he had plenty of time to consider what he was saying, and no doubt it went through several drafts and editing revisions before it was published, so it said exactly what he thought at the time.  The context was also that it summarized several paragraphs of reasoning about the depth of fields in 1996 compared to his day.

Jack is of course entitled to change his mind, but I agree with @iacas and @turtleback that it's strange how his assessment of field strength seems to be inversely proportional to the threat to his record that Tiger poses --- no threat in 1996, big threat in the early 2000's, and seemingly no threat again after 2010. 

Personally, I would rather play against all five of your guys than Rory and Koepka alone.  Throw in DJ, YJS, JT, etc. and there's just no comparison.

On 6/10/2019 at 6:00 AM, TryingtoPlay said:

I also do not accept that Nicklaus "moved the goalposts" as to what would lead to someone being characterized as the greatest player in the history of the game.

Somewhere back in this thread is a copy of an article I wrote several years ago, that documents in Jack's own words his shifting standards for GOAT from the late 50's to the early 70's, from the Amateur Grand Slam, to most PGA wins, to Hogan's three majors in a year, and finally settling on most career majors when that seemed the most achievable for him.  And I don't begrudge him any of that; as I said, he's entitled to change his mind.  What made me lose respect for him was when he said that majors were "the only fair way" to compare golfers of different eras, because at that time, his only competition for GOAT were players who had far fewer majors to play.  In particular, Walter Hagen hit his prime before the PGA was founded, was past his prime before the Masters was founded, had to commit to a month-long ship voyage to play the Open, and had several years of majors cancelled for WWI.  In spite of all that, he won 11 pro majors, a record that stood for over 40 years, but was never acknowledged as the GOAT during those years, and is rarely even in the top five today.

It's just a fact that any of the stroke play WGCs Tiger won had stronger fields than any of the majors played before 1970, and probably 1980.  Yet as you pointed out yourself, Tiger has never wavered from his goal of 18 majors.  Never even hinted that his WGCs should be included in the mix, although it would be just as fair as comparing Jack's major total to Hagen's.

I would expect my mom to just look at one number, like major wins, because she doesn't know anything about golf.  I truly don't understand how anyone who considers himself a golf fan would be satisfied with that analysis.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2019 at 6:25 PM, brocks said:

 In particular, Walter Hagen hit his prime before the PGA was founded, was past his prime before the Masters was founded, had to commit to a month-long ship voyage to play the Open, and had several years of majors cancelled for WWI.  In spite of all that, he won 11 pro majors, a record that stood for over 40 years, but was never acknowledged as the GOAT during those years, and is rarely even in the top five today.
 

Hagen also won five Western Opens, which was considered a major championship in his day. He also won the North & South three times, which was also considered to be a major at that time. That adds up to 19. Remember when we talk about Nicklaus and Woods we refer to the modern majors. It's a slippery standard to use historically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/4/2006 at 5:34 AM, Carl said:

Tiger is a phenomenom, and an inspiration to many and i am in no doubt that he will pass jack's 18 major milestone, he is in my opinion the best, and will continue to be for many years.

p.s is there anyway to make the 'in the bag' stuff appear on every quote?

Hank Aaron broke Babe Ruth's record, but I still think Ruth was a better player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Talldog said:

Hank Aaron broke Babe Ruth's record, but I still think Ruth was a better player.

This is a perfect example of why this argument gets silly. Ruth was definitely better compared to his peers. But...if you put him in the game in Aaron’s day, against the same pitching, he would have been mediocre at best.

Things are all relative. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Athletes are not nearly that much better than they were in the past as people think. Jesse Owens, when you adjust for track conditions, was barely slower than the Usain Bolt.  The same goes for things like swimming. Most of the gains in time are from simple things like how they turn and something a past generation athlete would easily be able to incorporate if they had that knowledge. Babe Ruth would very likely still be near the top in Hank Aaron's era not "mediocre at best."  In golf most of the gains at the top would be from things like learning how to use a 60 degree wedge which no one used until Tom Kite. And putting strokes were much different when you putted on slow grainy greens. Those strokes wouldn't work well today just like a pendulum stroke would have more problems in the 1950s.

