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

[BruceMGF]

Well, I guess we can close this thread now. I think Tiger just answered the question by winning the US Open with stress fractures in his knee and a torn ACL.

Or maybe we should reconsider Hogan, if that's the test.

[Jeepthrills]

Or maybe we should reconsider Hogan, if that's the test.

No doubt he should be in the conversation. What he overcame was nothing short of remarkable and he did it at a time where the rehabilitation and modern medicine are nothing like today.

[hockeyngolf]

I would take Jake cause of the technology.

[Jeepthrills]

I would take Jake cause of the technology.

It's Jack, but I think the technology argument actually hurts Jack more than it helps. The clubs are better now than they ever were. That levels the field by allowing guys that could not keep up with Tiger hit it farther and straighter than ever. I think Erik mentioned earlier in the thread that even Tiger feels that if they went back to old clubs, Tiger would be that much better than the rest of the Tour. He was using a smaller, steel shafted, driver just a few years ago.

[Batmanrb89]

It's an endless battle....Who cares???? haha sorry. Why not just appreciate what Jack did for the sport then, and what Tiger's doing for the sport now. You can say the equipment is a factor, but lets look at the course conditions and Balatas of the historic age as well.....

[iacas]

It's an endless battle....Who cares???? haha sorry. Why not just appreciate what Jack did for the sport then, and what Tiger's doing for the sport now.

Because we're fans. Debating all-time greats is what we do.

You can say the equipment is a factor, but lets look at the course conditions and Balatas of the historic age as well.....

Exactly. If we still had the older "crappier" equipment, Tiger would be even further ahead of his peers. Both he and Jack have said as much.

[lucky7]

The ignorance of the voters in this poll is gobsmacking. Tiger Woods isn't even comparable to Jack yet. Jack won 18 majors against several players that were ALL TIME GREATS: Player, Trevino, Watson, Palmer. Tiger Woods has been struggling to beat a geriatric qualifiers in the US Open. What kind of joke competition is that? Davis Love is even a threat to win the whole thing(not an in**** to Love, frankly I'm hoping he wins)! I mean, two complete nobodies leading the field on the first day??? On the third day, we saw several of these nobodies 3 putting 5 to 10 foot puts. That's pathetic even for an amatuer. Zach Johnson wins the matsers and nothing else? WTH? And even against his crappy compition Tiger still has NEVER won when he was behind the leader on day four.

Ok sry but everytime i read this post i go crazy. First off wat in gods name is a gobsmacker? And your saying tiger isn't even comparable to jack yet after the amazing things he has pulled off. Everytime i watch him he does something out of the ordinary to win. He was hitting his driver bad so he simply hit his 2 iron off the tee. He was the #1 player in the world and yet he still thrived to be better so he got stronger and also improved his swing. He is the best putter this world has ever seen and ur saying he isnt even comparable to jack. He won the frickin us open against rocco(with the injury) who is one of those nobodies ur talking abour right. Well how about the fact that he threw 3 birdies at tiger coming down the stretch. Yea his rivals really know how to choke.....right

[teal]

*post*

First - please find both a spell checker and a shift key. We aren't texting one another with a cell phone. We all make mistakes typing and the like, but that was very difficult to read. Just a few seconds of proof-reading would really go a long way towards making the post easy to read, so we all can tell what the heck point you are trying to make.

Second - Jack or Tiger? I grew up watching golf on my great-grandmother's floor. Every Sunday after Mass was "Jack is on the TV, turn it on and be quiet" so I have a very healthy appreciation for what he did. That said I have to say that Tiger is the GOAT. The man simply dominates in an era where the field is so even behind him. I realize that Jack places 2nd at many and that his competition has an impressive record of Majors as well. The thing for me is that this field that Tiger plays in, I would think that many of them would have been outstanding back in Jack's day as well and the spread of Major wins might have easily been across many more players. The pond of available talent was smaller in Jack's day. To call one greater than the other though, it does NOTHING to diminish the other in my mind. To me Jack will always be special, as will Tiger. Hogan was great too; can someone put a label on one as the GOAT? Yes but unless you are really trying to be an idiot, giving it to Tiger, Jack, Arnie, Hogan or Snead - every choice is wrong and right at the same time.

