Tiger or Jack?

[Javs]

The old debate resurfaces. Who is the games greatest Tiger or Jack? I don’t think we can compare players from different eras. However, if I had to pick then for me it’s Jack.

https://www.golfmonthly.com/features/tiger-woods-or-jack-nicklaus-who-is-the-greatest-golfer-what-the-stats-say?utm_term=CFEB69DA-8695-406A-822D-71925C4B6E39&lrh=afabd56f8788996dec1eed39e53e29756a4fe34c1aff9fa4fdfa9f254cbb042a&utm_campaign=075440B8-601C-4440-A9B1-8A7444061AA8&utm_medium=email&utm_content=F47BD5D1-4801-4564-883A-6869A6ED2371&utm_source=SmartBrief

[GolfSpy_APH]

Das this and given my age and overall knowledge I just can't comment fairly. 

I have no recognition of watching Jack play and grew up playing tiger woods games so I have a bias that is pretty glaring.

[Josh Parker]

Tough one as they both have played a major role in golf history and its hard to compare the two because of different times. 

I have my feelings on Tiger but he no doubt is one of the best during his prime. 

[GolfSpy_SHARK]

Tough like Jamie said because I never witnessed Jack.

but what I can say is I wish Tiger would stop getting into tournaments and withdrawing. I think it really hurts the legacy. I know this past one at riviera was “flu” but let’s be serious it was his back. Gotta know when to hang it up (easier said than done I know)

[Subdiver1]

If Jack would stop the B.S. about the ball being too long I'd probably stick with Jack, for multiage reasons; but because he keeps that line going it has to be Tiger.

[ZackS]

I would say Jack had the better career overall with the longevity. But I think Tiger has was the most dominant there has been in his prime and is the most skilled golfer there has been. So I guess if you are going to say one was the greatest ever it comes down to which one of those things you think means more. 

[Shrek74]

No question - Jack. What he did with the technology he had (or really didn't have) against the level of competition he had during his career, there's no doubt Jack is the

No offense to those who played during Tiger's Era, but the competition wasn't as good as during Jack's time. It just wasn't.

Tiger was an incredible golfer, I won't argue that point. But Jack was just better.

Sent from my SM-N986U1 using Tapatalk

[RickyBobby_PR]

2 hours ago, Subdiver1 said:

If Jack would stop the B.S. about the ball being too long I'd probably stick with Jack, for multiage reasons; but because he keeps that line going it has to be Tiger.

Tiger wanted a different ball for pros while he was playing and he like Jack as a course designer wants distance to be reigned in.

[RickyBobby_PR]

Tiger did what he did against much deeper fields than Jack. Tiger had courses adding length to try and tame him.

Everyone will jump in the major numbers but Tiger has won the most tournaments ever which winning a tour event isn’t easy. His winning percentage is amazing. He dominated as the number one golfer for a long time.

Tiger changed the game. Golfers on tour and those aspiring to be on tour started hitting the gym. There are better athletes playing golf on tour now thanks to Tiger.

Golfers of all ages and backgrounds were and still play golf wearing black pants/shorts and a red polo. Tiger brought back the mock turtleneck a handful of years ago.

Tiger is the GOAT

[fixyurdivot]

6 hours ago, Javs said:

The old debate resurfaces. Who is the games greatest Tiger or Jack? I don’t think we can compare players from different eras. However, if I had to pick then for me it’s Jack.

https://www.golfmonthly.com/features/tiger-woods-or-jack-nicklaus-who-is-the-greatest-golfer-what-the-stats-say?utm_term=CFEB69DA-8695-406A-822D-71925C4B6E39&lrh=afabd56f8788996dec1eed39e53e29756a4fe34c1aff9fa4fdfa9f254cbb042a&utm_campaign=075440B8-601C-4440-A9B1-8A7444061AA8&utm_medium=email&utm_content=F47BD5D1-4801-4564-883A-6869A6ED2371&utm_source=SmartBrief

Jack without a doubt.  Jack is the GOAT.

[Bossfan]

They were the best of their eras. That’s all I know.

[Javs]

     To me it is unfair to compare the two because the eras were so different. I grew up watching Jack. I actually met him a few times. He could do things with the ball and hit farther than the others at his period. He hit towering high fades. The way he worked the old ball with persimmon woods and unforgiving blades was awesome! Jack with Arnie made the tour and changed golf. Jack played against some of the greatest in the game. While the fields might not have been as deep, the top players were much greater. Jacks winning over a longer period was better. He was truly the best of his period. Jack also was always a good sportsman and good to the fans. 
     Tiger was the best of his era. He won against deeper fields and more than anyone. However, he did play against less top players than Jack. He was amazing in his prime. He changed the game as we know it today. Tiger like Jack moved the needle whenever he showed up. Tiger and Jack were both intimidating to their peers. Unfortunately, I have witnessed some of Tigers poor interactions with fans and had a bad personal interaction at work which has jaded my opinion of him. So, while an awesome talent and player outside of that I am not a fan. 