 Would Jack have any trouble in this era? It is pretty easy to see he wouldn't. He finished sixth twice at the Masters in his 50s and played pretty well in other majors.  Tom Watson, a contemporary, has the same number of top 10s in majors as the top player Tiger faced in his prime, Vijay Singh, since 2007.  Tiger is far better but has a ten year hole in his career. Jack may have played against very weak fields in the 60s but most of his majors were won after that, which should cause people to question the assumption how important field depth is.  Tiger may have had triple the number of people capable of winning majors but on a small fraction of those capable would be playing well enough to win on a given week. So if Jack had to beat 2 or 3 people playing well. Tiger maybe had 7 or 8 people playing well.

Also it is pretty easy to see Jack valued majors far more heavily than regular events. We know this not because of what he says but his actions.. 1) He played better in the majors relative to how he played in regular events. In his 40s, he won five events. Three were majors. He was capable of winning regular events into his 50s if he so desired. 2) He played a limited schedule and went to majors weeks early.

Jack is probably most comparable to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. No one really says Kareem is the greatest basketball player. Lebron and Michael are more talented. But Kareem was so good for so long, there is a pretty good argument Kareem is the greatest. Kareem has one more MVP, the same number of titles, five more All-Star appearances, and went to the finals four more times than Michael.

Edited by TigerIsNumeroUNO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TigerIsNumeroUNO said:

Athletes are not nearly that much better than they were in the past as people think. Jesse Owens, when you adjust for track conditions, was barely slower than the Usain Bolt.

That's discussing individuals, and even at that, discussing the peak individual.

10 minutes ago, TigerIsNumeroUNO said:

In golf most of the gains at the top would be from things like learning how to use a 60 degree wedge which no one used until Tom Kite.

I disagree. Before Tom Kite there may have not been much need for a 60° wedge. And I think "most of the gains" might be from other types of things.

10 minutes ago, TigerIsNumeroUNO said:

Would Jack have any trouble in this era? It is pretty easy to see he wouldn't.

I disagree.

10 minutes ago, TigerIsNumeroUNO said:

Jack may have played against very weak fields in the 60s but most of his majors were won after that, which should cause people to question the assumption how important field depth is.

Jack won seven of 18 majors in the 60s. That's nearly 40%. And the fields were still quite weak in the 70s: the PGA Tour didn't even split from the PGA until about '68 or '69, and the PGA still had a lot of club pros playing in the fields in even the 70s.

10 minutes ago, TigerIsNumeroUNO said:

Tiger may have had triple the number of people capable of winning majors but on a small fraction of those capable would be playing well enough to win on a given week. So if Jack had to beat 2 or 3 people playing well. Tiger maybe had 7 or 8 people playing well.

Uhhhhhh…

10 minutes ago, TigerIsNumeroUNO said:

2) He played a limited schedule and went to majors weeks early.

So does Tiger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

17 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

I disagree.

So does Tiger.

We already know he wouldn't because he didn't. He played a full schedule of majors in the 90s against Vijay and Tiger and Ernie, etc and did fairly well. And no reason to think he would struggle today. He was longer and straighter than Tiger and hit far more greens using longer irons into the greens.  (I get the iron stats are inflated because Jack had a weak short game.)

 

Tiger and Jack clearly value majors more than regular events based on their actions.  Ben Hogan clearly thought majors were more important because he had years where he played in just the majors and  a couple of other events. 

Edited by TigerIsNumeroUNO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, TigerIsNumeroUNO said:

He was longer and straighter than Tiger

You're not comparing anything like to like there. And I'm pretty sure you're not even accurate/correct.

At the end of the day, 15 >> 18, IMO, because of the strength and depth of field. And 81 >>> 72. Jack won what he won.

You've not made a case at all for Jack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

22 minutes ago, TigerIsNumeroUNO said:

We already know he wouldn't because he didn't. He played a full schedule of majors in the 90s against Vijay and Tiger and Ernie, etc and did fairly well. And no reason to think he would struggle today. He was longer and straighter than Tiger and hit far more greens using longer irons into the greens.  (I get the iron stats are inflated because Jack had a weak short game.)

Jack didn't do "fairly well" in the 90s, I'm going to directly call you out for that statement.

