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
      1627
    • Jack Nicklaus is my favorite
      820


Recommended Posts

Posted
For me, it's all about competition, and overall impact to the sport. Jack had more consistent and higher quality competition, while being instrumental in helping to establish the global love affair we currently have with golf. All in all, these two points cannot be diminished to a #2 status (old school mentality).

Kevin

Posted
Jack in majors up to '82 (basically was done after that, '86 would be if Norman won the British this year) had only been outside the top 10 22 times. Tiger already has been outside the top 10 23 times, and still has another nine years before he'll be 42 like Jack was. Jack was definitely more consistent than Tiger is that's for sure.

Driver: Tour Burner 10.5*
3 Wood: Hibore 15*
3 Hybrid: 3dx DC 20*
Irons: i5 4-PW
Gap Wedge: cg12 50*Sand Wedge: cg12 54*Putter: g5i anserIn my grom bag :)


Posted
I suspect that Tiger will come through and be even more dominat in the next few years. With a healthy knee and his ability I suspect you will see him winning many more majors as well as show the strong finishes (second and thirds) when he is not winning.

In my Grom bag:

Driver........... Burner 9.5* S-Flex
3-Wood......... Burner 15* S-Flex
5-Wood......... Ovation 18* S-FlexIrons............. Pro Combos 3,5-PW Rifle 6.0Wedges......... CG12 52.10, 56.14, 60.10Putter............ 33" VP1 Milled PutterBall................ e6+ or B330-SRangefinder.....


Posted
Jack had 1 ofther great pplayers to compete with hi, day in, day out. But after 10 or so, it was a bunch of nobodies.


Tiger doesn't have many day in day out competitors, but anyone out to the top 50 can get hot and challenge him pretty good.

Jack had 10 good guys he had to deal with, Tiger has an entire fiel of possible competitors.

I think theyre equal.
In The Bag

Titleist 905T 9.5°
Nike Sumo2 15°
Nike Sumo2 19°Nike Forged Irons - 3-PW Titleist Bob Vokey Spin Milled 56°10°Scotty Cameron Pro Platinum Newport 2

Posted
They are both awesome. I have to add my opinion though, My favorite golfer ever is ANNIKA.

In My Limited Edition "Sir Isaac Newton Caricature" Big Bertha Tour Bag:
Driver: Big Bertha Fusion Ft-3
Hybrid: Big Bertha Heavenwood 3h
Irons And Wedges: Big Bertha X-12 3-Sw And
60* Vokey Spin Milled Oil-Can Lob-WedgePutter: White Hot Xg Sabertooth and a Futura Phantom Balls: Hx Hot Bite...


Posted
Tiger - still has many more majors & victories to go.

Burner - Driver
Burner - 3 wood
19 deg. & 22 deg. Rescue
Wrath 5-PW irons
CG14 52, 56, and 60 deg. wedges Rossa Daytona putter


Posted
Everyone talks about how Jack had better competition. I think today's players with today's technology are better then the players of Jack's era. It's a different game now. So with that said, the fact that no one is even close to Tiger proves his greatness. Hopefully the knee holds up and we can enjoy watching him play for many years to come.

Posted
I think it's really apples to oranges as they played in different eras. Both have the heart of champions and are very much the dominant player of their eras. With great differences in equipment and course design the game is substantively different between the two times. I feel lucky to have lived in a time where I could enjoy the artistry of each.

----------------------------
WITB:
Ping G10 9* Axis 75-S
Ping G10 15.5* - PL Red
Ping G10 18.5* - TFCTitleist AP2 3-P - Aldila Proto TTitleist Vokey 252 - 8 DGTitleist Vokey SM 60 - 8 DG Ever changing!


Posted
I'm going to stick with Jack until Tiger officially passes him in majors.

What's in my bag:

- Cleveland HiBore XL 10.5 degree
- Knockoff 3 and 5 woods
- TaylorMade Burner Oversize Irons, 3-PW- Dynacraft SW- Cleveland 60 deg wedge (perhaps not for long, though)- Odyssey 550 Putter


Posted
Hard to argue with Tiger at this point given his age and what he has accomplished. On the flip side, could he do it with the inferior technology, training, etc. that Jack had while he played? 2 different era's and not easy to compare. Plus I am one who never even picked up club until I started watching Woods, so his impact on the game is not a point of arguement over Jack if you ask me.