Edited February 18 by Javs

[jolter1]

If you go by winning percentage I believe Tiger would hold that distiction. But as Tiger said himself, the goal was to beat 18 majors, and with that it would be Jack along with his 19 runnerups.

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, Javs said:

Jack played against some of the greatest in the game. While the fields might not have been as deep, the top players were much greater. Jacks winning over a longer period was better.

 

1 hour ago, Javs said:

     Tiger was the best of his era. He won against deeper fields and more than anyone. However, he did play against less top players than Jack. He was amazing in his prime. He changed the game as we know it today.

Tiger had to deal with Phil and Vijay. Vijay won over 60 times on tour during the Tiger era. Not to mention guys like DL3, Freddie, Furyk. And Tiger doing it in less time is more impressive. 
 You might want to go back and look at who Tiger competed against. 

If a great pitcher won 300 times in 20 years and another won that many in 15 years who is more impressive? The guy that did it quicker.

1 hour ago, Javs said:

I have witnessed some of Tigers poor interactions with fans and had a bad personal interaction at work which has jaded my opinion of him. So, while an awesome talent and player outside of that I am not a fan. 

This is really what it’s about, a bias that jades the perspective 

[Javs]

2 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

 

Tiger had to deal with Phil and Vijay. Vijay won over 60 times on tour during the Tiger era. Not to mention guys like DL3, Freddie, Furyk. And Tiger doing it in less time is more impressive. 
 You might want to go back and look at who Tiger competed against. 

If a great pitcher won 300 times in 20 years and another won that many in 15 years who is more impressive? The guy that did it quicker.

This is really what it’s about, a bias that jades the perspective 

You are entitled to your opinion, but I don’t agree. Sorry the golfers you mentioned are not Hogan, Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson, Miller, Weiskopf, or Casper. I did state that Tigers fields were deeper, but the top players were not legends other than a few. My bias is against him as a person due to personal experience not against his accomplishments. I clearly stated that fact. I’m not going to go back and forth. Just stated my opinion as you did yours. I just don’t agree. 

Edited February 19 by Javs

[Shapotomous]

I am old enough to have seen Jack's play from the early 70's on. 

Overall I lean toward Jack not only because of his record in majors (wins and 2nd place finishes) but his Ryder Cup record is much better as well. 

Tiger had the most dominant 5 year stretch of anyone ever.  But I give the longevity edge to Jack.

It's tough to compare over the different eras but an interesting mental exercise to go through.

[Javs]

1 minute ago, Shapotomous said:

I am old enough to have seen Jack's play from the early 70's on. 

Overall I lean toward Jack not only because of his record in majors (wins and 2nd place finishes) but his Ryder Cup record is much better as well. 

Tiger had the most dominant 5 year stretch of anyone ever.  But I give the longevity edge to Jack.

It's tough to compare over the different eras but an interesting mental exercise to go through.

Agree with you!

[Golf2Much]

It's amazing how whenever there's talk about Jack versus Tiger, many opinions tend to fall along generational lines.  People like to choose the ones they saw in their prime.  In reality, that's understandable because it's your personal reference point.  In reading some comments here and in other articles, some the accolades favoring Tiger describe on how far he hit the ball, how competitive he was and how he revolutionized the game.  Going back 30-40 year ago you heard the same type of comments when they talked about Jack overtaking Arnie.  

In reality, I'm not really sure if there's a right answer.  Until everyone can agree on the metrics that truly describes the true GOAT, there will always be debate. 

And it's not just golf.  Forums from all sports are filled with the same generation GOAT comparisons and each one tends to be an emotionally packed debate.

[Josh Parker]

16 hours ago, GolfSpy_SHARK said:

Tough like Jamie said because I never witnessed Jack.

but what I can say is I wish Tiger would stop getting into tournaments and withdrawing. I think it really hurts the legacy. I know this past one at riviera was “flu” but let’s be serious it was his back. Gotta know when to hang it up (easier said than done I know)

I agree.  This is a topic that I have thought about putting up but figured I would be strung up for mentioning.  I have no doubt he wants to perform and be the Tiger everyone thinks he is but I also think he is withdrawing for that exact reason.  My opinion is, he is struggling with hanging it up, rightfully so, and instead of letting fans down or even himself, he is "withdrawing" from the tournaments with illness.  

I couldn't imagine being in that position but I agree with you that it may be time.  