Jack had 2 top 10's in Majors in the entire decade of the 1990's - a 6th place in the Masters in 1990 and a tie for 6th in the 1998 Masters. Both of these were in the easiest major on the calendar, and outside of those 2 tournaments he never even finished inside the top 20. In fact, in the 90s Jack managed to miss 13 cuts in majors, and finished better than 40th only 9 times. He was cut more often than he was even in the top 40, much less anywhere close to contention. This is not a player who is doing "fairly well" in the majors.

Jack was not longer and straighter than Tiger, in fact your own two statements there contradict each other. First off, why would Jack be using longer irons into the greens in the 90s if he was longer and straighter than Tiger? Second off, in Tiger's first full year on tour where stats are available for him (1997) he was ranked second of all the golfers on tour for driving distance at 294.8 yards while hitting 68.62% of fairways.Jack rarely hit more than 65% of his fairways throughout his entire career, and his average driving distance never surpassed 280 yards after 1980. When he was in his 50's during the 90s you'd have to be absolutely insane to believe that Jack was a longer hitter than Tiger, and historically he was never an accurate player off the tee.

You're telling some blatant lies right now, and that's not kosher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

10 hours ago, Pretzel said:

J

You're telling some blatant lies right now, and that's not kosher.

I don't expect you to get banned for being such a nasty person but you should be... And given that even small FACTS that favor Jack are discounted it just shows how intellectually lazy most are in this thread.

Jack had two top top 10s in his 50s and had a stretch where he made 12 out of 15 cuts at a time where he barely played. He wasn't exactly grinding like Bernard Langer.  It is easy to find  this info. Pretty good play by Jack. Vijay, Tiger's toughest competitor at his peak, still grinds and has done worse as an old man.

And Jack was both longer and straighter off the tee for the bulk of his career vs Tiger vs the bulk of his career.  And lol at using Jack's distance numbers is his FIFTIES vs Tiger. Great argument there. He is even shorter now at 80. And they only kept driving stats one year (1968) before Jack was 40 so I am not sure how you divined Jack's typical driving accuracy stat at 65% throughout his career. Please cite. Here is an actual citation.  "Even though official PGA Tour statistics were not kept until 1980.....Nicklaus also finished 10th in driving distance and 13th in driving accuracy in 1980 at age 40, which equated to a "Total Driving" composite of 23 – a statistical level not attained since, by a comfortable margin."  The accuracy stats are self evident.   They are what they are. Jack was straighter using that metric. Jack in his early 40s averaged around 270. Is that longer than Tiger at 40? Yes. Jack used a wooden driver with a wound ball.  All you need to do is look at what Fred Couples averaged in 1982 (268) vs what he averaged when he was 58 (297)  to realize that 270 in 1980 is longer than 294 in 2019.

 

 

Edited by TigerIsNumeroUNO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Pretzel said:

Jack didn't do "fairly well" in the 90s, I'm going to directly call you out for that statement.

Correct, from 1988 thru 1999 he missed 15 cuts out of 43 majors. Before 1988, he missed 6 over 108 majors.

2019-06-20 09_05_52-Jack Nicklaus - Wikipedia - Internet Explorer.png

23 minutes ago, TigerIsNumeroUNO said:

I don't expect you to get banned for being such a nasty person but you should be... And given that even small FACTS that favor Jack are discounted it just shows how intellectually lazy most are in this thread.

Stop being melodramatic. He is not being nasty.

Clearly you haven't ready the thread if you are stating only small facts has been written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

24 minutes ago, TigerIsNumeroUNO said:

I don't expect you to get banned for being such a nasty person but you should be... 

 

Someone that says you're lying and then provides evidence as to why they think you are lying is not "such a nasty person".

You weren't personally attacked, nobody called you any names, you just made a statement which was then refuted with stats.

26 minutes ago, TigerIsNumeroUNO said:

And given that even small FACTS that favor Jack are discounted it just shows how intellectually lazy most are in this thread.

Choosing to point out only the small facts while ignoring the larger facts (81 > 72, 15 > 18 with strength of field, etc) is intellectual laziness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

40 minutes ago, TigerIsNumeroUNO said:

I don't expect you to get banned for being such a nasty person but you should be... And given that even small FACTS that favor Jack are discounted it just shows how intellectually lazy most are in this thread.

