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

[dougb]

@MtGolfer has it right.

Tiger is unarguabley the best player, but Jack just has that record.

[bigoak]

Pardon me if I assume it arrogant to discount anyone that you don't know is not qualified to have been a great golfer. I know that is a double negative, but reading some of the grammar of the posts of the whole language crowd, I bet it won't make a difference.

" Who's the greatest?" is a question in the present tense and that would even eliminate Tiger because he is not currently on a player list. " Who has been the greatest?" might be a question that would involve Jack and Tiger.

If you don't think that Tiger( when healthy again ) is a great golfer or you don't think that Jack had been a great golfer, then pick anyone, just not lefty.

[GolfDadRob]

I dont really know many pro golfers yet but since Tiger is one of those names I actually DO, Ill have to go with him haha

[Brady0626]

I bet if Jack was around right now it would be an epic battle every tournament

[golfnut5438]

Only injuries will prevent Tiger from surpassing Jack in all categories.

[stuey]

Tiger- far superior athlete, powerful, has the touch. However near impossible to compare as from different eras.

[Flatbottom]

I have to say Tiger just because he is the only one I've seen play live, not only highlights. But who really knows, maybe they're equal.

[Onethatwobbles]

Tiger! but only because I never saw Jack play.

[mickeyo]

This is a hard one, I would have to lean towards Tiger.

[svchiefs19]

im only 16 and wasn't alive during Jack's prime, but i have seen Tiger and i have to say: HE'S AMAZING!!!!

[RDM]

To me, Jack Nicklaus will always be the ultimate golfer. I always enjoyed watching a tournament when he was playing and especially when he was in contention. The 1980 U.S. Open and the 1986 Masters are two of my favorites. Tiger is very skilled, but will never be the person Jack Nicklaus is.

[NeedATeeTime]

I have to go with what these old eyes have told me.
I've watched Tiger for a long time, heard about him for even longer. He's the best player in the world, no doubt.

I've watched Jack ever since his amature days and his first year as a Pro. Unbelievable talent. Jack was never a natural athelete. He worked very hard on his game and his conditioning and became the best golfer in the world. But he was still the best when he was so out of shape! Only Arnie and Gary could challenge him... later Trevenio and Watson... no slouches in their own right!

Theoretically, if Jack and Tiger were both 30 at the same time, every major would be a 'pickem'.
Neither would play only 15 tourneyments - they would be playing each and everyone! Both are furious competitors!

Up to this point in time - Jack is the king. Maybe in 10 years, I'll revise my feelings.

[somanyqs]

One word: Jack

[Cesar]

Even though Jack had more clutch competitors to go up against, I still gotta go with Tiger.

He's basically Jack Nicklaus in a top flight athlete's body. Not a weakness in his game and the most demoralizing putter I've seen.

[bigearnucsd]

Tiger is a monster.

[Octuple Bogey]

In my opinion Tiger is the man. He can't claim to be the greatest golfer just yet because he doesn't have as many majors or tournament wins as Jack, but he's getting close and he's getting better and he's got a lot of years left in his career. I think that provided he doesn't injure himself permanently it is almost a foregone conclusion that he will be the best that ever played the game. I mean he is a freak among freaks of nature. His handicap is +8, he wins 1/3 of all PGA tournaments he enters, he broke 50 when he was three years old, he won the U.S. Amateur three straight times, he almost never misses a cut on the PGA Tour, he's holed better than 1000 straight putts within three feet during tournament play, he's run away with majors with winning margins of well over half a dozen strokes, and his playoff record is nearly spotless. What else do I have to add?

[Octuple Bogey]

obviously I haven't read this whole thread so sorry if I take someones answer, but I don't believe in the whole "jack had more competition". Did it ever occur to some of you that Tiger REALLY IS that much better than the rest of the tour? And equipment? Everyone had the same equipment then and everyone has the same equipment now. So that's not a valid excuse. Even if Tiger doesn't eclipse the 18 majors, which he'll do anyway, he's still the best golfer ever.

Exactly my thoughts. Everybody in any tournament in any era is playing the same course with the same options for buying equipment. If Tiger was playing in the 1930s he'd still be better than the rest of them. As for the competition being better or worse, I don't know. How do you honestly measure that? I mean Jack had Arnie, but what about the rest of the pack who occasionally step up to challenge the superstars? Collectively they actually win a majority of the tournaments. Are those 200 or so guys better now or back then?

[LooseLefty]

I'm going to go with Tiger.