[GolfSpy_SHARK]

2 hours ago, Josh Parker said:

I agree.  This is a topic that I have thought about putting up but figured I would be strung up for mentioning.  I have no doubt he wants to perform and be the Tiger everyone thinks he is but I also think he is withdrawing for that exact reason.  My opinion is, he is struggling with hanging it up, rightfully so, and instead of letting fans down or even himself, he is "withdrawing" from the tournaments with illness.  

I couldn't imagine being in that position but I agree with you that it may be time.  

I agree, I wish he could play, so good for the game.

For me its like watching Jordan after the bulls, just isn't right and puts a sour view of what he did for the game for those that did not see him play.

[jolter1]

15 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

 

Tiger had to deal with Phil and Vijay. Vijay won over 60 times on tour during the Tiger era. Not to mention guys like DL3, Freddie, Furyk. And Tiger doing it in less time is more impressive. 
 You might want to go back and look at who Tiger competed against. 

If a great pitcher won 300 times in 20 years and another won that many in 15 years who is more impressive? The guy that did it quicker.

This is really what it’s about, a bias that jades the perspective 

Your point is well taken, but here is what Jack faced in his career, Arnold (62 wins), Billy Casper (51), Tom Watson (39), Lee Trevino (29), Johnny Miller (25), Gary Player (24), Raymond Floyd (22), Doug Sanders (20), and that is just total wins and not their majors. Jack came in and the end of the Ben Hogan era and basically left when Greg Norman, Faldo and the rest were just starting. Tiger faced some good competition but just look who Jack had to fend off to win 18 majors with 19 runnerups.

[ShimmyCocoBop]

It is sometimes interesting to read opinions on topics such as this one, but let's face it - until Mark Broadie develops a mathematical formula to determine the GOATs in any sport, none of the arguments are conclusive.

Golf greats like Tiger, VJ, Watson, Jack, Palmer, Trevino, Player, Hogan, Snead, Nelson, Jones, Sarazen, Young Tom, and Old Tom (etc.) all had competitive spirits that were "better than most".

[Subdiver1]

Honestly, aside from my frustration with the garbage distance discussion, I agree with @Javsand @Shrek74. It would be hard to say that if Jack in his prime had the condition training, equipment etc. and had grown up with the discipline and grinding training that Tiger's dad put home through that he wouldn't have increased his wins exponentially.  But you can't prove a negative, you can only extrapolate from what you have for evidence. I'd vote Jack if I had to choose, I'd just have to bite my cheek over the aforementioned issue. What any of those guys did with the equipment we had back then makes many of them competitive/comparable against today's players.  Consider what they accomplished without all of the advantages (not just equipment wise) and I think it is tough to unequivocally state that any player today is any better than pre-2000s players.

Just my 2 cents though

[Another Steve]

Saw them both… Jack from the ‘70’s on and TW his whole career. I give a slight playing edge to Jack. Extra points to jack for doing what he did with crap wound balls (compared to what TW had most of his career) AND using tiny persimmons! Final tie breaker goes to Jack for his off course demeanor and integrity vs the apparent lack there of for TW. Start at TW’s ex whacking him upside the head with an iron for cheating and run with it…

 

Also, loved the color combo of black and red pre TW, now I make sure that I never wear that combo anywhere near a golf course.

Edited February 23 by Another Steve

[Headhammer]

Tiger has always said that your career is defined by how many majors you win and Jack's number was always his target from the time he was little boy. So, IMHO, Jack is the greatest championship golfer of all time, but Tiger is probably the best golfer of all time.

[Bradka13]

I am just old enough to have seen the tail end of Jack's career.  When Tiger was starting out, I was fairly "anti-Tiger".  At this point I think anyone that says there is a clear-cut GOAT is not being honest with themselves.  I think Tiger had the opportunity to clearly take that title, but he made some questionable (my opinion) choices during his career.  The 2 biggest being...

1.  Continually reworking his swing even when he was already clearly the best player in the world at the time.

2.  Choosing to play with inferior equipment most of his career.  Granted, this worked out just fine for him financially but likely hurts his lifetime stats.  

So, to answer your question, I would give the slight edge to Tiger due to how dominant he was in his prime, but can't help but wonder what might have been if it weren't for poor choices and injuries.

[KingSlender]

To me, it's pretty easy:

Nobody has played the game at a higher level than Tiger, but he'd trade his career for Jack's to have the record for major wins.

It's Jack.

[Huse343]

If we are referring to who was better when they were in their prime, I’d say Tiger. Long, impeccable ball striking, and an unreal tough around the greens. Match play - Tiger wins it in 16 holes. 

[GaDawg]

Never been a Tiger fan. The media just pushed me away by trying to cram him down our throats. Hard to compare due to different equipment, balls, etc. I'll take Jack.

[DE_Illini]

At his best Tiger was the best golfer.  He simply dominated.  However, over their entire career I think Jack has the edge.  Better overall record in majors.