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
I believe that if Jack have had to play the same field Tiger is playing he would never had won that many majors... Tiger is THE man.

Posted

I also am not old enough to have seen Jack in his prime but have seen many clips. In his era Jack was the man, but now i say Tiger is the best. This is his era.

In my bag:
Driver: Big Bertha Diablo 10* N
Fairway wood: Big Bertha Diablo 15*N
Irons:Big Bertha 06' (3-PW)
Wedge: Sandwedge 56*Wedge: Lob 60*Putter: White Hot XG#1Ball: Big Bertha Diablo , HX Hot Bite, Warbird


Posted
Tiger... I saw Jack in his prime. He dominated in an era of very similar technology. Just about everyone used Powerbilt Persimmon citation woods, 43 inch steel shaft... not much technology back then. Today, so many players can customize their equipment to the hilt and yet still, Tiger dominates. Maybe not a perfect comparison, but one that I don't think many have verbalized.

IMO, you can't compare era's. Its apples and oranges. The biggest changes have been graphite shafts and the ball. The old blatta balls were very different than balls of today. They'd get out of round after the 3rd hole. In the 70's there was a small hoop the same diameter as the ball. You'd take the ball and put in thru the hoop, using it like a feeler gauage to see if the ball was out of round. The other way was to closely watch the putt and if the ball took a weird roll then you would put that ball into the shag bag and break out a new one. All it took was one thin hit and the cover of the ball had a big smile in it, sometimes thru the cover and either way had to be changed out. It took awhile to get the "feel" of the blatta ball, also when those balls hooker or sliced it was big time and that happened alot. It took alot of skill to work the ball or even hit it straight. If they still had to use that ball today many of the pro's on the PGA tour would still be on the Nation Wide tour if that.

People can dis Jack all they want, but it was Jack that introduced the power game. Jack had class; case in point--what he did with I think it was Tony Jacklin in the Ryder Cup back in the 60's. Jack has more 2nd places than any pro I know of, (Tiger either wins or is down the line a bit). And if it wasn't for Jack introducing the power game no telling what Tiger would be today. They are both great golfers, but to say one is/was better than the other is myopic and obtuse.

Posted
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?

If Tiger played back in the 30's Bobby Jones would of cleaned the course with him.


Posted
If Tiger played back in the 30's Bobby Jones would of cleaned the course with him.

Unfortunately I think your right since Tiger probably wouldn't have been allowed on the course

Where I play: Mission Viejo CC and
long Beach Skylinks

In My Red Cleveland Club Count Bag Today;
Hibore XLS 11.5* w/ Diamana Redboard Flowerband 63 S 2009 Launcher 3WD HT 17* w/ Graffalloy Epic 87g S Hibore XLS Hybrid 22* w/ Graffalloy Epic S and 25* w/ Project X 6.0 CG2 4-PW w/ Project X 6.0 HL...


Posted
Unfortunately I think your right since Tiger probably wouldn't have been allowed on the course

I hadn't thought of that, but that is also correct.

The way I was looking at it was, we all know what Bobby Jones did with hickory and the really old balls. How Tiger would do with that equipment and ball is guess at best. How Jack, or for that matter, Arnie, Tom W., Gary P. or Lee T. would have done with graphite, rescue club(s) and the new balls back in their prime is a guess at best. We call Tiger a "phenom" and he is, but Bobby Jones and Jack were also "phenoms" in their era's. The teaching, training and psychology were very much different between era's. Which gets back to my initial post of not being able to compare era's.

Posted
I hadn't thought of that, but that is also correct.

Great Post

962 : 3 - PW

DCI Gold : 1 & 2 Iron

976R , 8*Ried Lockhart 56 wedge.Studio Select Newport 2.6I hack

Posted
I hadn't thought of that, but that is also correct.

Agreed, I am sure our kids/grandkids will be having the same discussion 25-50 years from now.

Where I play: Mission Viejo CC and
long Beach Skylinks

In My Red Cleveland Club Count Bag Today;
Hibore XLS 11.5* w/ Diamana Redboard Flowerband 63 S 2009 Launcher 3WD HT 17* w/ Graffalloy Epic 87g S Hibore XLS Hybrid 22* w/ Graffalloy Epic S and 25* w/ Project X 6.0 CG2 4-PW w/ Project X 6.0 HL...


Posted
My vote has to go to Jack just based on the excitement derived from watching him play in person. I'm old enough to have watched him when I was in junior high school at several events and then again later in life. There was a special vibe around him that I haven't felt around Tiger. I really do like Tiger though. But it took me almost 4 yrs maybe to really take a liking to Tiger. Jack I liked instantly. Tiger is learning to curb his foul mouth, but in the early days I think half the people followed him around the course just to see what kinds of things would come out of his mouth.

Posted
Tiger for me too.

Gary

-----------------------------------------------
In my bag:
G10 Driver 9degree stiff G10 4 wood stiff Ci7 irons 4-GW SW Twoball putter ProV1


Posted

tiger.

interesting how people react when he takes golf to a new level. his concentration can apply to everyone elsewhere in life.

however, i do wonder his individualism may have played a part in his ryder cup showings


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

    • Day 41, June 14.  I spent 10 minutes, half hitting W half hitting 6-iron, practice shots (indoors, off a mat, into a net)
    • Day 620 - 2026-06-14 Got some work in before and after lessons. Definitely didn't adduct my arms 130° in doing so.
    • Day 79: played 18. Shot a +5 76. Iron play was much better - 11 GIR. Hit a drive 380. Normal day. 
    • Day 14 (14 Jun 26) - Continued work with irons (8i-Pw), hard foam balls and getting consistent impact - same as previous drills - using gates for 1/2 and “simulated” course conditions on the second half.  
    • 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.
×
×
  • 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.