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

[StuM]

On 7/9/2025 at 2:38 PM, ChetlovesMer said:

Of course. I was just exaggerating for fun. 

At the start of Hogan's era it is estimated that roughly half a million Americans played golf. By the end of his era, about 3.5 million. 
During Tiger's era roughly 19 million at the start and nearly 30 million by the end of it. 

To look at it another way during Hogan's era less than 0.5% of all high schools had a golf team. Compared to nearly half of all high schools during Tiger's era. If you really want to see a big difference more than 25 times as many Junior High Schools had golf teams during Tiger's era than did High Schools during Hogan's era. 

And this says nothing of international competition. Up until 1974 the British used a different golf ball than did the Americans. It wasn't until 1990 that the Brits officially outlawed their "small ball". It wasn't until the 1960's that Americans really started to play in Europe at all. Very few Americans played The Open from the 1930's until the 1960's. The travel sucked and the prize money wasn't worth the trip. Remember air travel to Europe wasn't really a thing until at least the mid-1950's. Before that you would spend 2 weeks at sea. 

It is simply not arguable that Hogan faced any where near as stiff of competition as did Tiger. In golf, yes, you play against the course, but the lowest score wins. It's much easier to win if far FAR fewer players are playing. 

Personally, I'd suggest that the competition was way better vs Tiger than vs Jack. But at least that's a discussion. I'm sorry but arguing for Hogan's era it's no contest. Tiger definitively and definitely and by every measure faced tougher competition than did Hogan. 

But…but…but Tiger’s equipment was so much better than Hogan’s thus Hogan was more skilled…😜

(just to be clear…I’m being sarcastic)

[Vinsk]

@csh19792001

[omychicken]

Using majors as the sole criterion to determine golf’s Greatest of All Time (GOAT) is a fallacy—too simplistic and misleading. Consider contemporaries Rich Beem and Colin Montgomerie: Beem has 1 major and 2 PGA Tour wins, while Montgomerie has zero majors but 31 European Tour victories. Yet Beem has never come close to Hall of Fame consideration, and Montgomerie was inducted in 2013. This alone proves majors aren’t the be-all-end-all of greatness.

By that logic, I reject the notion that Jack Nicklaus’s 3 more majors than Tiger Woods make him the GOAT. Nicklaus’s slight edge in majors shouldn’t overshadow Woods’s mind-blowing feats: a 142-cut streak, 4 consecutive majors (the “Tiger Slam”), 683 weeks as world No. 1, and tying Sam Snead’s 82 tour wins in 207 fewer tournaments. Fans of Woods often cite these, but two more key achievements are regularly overlooked—and they solidify his case.

First: Woods’s dominance in World Golf Championships (WGCs). These prestigious events offered prize money on par with majors and drew the globe’s top talent; winning one was a major accomplishment. Woods won 18 of them. It’s odd his fans don’t highlight this more—and Nicklaus’s fans conveniently ignore it.

Second: Woods’s historic streak of six consecutive USGA national championships (1991–1996). Even Donald Trump, a devoted golf fan, recognized this when presenting Woods with the Presidential Medal of Freedom (America’s highest civilian honor) in 2019. With awe, he called the streak “cannot be broken… will never be broken”—and he was right. It’s untouchable.

Nicklaus’s fans also overlook a critical 1994 interview he gave to Golf Magazine, where he admitted the competition in his era was far less intense. He said:

“When Arnold [Palmer] and I came on the Tour, a lot of events didn’t even have full fields. Today, thousands of guys try to play the Tour—it’s completely different. We only had 10 guys to beat… the guys today have about a hundred.”

In 1994, Nicklaus was unchallenged as the GOAT. Woods was 19, still an amateur, so Nicklaus likely thought this admission wouldn’t threaten his status. Today, though, he never mentions it—because it undermines his GOAT claim by framing his majors win in a less competitive era. Worse, when asked about the GOAT debate now, Nicklaus is either equivocal or names someone irrelevant to the modern conversation (like Bobby Jones), tacitly endorsing the false idea that majors are the only measure. It’s regrettable he can’t summon the sportsmanship to acknowledge Woods’s greatness.

Majors matter, but they’re not everything. When you factor in Woods’s WGC dominance, his unbreakable USGA streak, and the stiffer competition he faced, it’s clear: he’s the GOAT.

[turtleback]

7 minutes ago, omychicken said:

Using majors as the sole criterion to determine golf’s Greatest of All Time (GOAT) is a fallacy—too simplistic and misleading. Consider contemporaries Rich Beem and Colin Montgomerie: Beem has 1 major and 2 PGA Tour wins, while Montgomerie has zero majors but 31 European Tour victories. Yet Beem has never come close to Hall of Fame consideration, and Montgomerie was inducted in 2013. This alone proves majors aren’t the be-all-end-all of greatness.

By that logic, I reject the notion that Jack Nicklaus’s 3 more majors than Tiger Woods make him the GOAT. Nicklaus’s slight edge in majors shouldn’t overshadow Woods’s mind-blowing feats: a 142-cut streak, 4 consecutive majors (the “Tiger Slam”), 683 weeks as world No. 1, and tying Sam Snead’s 82 tour wins in 207 fewer tournaments. Fans of Woods often cite these, but two more key achievements are regularly overlooked—and they solidify his case.

First: Woods’s dominance in World Golf Championships (WGCs). These prestigious events offered prize money on par with majors and drew the globe’s top talent; winning one was a major accomplishment. Woods won 18 of them. It’s odd his fans don’t highlight this more—and Nicklaus’s fans conveniently ignore it.

Second: Woods’s historic streak of six consecutive USGA national championships (1991–1996). Even Donald Trump, a devoted golf fan, recognized this when presenting Woods with the Presidential Medal of Freedom (America’s highest civilian honor) in 2019. With awe, he called the streak “cannot be broken… will never be broken”—and he was right. It’s untouchable.

Nicklaus’s fans also overlook a critical 1994 interview he gave to Golf Magazine, where he admitted the competition in his era was far less intense. He said:

“When Arnold [Palmer] and I came on the Tour, a lot of events didn’t even have full fields. Today, thousands of guys try to play the Tour—it’s completely different. We only had 10 guys to beat… the guys today have about a hundred.”

In 1994, Nicklaus was unchallenged as the GOAT. Woods was 19, still an amateur, so Nicklaus likely thought this admission wouldn’t threaten his status. Today, though, he never mentions it—because it undermines his GOAT claim by framing his majors win in a less competitive era. Worse, when asked about the GOAT debate now, Nicklaus is either equivocal or names someone irrelevant to the modern conversation (like Bobby Jones), tacitly endorsing the false idea that majors are the only measure. It’s regrettable he can’t summon the sportsmanship to acknowledge Woods’s greatness.

Majors matter, but they’re not everything. When you factor in Woods’s WGC dominance, his unbreakable USGA streak, and the stiffer competition he faced, it’s clear: he’s the GOAT.

You are, of course absolutely correct.  It is a crime against critical thinking for those who simplistically chant 18>15 or, even worse, cite Jack's record of finishing second in majors.

This is a nice summation of a lot of the points made in this thread.  It's too bad you weren't around here for the heyday of this thread.  I think you would have enjoyed it and been a valuable contributor. 

Edited September 20 by turtleback