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

[Treemagnet]

There both great.

[NI4NI]

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

[liftkitfan]

Their both great in their own right, but it's bad that Tiger won't be back til 09.

[Nahmeanz]

Tiger Woods is the greatest in my lifetime.

[Chubber]

I respect Jack, but Tiger gets my vote!

[Cizzle]

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.

[Eeryck]

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.

[whip_it_out]

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.

[Wisconsin Golfer]

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

[bigmick]

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

[BlueFab5]

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.

[mbshaf]

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.

[Creestoff]

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

[Ogie]

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.

[Happs]

Since i've never seen Jack Nicklaus play in his prime, I have to default to Tiger woods.

[raw10628]

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.

[justinmill14]

Prolly tiger

[MtGolfer]

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.