[mikelz]

Or maybe we should reconsider Hogan, if that's the test.

Good call.

Maybe somebody besides me will take ganjagolfer's comment seriously now.

[seah4wkfan12]

Tiger by far is the greatest. Like mr. totallity said Tiger has that x-factor that holds him apart from any past or recent golfer.

[ganjagolfer]

jack was able to overcome his physical impairments and now let's see if tiger can overcome his for him to be compared with jack

[Benefactor]

Tiger by far is the greatest. Like mr. totallity said Tiger has that x-factor that holds him apart from any past or recent golfer.

By far? What a load of crap. Tiger is one of the all-time greats, no doubt about it, but you're lying to yourself if you really believe he hasn't greatly benefited from the fact that his generation has no other really good players. The only player even close to him in terms of skill has absolutely no heart and is extremely psychologically frail (Mickelson) and the other guys at the top aren't really close in terms of skill. Nicklaus had Trevino, Watson, and Player. Hogan had Snead and Nelson. Even Jones had his own boredom with the game to deal with which caused him to retire so early. It's saying a lot when you're beating everybody so badly that there is no reason to play anymore. If Jones had played until he was 40 (he got sick when he was 46 or 48, I believe), he would probably have had 30 majors, a number which Tiger isn't going to catch.

[teal]

By far? What a load of crap. Tiger is one of the all-time greats, no doubt about it, but you're lying to yourself if you really believe he hasn't greatly benefited from the fact that his generation has no other really good players. The only player even close to him in terms of skill has absolutely no heart and is extremely psychologically frail (Mickelson) and the other guys at the top aren't really close in terms of skill. Nicklaus had Trevino, Watson, and Player. Hogan had Snead and Nelson. Even Jones had his own boredom with the game to deal with which caused him to retire so early. It's saying a lot when you're beating everybody so badly that there is no reason to play anymore. If Jones had played until he was 40 (he got sick when he was 46 or 48, I believe), he would probably have had 30 majors, a number which Tiger isn't going to catch.

WOW - no really good players other than Tiger in today's PGA Tour huh? I don't believe I have

ever read something so completely ignorant as that on this board. Sure the top guys aren't that close to Tiger but I would say they sure as heck could have competed with the same guys pushing Jack in his day. I would be willing to bet that if they were back there, with Jack he might have a few less majors and wins and guys like Trevino, Player, and Watson would have had some stiff competition for the whatever Jack didn't win. Perspective - the reason Phil, Vijay, Mickleson, Els and the like don't seem all that good (according to you) is because Tiger is that far beyond them.

[Benefactor]

WOW - no really good players other than Tiger in today's PGA Tour huh? I don't believe I have

The fact that no other player who is Tiger's contemporary has more than 3 majors is fairly telling of what I said earlier. Watson had 8, Player had 9 and Trevino had 6. I'm not comparing Phil, Vijay etc. to Tiger, I'm comparing them to the competition that Nicklaus had and it's really not even close in terms of their historic greatness. None of Tiger's competitors will go down as all-time greats. Period. By the way, I'm not saying that if you had a time machine and put Mickelson back in 1972 that he wouldn't have been a dominant player. As time goes on, golfers get better, so that's an irrelevant argument. I try to judge players relative to their peers. Tiger's peers basically all suck. Tiger, as dominant as he is, still leaves a lot of majors out there to be won; he doesn't win them all. And the fact that nobody from his generation has won more than 3 more than proves my point.