Jack had two top top 10s in his 50s and had a stretch where he made 12 out of 15 cuts at a time where he barely played. He wasn't exactly grinding like Bernard Langer.  It is easy to find  this info. Pretty good play by Jack. Vijay, Tiger's toughest competitor at his peak, still grinds and has done worse as an old man.

And Jack was both longer and straighter off the tee for the bulk of his career vs Tiger vs the bulk of his career.  And lol at using Jack's distance numbers is his FIFTIES vs Tiger. Great argument there. He is even shorter now at 80. And they only kept driving stats one year (1968) before Jack was 40 so I am not sure how you divined Jack's typical driving accuracy stat at 65% throughout his career. Please cite. Here is an actual citation.  "Even though official PGA Tour statistics were not kept until 1980.....Nicklaus also finished 10th in driving distance and 13th in driving accuracy in 1980 at age 40, which equated to a "Total Driving" composite of 23 – a statistical level not attained since, by a comfortable margin."  The accuracy stats are self evident.   They are what they are. Jack was straighter using that metric. Jack in his early 40s averaged around 270. Is that longer than Tiger at 40? Yes. Jack used a wooden driver with a wound ball.  All you need to do is look at what Fred Couples averaged in 1982 (268) vs what he averaged when he was 58 (297)  to realize that 270 in 1980 is longer than 294 in 2019.

 

 

The first time Jack had his clubhead speed measured, he was 58 years old and he was at 118 mph. From 1995-1998, aged 55-58, Jack made 11 cuts out of 14 majors, finished in the top 50 in seven of them, and finished 6th at the 1998 Masters. A 25 year-old Jack Nicklaus playing today with today's equipment would average 360+ in driving distance. And would be winning majors and be one of the best players in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, LICC said:

 A 25 year-old Jack Nicklaus playing today with today's equipment would average 360+ in driving distance. And would be winning majors and be one of the best players in the game.

That sort of extrapolation is not possible. 

You are talking that he would be hitting the golf ball further than the average long drive competitor. I am not buying it. He would be one of the longer hitters on tour. Jack is not the physical freak like Dustin Johnson. I would put him probably a top 10 in distance yearly if he was in his prime competing today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Oy.

39 minutes ago, TigerIsNumeroUNO said:

Jack had two top top 10s in his 50s…

I don't give a shit about two top ten finishes in a decade. Nor am I comparing Jack to Vijay Singh, a guy whose putting stroke has been AWOL since roughly 2011.

39 minutes ago, TigerIsNumeroUNO said:

And Jack was both longer and straighter off the tee for the bulk of his career vs Tiger vs the bulk of his career.

He wasn't. That's easily refuted. As for straighter you're not comparing like to like - you don't know what the fairway widths were, how far the ball bounced, etc.

But we do KNOW that Tiger was longer than Jack. Tiger at 43 with a fused back is longer than Jack was when Jack was 40, 41, 42, or 43.

Tiger @ 43: 297.8
Jack @ 40: 269.0
Jack @ 41: 264.3
Jack @ 42: 264.6
Jack @ 43: 266.1

Tiger was almost 30 yards longer at 43 than Jack was at 40, 41, 42, or 43.

Now, several posts in, you're changing that up to say that, given modern equipment or whatever, Jack would probably have been as long as Tiger. But that's not what you said.

39 minutes ago, TigerIsNumeroUNO said:

And lol at using Jack's distance numbers is his FIFTIES vs Tiger.

Uhhhhh… He didn't do that. Neither did I.

39 minutes ago, TigerIsNumeroUNO said:

The accuracy stats are self evident. 

No they aren't.

Furthermore, if all Tiger had to do was hit the ball 266 yards, he could probably hit 80% of the fairways. Fairways that are likely narrower, etc.

So you lost the distance one, and if you want to measure "accuracy" by "fairway hit percentage" I again will point out you're not comparing like to like. They aren't playing the same golf courses, the same fairways, or hitting it the same distances.

Furthermore, and more importantly, I don't care about stats like this when determining who the GOAT is. If you do, that's cool, but what I care about is wins, dominance, scoring averages, that sort of thing. I don't care who had a better short game (Tiger by far), who was a better putter (tie?), who hit a better 7-iron (almost surely Tiger), or whatever. I care about Ws.

