Contemplating the generational differences: Tiger vs. Jack

[ILLZ]

Obviously Nicklaus versus Woods is the only real argument regarding who's the best ever. Nicklaus supporters always seem to mention the changes in technology, which are obvious. Woods supporters counter with the length/difficulty of courses in the modern era versus the 60's and 70's (when Jack was doing his damage). This seems logical to me, but I've never seen any proof or analysis regarding course comparisons from then and now. Can anybody shed any concrete light on this or add an opinion?

EDIT - I also want to add that in order to compare two golfers from different eras, you can't necessarily compare them to each other, but to their competition. In that regard I think Nicklaus and Woods will end up dangerously close when all is said and done. This thread is mainly for the discussion of how courses have changed in length and overall difficulty over the last 30 years.

[NEOHMark]

Don't forget Bobby Jones. In a seven year span, he won 7 majors and something ridiculous like 60+% of all the 'national' tournaments he entered. All without the benefit of the Masters even existing. IIRC, he then retired at the age of 29 - three years younger than Tiger is now. FWIW - Tiger has 12 majors at this point. Four of them are Masters. Knock them off, and he sits at 8 - taking nine years to win them versus seven. Jones also won six amatuer titles (US and British) in that seven year span - more than anyone else ever.

BJ is right up there in consideration of 'best ever' IMHO.

[Silvertree]

You can't count "what could have been" though. I wish Bobby Jones would have continued to play pro golf as much as anyone, but he didn't continue to play. When looking at the best ever, it would only seem right to consider what they did do over the span of their career, not what they could have done.

If you like football, who knows what Bo Jackson could have done if he would have played football full-time and not have been injured. But as it stands he wasn't as great of play as Walter Payton.

[Chilidipper]

You can't count "what could have been" though. I wish Bobby Jones would have continued to play pro golf as much as anyone, but he didn't continue to play. When looking at the best ever, it would only seem right to consider what they did do over the span of their career, not what they could have done.

Tiger is 31 years old. When he is in his 40's we will be able to get a better idea who was better during their career. I have a feeling it's going to be Tiger in a landslide.

[NEOHMark]

You can't count "what could have been" though. I wish Bobby Jones would have continued to play pro golf as much as anyone, but he didn't continue to play. When looking at the best ever, it would only seem right to consider what they did do over the span of their career, not what they could have done.

I think it's still a fair comparison - at least at this point. Bobby Jones didn't have the benefit of The Masters counting as a major because it simply didn't exist. Take away Tiger's four Masters, he sits at 8 majors. Take away Jack's 6 Masters, he sits at 12 majors.

If you compare across different eras, I think you have to compare them based on the comparable 'major' tournaments they had the opportunity to play. Or - you can also count their Amatuer titles as being majors, and then the comparison closes up to one - with Jones actually being AHEAD of Tiger, 13-12. Just food for thought. But IMHO, I don't think Jones' relatively short careers hurts him in anyway for consideration as best ever. Take a look at the table of major winners. Most did their winning over a relatively short span (Nicklaus being a notable exception). Most had the benefit of an extra tournament - The Masters - as counting toward their major total (Jack, Tiger, and Player especially). Walter Hagen probably should also be considered as 'best ever' - given his stellar major record. JMHO

[Big Lex]

Great question.

I'm not long enough in the tooth or knowledgable enough about architecture to say much about how courses have changed since Nicklaus started out in 1962. But there are two things I am pretty sure of:

1. Course conditioning is much better overall today than it was for at least the first half of Nicklaus's competitive days.
2. Regular tour events and majors are set up more difficult today, in general, than in the past. Pin positions are much more difficult in regular tour events, and I think with the better conditioning comes thicker rough.

As to how these changes affect one's assessment of Tiger and Jack, I don't know. Jack has said that the better conditions of courses, like improved equipment, makes it easier for one player to distinguish himself above others. I'm not sure he's correct, but if he is, then Tiger's record becomes even more impressive.

Courses are much longer today, as we all know, but probably when you adjust for the longer hitting of today's clubs/balls, it's fairly equivalent to Jack's day. Long hitters still have a head start, if they are straight enough, but they still get passed at the finish line if they can't putt and hit finesse shots.

Tiger and Jack are so similar as players that it is really tough to choose who is better. Tiger is, in my mind, by a whisker, superior to Jack in all areas except longevity. We don't know if Tiger's going to last as long as Jack did. It's close, but I just don't think you can ignore the degree to which Tiger has dominated, in fields that are overall much stronger than anything Jack ever faced. Much has been made of the superior competition Jack had in terms of high level stars--Trevino, Palmer, Casper, Player, Watson. Maybe this is true, but I think it's overstated a bit. Tiger's competition is excellent.

[NEOHMark]

It's close, but I just don't think you can ignore the degree to which Tiger has dominated, in fields that are overall much stronger than anything Jack ever faced. Much has been made of the superior competition Jack had in terms of high level stars--Trevino, Palmer, Casper, Player, Watson. Maybe this is true, but I think it's overstated a bit. Tiger's competition is excellent.

Perhaps. But consider this - of the players you mentioned, they have a combined THIRTY THREE majors - or 6.5 apiece. They are some stud golfers. Since Tiger turned pro in 1997, no other golfer besides him has more than three. Many (most) major winners since '97 have only one. Does that mean the field has been watered down? Or that the current crop of players is that much better. An interesting comparison no doubt.

I think Jack had the 'psyche' factor a little more than Tiger - VERY little. Tiger was absolutely feared by the rest of the field from '97 to maybe a year or so after his 'Tiger Slam'. But I think that's waned a bit - particularly by the Europeans who have generally had their way with him in the Ryder Cup. Jack never seemed to lose psyche factor until he got into his late 30s. He WAS the man to beat for almost twenty years. I see that edge starting to erode away from Tiger - he doesn't seem to be quite as feared as he used to be. The media still hypes him up, but the players don't seem to have the deer-in-the-headlights look anymore. But he's just starting the second decade of professional competitive play. If his productivity doesn't drop off - he will most certainly become the 'best ever'. I just don't think he's there QUITE yet. A LOT can go wrong - injury, illness, other business ventures intruding on his time. If he stays healthy and focused, I think he'll surpass Nicklaus' 18 majors - but barely. I don't see him winning another 12 majors over the next ten years. Five years from now, by the age of 35-37, time will start catching up with him and he'll start meeting his own mortality. MHO

[Silvertree]

Not to hijack the thread, but was the competition like for Bobby Jones? How many players was he competing against?