Posted
I have to go with Tiger, simply because I was not alive during Jack's years. I'm only 25 so I've seen Tiger a lot. I think Jack did it against all around better competition though, but in golf your still mostly playing the course.

Posted
I'm going to stick with Jack until Tiger officially passes him in majors.

Me, too.

Tiger is no doubt the best player today, and by a wider margin than Jack was in his day. But, being the best over time is important in sports, and Jack still ranks number one all time because of his unsurpassed major record.

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

    Carl's Place
    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo

    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

    • I like discussing the golf swing. Whether you call it "swing theory" or what, I like to talk about things that can expand the potential for what I know and understand. As a scientist, I like being shown that I'm wrong, too, because as I've said a bunch of times… "you're wrong and here's why" is an instant opportunity to upgrade my knowledge. I also like to help golfers, and one of the things I'm most glad to have moved away from from 15 years ago was the "Hands In" idea from S&T. Jim Waldron is often credited (probably rightly so) with explaining why so many Tour players and good players talk about "keeping their hands in front of themselves" while it appears that they're moving their arms around their bodies. From over 30 years ago: I've also got videos like… this (Instagram link here😞 I'm happy to say that I've become friends with Shaun and Mike at Athletic Motion Golf (AMG), too. I tend to get along with other smart folks who measure things, who look critically at information, who don't assume that what they thought 20 years ago holds true today. I get along with folks who look for chances to instantly upgrade their knowledge. Andy Plummer remains one of the people who does not look for these opportunities. He didn't care in early 2013 when we had evidence that the information in their S&T 2.0 DVDs was bogus, and they seemingly don't care now. They've been attacking (it's their favorite pastime) AMG in particular for the better part of a year now. There have been a few shots back at them from AMG (like… this), no doubt. But as is typical of the AMG fellas, it's with measured data. Well, recently, Andy took yet another shot at AMG: https://www.instagram.com/p/DZfHe0DuPXC/. Andy demonstrates that true power in the golf swing comes from doing stuff like this: Andy claims that the idea that the arms mostly lift and lower, while the body turns, is bogus. What golfers should be doing is using "angular velocity" to abduct and adduct their shoulders to move the club fast like this (above). Then he makes a ridiculous example of what AMG supposedly teaches, but misses by a mile. Now, it doesn't take a biomechanist to know that you can't possibly swing as Andy demonstrates. His right arm is so far around and behind him that his left arm would have to grow several feet to reach the grip of the club (or alignment stick), and a follow-through with the right arm position like that would be absolutely silly. But, it's a demonstration, so let's not read too much into it. However, I find ideas like this dangerous. Again, I like to help golfers, and in my opinion, the idea that you should abduct and adduct your arms a lot is a dangerous one. There's some adduction and abduction going on, but… it's not much. Anyway, this statement was posted: 130 degrees of dynamic range of horizontal abduction and adduction is quite the claim! I posted some comments to Andy and others, and was issued a challenge: Well, okay then. Here's Bryson's lead shoulder adduction: This measures the angle between the "virtual spine," the left shoulder, and the elbow. Bryson has a 97.34° "adduction angle" at P1, a 62.53° angle at P4, and returns to an 89.21° angle at impact. Rounding, that's a change of 34° from address to the top, and then a change (back toward the angle at address) of about 26° from the top to impact. If we want to worry about only horizontal abduction and adduction (where D = adduction and B = abduction): Left shoulder: 8.33° D, 38.74° D, 14.67° D Right shoulder: 1.03° D, 55.75° B, 14.04° B If we call moving the arms farther around you as negative, those are changes of -30.41° from P1 to P4 for the left shoulder and +24.07° from P4 to P7 for the left shoulder and -56.78° and +41.71° for the right shoulder. I have no idea on earth where he gets 130°. From the last frame of Bryson's swing where he's at 126.98°? But the lowest that number gets is 62.53°, for a range of 64.45, or less than half of the 130° claimed (plus it includes part of the swing, post-impact, that has no bearing on what the ball does). For good measure, another pretty good player: Left: 22.55° D ➡️ 33.35° D (∆ 10.8°) ➡️ 17.36° D (∆ 15.99° from P4, 5.19° from P1) Right: 15.03° D ➡️ 