Originally Posted by guttle11
Well, I happen to be highly involved in your profession and I am only a couple of years from entering it. Using technology in your debate only holds true if you're talking about who's the better ball striker. It was much harder to strike the ball well with persimmon woods and hickory shafts. But being a better golfer is much more than a ball striker. There were many people who could outshoot Michael Jordan, but only a few who could compare to him as a player.
It's tougher to win now than it was 30 years ago and Tiger dominates when he's playing well. To me, that makes him a better golfer. Tiger, Jack, Jones, Hagen, and Hogan, in that order.
Golf balls have changed immensely in the last 120 years.
Shafts have changed immensely in the last 120 years.
Club components have changed immensely in the last 120 years.
Jones won with his respective equipment, Woods is winning with different equipment. Nicklaus is probably the closest to the middle between those two in terms of equipment. You still can't compare generations b/c of the difference in equipment and technology. You can talk all you want about difference of competition faced, but Jones was above and beyond his generation, Hogan was above and beyond his generation before his accident, Nicklaus was above and beyond his generation, but so far, Tiger has proven to be mortal. Tiger's still in the argument for best ever, but right now he's starting to break away from his generation again. Had Mickelson not won his quick 3 Majors in the last few years, I would have easily said Tiger was the best of his generation, but there is some parity in this generation, and that can't be refuted.
If you wanna go the ball striker route, Tiger isn't in the top 5 of best ball strikers of all time. Trevino, Moe Norman, Hogan, Jones, Snead are all better than Tiger.