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
just started playing dont know golfs history so tiger it is

in my bag:
burner driver
burner 3 wood
burner 19* hybrid
burner 22* hybridburner irons 5 - pw,swdaytona rossa putter


Posted
true, tiger actually decided to be born 30 years later cuz he knew he couldn't compete with jack

Yes and and as far as Tigers competition being lower, it is his fault that he' dominates than the current playing field If you really want to get cynical we can say that if Tiger had been born 30 years ago he probably wouldn't have been allowed on the same courses as Jack.

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
well. this is a question that can be talked about for years and years, and you will always get a new story saying why a certain person thinks tiger/jack is the better pick.

Personally, Tiger is the choice for me.

Soon to be a full time golfer....If things go as planned


WITB:
Driver: Sasquatch 9.5 degree with Diamana Stiff Shaft3 wood: Sasquatch 13 degree with Diamana Stiff ShaftIrons: CCI Forged (3-pw) with True Temper Stiff ShaftsWedges: SV Tour 52/56 degree wedge Putter: isopur putter that i used in high...


Posted
I'm going with Tiger on this one. I was fortunate to be at the '96 PGA at Valhalla and followed the group on opening day with Tiger and Jack playing together. That was awesome.

Posted
true, tiger actually decided to be born 30 years later cuz he knew he couldn't compete with jack

In all fairness, if Tiger had been born 30 years earlier his lifelong goal would have been to surpass Walter Hagen's 12 majors, so Jack would have blown past him with his 18.

My Tools of Ignorance:

Driver: Ping I20 9.5*
Woods/Hybrids: Cobra AMP 3W and 3 HY

Irons: Cobra AMP 4-GW

Wedges: Callaway Forged Copper 56* and 60*

Putters: Scotty Cameron  35" (Several of the flow neck blade variety)

Ball: Bridgestone B330-RX and Srixon Z-Star

Bag: Nike Performance Carry


Posted
Tiger is great -- maybe the greatest, but the pudgy boy Jack was still a better athlete. As for ripping it farther, if jack used the same equipment in his prime, it would take Tiger Driver-wedge to get close.

Posted
I never saw Jack play in his prime, but Tiger has the MJ-esque "I'm going to destroy the entire field today" attitude, which I think puts him over the top.

Posted
So did Jack.

I think Tiger is playing in a time when there are more guys who can go low every single week. And, if anyone thinks there is large gulf between Player/Trevino and Singh/Mickelson hasn't been watching pro golf long enough.

But, Jack could bring it when he needed to bring it most. Just like Tiger.

I honestly can't decide yet, all i know is that only Tiger and Jack are in the team picture. It's one of them. Not Jones, Nelson, Snead, Hogan, Palmer, nor the rest. They were all great. But, not in the team picture for "best ever". Only two guys are in that picture.
GAC

What's In My Bag?
Taylor Made RBZ Driver
Nike Ignite 3 Wood

Taylor Made Burner 5 Wood
Cleveland QuadPro 3 Iron Hybrid
Mizuno MX-200 4 Through WedgeMizuno MP Series Gap and Sand Wedges

Odyssey XG7 Putter

I'm extremely "unfussy" about balls. I'll play anything white and round!  I''ll even play the colors i find.


Posted
And, if anyone thinks there is large gulf between Player/Trevino and Singh/Mickelson hasn't been watching pro golf long enough.

Long enough to count to 15 majors as opposed to 6


Posted
I have only been watching golf long enough to see Tiger.
Driver: 08 Speed LD F 10.5*
Hybrids: A3OS Boxer 3H(19*) A3OS Boxer 4H(22*)
Irons: (4-AW) Victory Red Full Cavity Irons
Wedges: VR PW 45*, VR AW 50*, SV Tour Black 56*, SV Tour Black 60*
Putter: Unitized TiempoBag: Sasquatch Tour Stand/Carry Bag (Victory Red/Gray)Shoes: Air Tour SpectatorBalls: D2...

Posted
Tiger is the kewlest! No but seriously, he is the only reason golf is so popular today, he creates a huge following.

Posted
as players, jack and tiger are equals but being that jack's caddy, angelo argea was one of the all-time great characters and class acts in the game of golf as opposed to tiger's scum bucket of a caddy, steve williams, that we have to conclude that jack is a better golfer

They will beat their swords into golf clubs and their spears into putters. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. Old Tom Morris 2:4


Posted
Got to go with Tiger on this but Nicklaus was a phenomenal player. His record was so so good. Incredible consistency.

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.