24.29° B (∆ 39.32°) ➡️ 1.93° D (∆ 26.22° from P4, 13.1° from P1) Of the biomechanists and experienced 3D users (on any platform), none of them have seen anything like 130° of dynamic adduction/abduction from a good player P1 to P7. And, like my little joke above, even if you go to the end of the swing, you rarely get much more than a little over halfway there. Maybe Andy is adding them? He does say in the video "and then add it to that with the lead arm." (I think that's what he says, but this isn't an additive type system.) I regularly coach golfers out of positions with a lot of adduction and abduction. I regularly work golfers away from moving their arms around their bodies. Even my juniors (the ones who have paid attention anyway! 🤣) can recite "arms = up/down, body = around." Like this: So, I don't know where this leaves us. Andy claims to have seen something on GEARS that shows 130° of dynamic adduction/abduction. I'm open to being wrong, but… I don't think I am here on this one. And, until that comes to be, I will continue to stand up for what I think is the best information, and do my best to work with golfers toward simpler, easier moves that don't get them stuck. Simpler, easier moves like the moves Tour players and great players tend to make, not complicated, difficult moves. Shaun and Mike said it in a video once where they demonstrated that the average Tour player adducts their lead arm 20° across their chest from the top to impact (P4 to P7), while the amateur often tries to go 40°. They said something like "the amateur is trying to move their arm TWICE the distance in the same amount of time as the professional athlete." Yep. The swings of great players are often easier and simpler. They are not abducting and adducting their arms much in comparison to average golfers. As a smart man once said: "Why would you teach something (abduction in this case) that bad golfers already do?" On a related note… the S&T crowd continues to be… well, who they've been as long as I've known them. Take this comment for example: I mean… I would think that this is pretty self-explanatory, but then again… I didn't think it needed explaining to begin with. P.S. As I was finishing up this article, another biomechanist replied with something so simple I hadn't even thought of it as I had immediately jumped into looking at the actual measurements: "90 doesn’t even seem physically possible.“ No, sir. It doesn't.
    • Day 285 6-14 practiced low point control in some dirt by our garden. Objective was to see how far infront of a set point I could get the divot. No ball. 
    • Interested to hear from those who have gone through something similar. I'm currently around a 9 handicap and have logged 50 rounds so far this year. My issue isn't really my handicap itself, it's the amount of score variation. Looking back through the year, I've had scores ranging from 73 to 95, with everything in between. Within the last week alone I went: 92 - 74 - 80 - 89 - 93. I appreciate there is always a variance to scoring and that is fine but I seem to have the issue of being capable of a mid to low 70's round and then the next day adding 20 shots onto that. Others I know around my handicap, they seem to live in the low-mid 80s and occasionally shoot high 70s. In contrast, I seem to have a very high ceiling and a very low floor. My goal is to get to 5 but I feel a million miles away from that at the moment. I have had periods of lessons where I have got better but that baseline level never seems to have improved and the only sort of logical conclusion I can come to is because my fundamental ball striking and clubface control is not good enough. Over the years I've been through the usual cycle of swing thoughts and feels. Something works for a few rounds and then it disappears. This latest episode involved a "looser arms, smoother swing" feel which coincided with some good golf before scores drifted back upwards this week. The more I look at my scoring record, the more I wonder whether the answer is much simpler. Perhaps score volatility is ultimately just a reflection of strike and clubface variability. If strike and face control vary significantly from day to day, then perhaps 74 one week and 93 the next shouldn't be surprising. So my questions are: Has anyone else experienced this sort of variance? Did you eventually become more consistent, and if so, how? Was it primarily technical, mental, course management, practice-related, or something else? Did you manage to raise your floor, or are some golfers simply naturally more volatile than others? Interested to hear from anyone who has gone from being a "74 or 94" golfer to someone who lives in the 70s and low 80s.
    • Wordle 1,821 3/6 ⬜🟨🟨🟨🟨 🟨⬜🟨🟨🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Wordle 1,821 4/6 🟩⬜🟨⬜🟨 🟩🟨⬜🟨⬜ 🟩🟨🟨🟨⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
×
×
  • 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.