Tiger vs. Jack

[MWM]

I think the time has come to start the conversation of greatest golfer of all time. I'm just in awe of Tiger Woods and feel truly lucky to be able to watch what he's accomplishing. I'm out of superlatives to describe him.

So who is the greatest golfer of all time? Jack or Tiger?

[HumnHilghtFreel]

The mere fact that Tiger is closing in on Jack's records at such a young age, in a sport where you can play professionally into your 60's is impressive beyond words. I don't think anyone will ever come close to Tiger once he's done.

[RFS62]

Nobody has ever played better golf than Tiger is playing right now.

Watching him play now is like watching 27 year old Willie Mays. He's special.

Jack is still the winner as I read your poll, until Tiger passes him in titles and majors. That will happen if he doesn't get hurt.

Tiger is a state of the art killing machine. Mind and body, fitness and nutrition, lifestyle...... everything he does is thought out and purposeful.

Including his smokin' hot wife.

[NJReds]

I voted for Jack, although I'm totally amazed by Tiger and I think when all is said and done, he'll surpass Jack's records. However, I think Jack had much tougher competition (that doesn't wilt on the back nine of a major).

I would love to see Jack in his prime and Tiger in his prime heading to the 10th tee at Augusta in a dead tie. That would be some match.

[RedFanAlways1966]

I voted for Jack. In 5-10 years I might change that vote to Tiger (as RFS62 was sayin'). I too feel lucky to see Tiger... like getting to watch Michael Jordan during his prime.

[MWM]

Originally Posted by RFS62

Jack is still the winner as I read your poll, until Tiger passes him in titles and majors. That will happen if he doesn't get hurt.

Stats don't tell the whole story.

If it were just a matter of who won the most majors, then there's no need for debate, you just look at the numbers. My intent was more who do you think was a better golfer. I know it's not a black and white question and there's really not a right or wrong answer. But I also don't think it's as simple as total majors won either. Clearly Jack did it longer as of right now, but that by itself doesn't make him better. Tiger's proven longevity at this point, even though it's not quite as long as Jack. That was the only thing delaying this debate 4-5 years ago. Tiger's dominated long enough now to make the longevity argument less viable, IMO. But is what Tiger is doing now more impressive than what NIckalus was doing when he was dominating, irrespective of who did it longer at this point.

If something happened to Tiger tomorrow and he never played another golf tournament in his life, I think the case could be made that Tiger is the best ever, even though his career was shorter. It's not dissimilar to the Koufax argument you've got a lot of passion around. He clearly didn't have the longevity of some of the other all-time greats, but he was clearly one of the best ever.

[Highlifeman21]

Unfortunately, you can't compare these 2 head to head.

Golf doesn't match up generation to generation like baseball can with indepth statistical analysis. It's not like there's a course factor, like there is park factor (to give a brief example). You also have to take into account technology issues, like equipment.

Technology is so much more advanced now than in the days of Jones, Hogan, Snead, Nelson, and even so in Nicklaus' day. The biggest glaring difference is in ball technology alone. Now, we have up to 4 piece golf balls, that deal with spin rates in a way that the 1 and 2 piece versions in the days of old can't even remotely compete.

The 2nd biggest difference would be in shaft technology. Golf has traveled from wood shafts requiring a smooth 1 plane sweep swing to currently where you have beasts up there swinging space shuttle grade graphite that is as stiff as anything on the planet to steel that is light and stiff. Golf today is a much more violent game, as a whole. The materials allow for it to be a power game, rather than a game of finesse.

Lastly, the other huge difference is in club material. The irons don't matter as much, as your true players used blades smaller than today's true player, but the metalwoods technology is also staggering. Persimmmon is a whole lot different than forged steel, or titanium. Guess which ones are more forgiving and go a hell of a lot farther?

I think if you're going to have an argument of best all time, you need to have 4 guys as options: Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan, Jack Nicklaus, Eldrick Woods.

Unfortunately, it's more of a torch being passed as best of his generation to those 4, respectively.

I wish Golf had the ability to be analyzed cross-generationally, but it can't. With the technology advances/differences alone, comparing Bobby Jones to Tiger Woods would be like giving Babe Ruth an aluminum bat in today's parks. Nicklaus to Woods is a better comparison, b/c less time separates them, but it's still not apples to apples.

Tiger Woods is my generation's best golfer, as I was born on the tail end of the Nicklaus regime, but you just can't accurately, or fairly compare them.

You can compare their Major Victories all you want, 18 to 11 right now, but Tiger still has an unfair equipment advantage.

Jones vs Hogan vs Nicklaus vs Woods? Advantage: Push

[SunDeck]

I think the biggest difference between them is the relative strength of their competition. Jack Nicklaus dominated an extremely talented generation of golfers, while Tiger dominates a group that has only a few who are close to his level.