So not only are you provably wrong on distance, possibly off-base on accuracy, but you're arguing about things that most people don't even care about. Nobody considers Calvin Peete in the GOAT discussion because of how accurate he was off the tee.

39 minutes ago, TigerIsNumeroUNO said:

Jack in his early 40s averaged around 270. Is that longer than Tiger at 40? Yes.

Huh? No.

39 minutes ago, TigerIsNumeroUNO said:

All you need to do is look at what Fred Couples averaged in 1982 (268) vs what he averaged when he was 58 (297)  to realize that 270 in 1980 is longer than 294 in 2019.

🤦‍♂️

22 minutes ago, LICC said:

The first time Jack had his clubhead speed measured, he was 58 years old and he was at 118 mph.

Uhhh, according to Jack, it was 118 MPH. I call bullshit on that.

Oy.

39 minutes ago, TigerIsNumeroUNO said:

Jack had two top top 10s in his 50s…

I don't give a shit about two top ten finishes in a decade. Nor am I comparing Jack to Vijay Singh, a guy whose putting stroke has been AWOL since roughly 2011.

39 minutes ago, TigerIsNumeroUNO said:

And Jack was both longer and straighter off the tee for the bulk of his career vs Tiger vs the bulk of his career.

He wasn't. That's easily refuted. As for straighter you're not comparing like to like - you don't know what the fairway widths were, how far the ball bounced, etc.

But we do KNOW that Tiger was longer than Jack. Tiger at 43 with a fused back is longer than Jack was when Jack was 40, 41, 42, or 43.

Tiger @ 43: 297.8
Jack @ 40: 269.0
Jack @ 41: 264.3
Jack @ 42: 264.6
Jack @ 43: 266.1

Tiger was almost 30 yards longer at 43 than Jack was at 40, 41, 42, or 43.

Now, several posts in, you're changing that up to say that, given modern equipment or whatever, Jack would probably have been as long as Tiger. But that's not what you said.

39 minutes ago, TigerIsNumeroUNO said:

And lol at using Jack's distance numbers is his FIFTIES vs Tiger.

Uhhhhh… He didn't do that. Neither did I.

39 minutes ago, TigerIsNumeroUNO said:

The accuracy stats are self evident. 

No they aren't.

Furthermore, if all Tiger had to do was hit the ball 266 yards, he could probably hit 80% of the fairways. Fairways that are likely narrower, etc.

So you lost the distance one, and if you want to measure "accuracy" by "fairway hit percentage" I again will point out you're not comparing like to like. They aren't playing the same golf courses, the same fairways, or hitting it the same distances.

Furthermore, and more importantly, I don't care about stats like this when determining who the GOAT is. If you do, that's cool, but what I care about is wins, dominance, scoring averages, that sort of thing. I don't care who had a better short game (Tiger by far), who was a better putter (tie?), who hit a better 7-iron (almost surely Tiger), or whatever. I care about Ws.

So not only are you provably wrong on distance, possibly off-base on accuracy, but you're arguing about things that most people don't even care about. Nobody considers Calvin Peete in the GOAT discussion because of how accurate he was off the tee.

39 minutes ago, TigerIsNumeroUNO said:

Jack in his early 40s averaged around 270. Is that longer than Tiger at 40? Yes.

Huh? No.

39 minutes ago, TigerIsNumeroUNO said:

All you need to do is look at what Fred Couples averaged in 1982 (268) vs what he averaged when he was 58 (297)  to realize that 270 in 1980 is longer than 294 in 2019.

🤦‍♂️

22 minutes ago, LICC said:

The first time Jack had his clubhead speed measured, he was 58 years old and he was at 118 mph.

Uhhh, according to Jack, it was 118 MPH. I call bullshit on that.

23 minutes ago, LICC said:

A 25 year-old Jack Nicklaus playing today with today's equipment would average 360+ in driving distance. And would be winning majors and be one of the best players in the game.

Ha ha ha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

ArnoldPalmer.jpg

At the 2016 Ryder Cup, the 6-foot-5 Thomas Pieters belted a drive 324...

 

An interesting article on how players way back would have driven the ball with today's ball and equipment.  I didn't realize that Jack had driven the ball 341 yards in a longest drive competition when he was 18.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • 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.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...