[teal]

The fact that no other player who is Tiger's contemporary has more than 3 majors is fairly telling of what I said earlier. Watson had 8, Player had 9 and Trevino had 6. I'm not comparing Phil, Vijay etc. to Tiger, I'm comparing them to the competition that Nicklaus had and it's really not even close in terms of their historic greatness. None of Tiger's competitors will go down as all-time greats. Period. By the way, I'm not saying that if you had a time machine and put Mickelson back in 1972 that he wouldn't have been a dominant player. As time goes on, golfers get better, so that's an irrelevant argument. I try to judge players relative to their peers. Tiger's peers basically all suck. Tiger, as dominant as he is, still leaves a lot of majors out there to be won; he doesn't win them all. And the fact that nobody from his generation has won more than 3 more than proves my point.

So you have Jack, Watson, Player and Trevino winning everything - well that is 4 guys. So I would say that outside of those 4 then - there wasn't any competition. (using your logic) Tiger has won, Phil has won and a lot more than 2 other guys have one majors in the Tiger era - the competition for those majors is tougher . Heck they finally got rough at the Masters once Tiger came along. Phil is a hall of fame golfer and were it not for Tiger he would be considered as much more of a golfer that he is (and I HATE Phil - so I don't say that out of some fawning for the guy). The fact no one other than Tiger has more than 3 majors - speaks more about Tiger's ability to beat them out than their talent level. If you don't want to compare Tiger's accomplishments to others - look at his individual stuff. Tiger has lower scoring average (that has nothing to do with other players but his play agains the courses themselves), won the career slam at a younger age, won it a second time at a younger age. Has more majors than Jack at the same age. He owns the scoring records at most if not all of the majors. He shot 12 under at a US Open where the next best guy didn't break par. He won a British Open without using his driver. - To quote another post. Jack himself has said that todays players are tougher and better than the guys in his era - considering he played against them - I take his assesment.

[TigerCurtis333]

I'm surprised this is still a debate after this week.

Tiger Woods walked an estimated 60 miles and played 91 holes over 5 days and won the U.S. Open Major Championship with a torn ACL and two stress fractures.

There is no doubt - Tiger is the best golfer to walk the planet - ever.

[Benefactor]

I'm surprised this is still a debate after this week.

That's the end all and be all of your "Tiger's the greatest" argument? He played through an injury? I guess that makes Ben Hogan god himself.

[Benefactor]

So you have Jack, Watson, Player and Trevino winning everything - well that is 4 guys. So I would say that outside of those 4 then - there wasn't any competition. (using your logic) Tiger has won, Phil has won and a lot more than 2 other guys have one majors in the Tiger era - the competition for those majors is

Trevino, Player and Watson took about 10 majors from Jack. How many guys have sacked up on Sunday and stolen one from Tiger? 0. I also don't dispute that golfers are better now than they ever have been. I said that a couple posts ago. That's irrelevant though. 20 years from now, the best golfer will be so good that he'd have mopped the floor with Tiger....and the natural progression continues. Also, scoring averages are absolutely meaningless. You are pitting the golfer against the course there and almost all the great courses are clamoring to keep up with advances in technology etc, and they're always a step behind. Courses are also 100x better maintained ever before which means when you hit the ball in the fairway you actually get a good lie, and you get a much truer roll on the greens. Bobby Jones could have been god incarnate swinging a golf club, but who do you think is going to shoot lower scores? Jones with hickory shafts, golf balls that weren't even all perfectly round and playing on courses that probably looked like your back yard, or Tiger? I mean really, that question answers itself. The fact that nobody has more than 3 has nothing to do with Tiger at all. There have been plenty of majors where he wasn't even realistically in contention...and how many times did one of let's say "the big 3" win? Not often. They don't step up on Sunday, period. You can't argue about that. The fact that Tiger has been playing for 11 years professionally and just this past Monday was the first time somebody really pushed him for a long, long time, is pretty sad. On any given day, there are probably 50 golfers who can play every bit as good as Tiger. Why is that day never on the Sunday of a major? The thing that differentiates Tiger from everybody else is not shots he's able to hit....it's how often and consistently he can do it. Why players who are already playing well - otherwise they would be irrelevant come Sunday - can never finish the job on Sunday is not a question I can answer. But what I can say is this: it wasn't a problem for the contemporaries of Jack and many other great golfers.