As to comparing them, Tiger may be the best shot maker ever, but he probably never even held a one iron, which Nicklaus could hit sky high and let the ball drop onto the green so soft you could catch it in your mouth (to paraphrase Lee Trevino). Both of them have the ability to pull out an extra thirty yards from the tee when they want it, and both of them are able to grind out a string of birdies when their competition gets close in tight round. To be sure, these guys are both playing a different game their peers, but I think the game has less finesse than it did forty years ago, so that it is difficult to say which of them is actually better. Tiger can bomb and gouge AND he can take dead aim from 200 yards, but if the game had changed prior to Nicklaus' coming of age, who's to say he wouldn't have been able to do the same?

[Hoosier Red]

I think the level of competition swings in Tigers' favor actually.

There are now 40-50 golfers who with a hot week can win the tournament.

When Jack entered a tournament, or Arnie, or Trevino, or Watson.
They would win so long as they didn't screw up.

The guys on top may not be as quality(I think this is exaggerated by Tigers dominance,) but there is definately a much deeper pool of players who can win.

[guttle11]

Originally Posted by Highlifeman21

Unfortunately, you can't compare these 2 head to head.

Golf doesn't match up generation to generation like baseball can with indepth statistical analysis. It's not like there's a course factor, like there is park factor (to give a brief example). You also have to take into account technology issues, like equipment.

Technology is so much more advanced now than in the days of Jones, Hogan, Snead, Nelson, and even so in Nicklaus' day. The biggest glaring difference is in ball technology alone. Now, we have up to 4 piece golf balls, that deal with spin rates in a way that the 1 and 2 piece versions in the days of old can't even remotely compete.

The 2nd biggest difference would be in shaft technology. Golf has traveled from wood shafts requiring a smooth 1 plane sweep swing to currently where you have beasts up there swinging space shuttle grade graphite that is as stiff as anything on the planet to steel that is light and stiff. Golf today is a much more violent game, as a whole. The materials allow for it to be a power game, rather than a game of finesse.

Lastly, the other huge difference is in club material. The irons don't matter as much, as your true players used blades smaller than today's true player, but the metalwoods technology is also staggering. Persimmmon is a whole lot different than forged steel, or titanium. Guess which ones are more forgiving and go a hell of a lot farther?

I think if you're going to have an argument of best all time, you need to have 4 guys as options: Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan, Jack Nicklaus, Eldrick Woods.

Unfortunately, it's more of a torch being passed as best of his generation to those 4, respectively.

I wish Golf had the ability to be analyzed cross-generationally, but it can't. With the technology advances/differences alone, comparing Bobby Jones to Tiger Woods would be like giving Babe Ruth an aluminum bat in today's parks. Nicklaus to Woods is a better comparison, b/c less time separates them, but it's still not apples to apples.

Tiger Woods is my generation's best golfer, as I was born on the tail end of the Nicklaus regime, but you just can't accurately, or fairly compare them.

You can compare their Major Victories all you want, 18 to 11 right now, but Tiger still has an unfair equipment advantage.

Jones vs Hogan vs Nicklaus vs Woods? Advantage: Push

The technology debate in golf doesn't really hold water. Everything changes and improves over time. That's a given. That's not Tiger's fault. No matter how "hot" a driver is, the game is still simple. Put the little white ball in that little cup as fast as possible.

What we should be looking at is Tiger and Jack competitors. Top to bottom, the world of professional (or competitive) golf is world's better now than it ever has been. Anyone who enters a tour event, and even a major, has a legitimate shot at winning. Back when Jack played, many only had hopes.

The debate shouldn't be about technology, it should be about beating what's in front of you. Tiger's been playing professionally for slightly over a decade and he's got 50 wins and 11 majors. He also has 3 US Junior, and 3 US Amatuer titles. Only Bobby Jones can compare with Tiger's amateur record, but that was an entirely different era, with no where near the competition.

[HumnHilghtFreel]

While watching SportsCenter this morning, they said that with his 50th win, he has now won 25.5% of all events he has competed in to this date. When you win your tournament 1/4 of the time in your career, I'd say that's pretty impressive.

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by Highlifeman21

I think if you're going to have an argument of best all time, you need to have 4 guys as options: Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan, Jack Nicklaus, Eldrick Woods.

That would be some foursome, wouldn't it?

[paintmered]

Originally Posted by Highlifeman21

I think if you're going to have an argument of best all time, you need to have 4 guys as options: Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan, Jack Nicklaus, Eldrick Woods.

I agree with this. And all of them can make the claim for different reasons.

I would also add the greatest match play player of all time to your list: Walter Hagen (who also happens to have 11 majors to his name and probably would have had more if the Masters existed back then).

But as for Tiger, he really has been a joy to watch lately.

[Reds4Life]

At this point in time, Jack is still the best. When all is said and done, Tiger will be the new king of the mountain.

[RFS62]

"Best"

What a subjective term.

Some may say the owner of the "best" swing of all time was Sam Snead.