JACK VS. TIGER

[ej20]

Those who believe Jack was better than Tiger are resorting to a couple of bits of circular logic:

1. The quality of Jack's and Tiger's opposition cannot be assessed by comparing their records in major championships. It was far easier to win majors in Jack's day because the depth of field was tiny compared to today. The middle and lower-echelon pros of today are far, far superior to those of Jack's era. How could it not be so, given the enormous increase in the size of the talent pool?
Today, even guys like Rocco Mediate have realistic chance to beat the best. Jack was not threatened by so many highly skilled players week in and week out. Nor did Jack have to face so many top-quality players from Europe and Asia.
Compare the fields, and it becomes obvious why Jack's opposition won so many majors in comparison with Tiger's opposition. The small group of guys who challenged Jack had the playground to themselves. They drove up their winning percentage in a way they could not possibly do today. To say that Jack is better because he beat more "legends" is a case of circular logic, because few of those players would earn such a title if they were competing today.

2. To say that Tiger's opposition is poor because they consistently loose to him is also a case of circular logic. It penalizes Tiger for winning! The fact that so few players can catch Tiger from behind does not show the opposition is weak; it shows that Tiger is the greatest frontrunner of all time.

3. It is grasping at straws to include 2nd and 3rd-place finishes in comparing the records of Jack and Tiger. Such an approach assigns as much value to falling short as to winning. It looks impressing to say Jack was 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in 54% of his majors, compared to Tiger's 46%. While it is true that Jack deserves credit for coming close in more of his losses than Tiger has, they were still losses. If we are to compare "top3" finishes, much more weight ought to be given to 1st place finishes.
Furthermore, a 2nd or 3rd-place finish today is more meaningful than in Jack's day - again because the number of players in the top echelon was so small. When Jack fell a little short, he might finish 2nd or 3rd. If you fall a little short in the modern era, you are likely to find yourself out of the top 10, because so many more good players are waiting to sweep past you.

The best way to compare Jack and Tiger is by looking at their winning percentages. This eliminates such factors as course quality or equipment. Tiger wins more often, against a much deeper field of excellent golfers.
It is true that we can never know how well Jack would do if he played today, any more than we can know the same about Babe Ruth. For this reason, we can never reach absolute certainty in this debate. But one thing is sure: one cannot claim that Jack is the better golfer on the basis of the quality of his competition.

 

[Jwat]

It is true that we can never know how well Jack would do if he played today, any more than we can know the same about Babe Ruth. For this reason, we can never reach absolute certainty in this debate. But one thing is sure: one cannot claim that Jack is the better golfer on the basis of the quality of his competition.

So if in fact what you are saying is true, I guess Barry Bonds is twice the player Babe Ruth was. Based off of level of competition

 

[dbl]

Norman was mentioned, and here is his stats page, beginning in 1981 - no real data till 1982 - much longer than Jack - 8 drives that averaged 292, then in subsequent years GN was in the mid 270's. As to JN, I believe he could smash the ball prodigious lengths, not just those 260s.

PGATOUR.com - Greg Norman Stats

 

[b90jos]

I have to give this to ej20..

Conclusion is..you really..honestly..can't compare two players from different eras.. IN ANY SPORT.. Sports and the athletes evolve.. over time..player become stronger and more athletic due to the progress in athletic training.

However, I do believe Tiger Woods to be a better golfer than Jack. Not taking anything away from him..he's just more complete.

 

[jpvegas1]

Jack thought that he only was 60-80% of the golfer he could have been. He admits that his short-game was not very good. Here is a Nicklaus quote about his playing philosophy because of his short game.

"Oh, yeah," he says, imagining the possibilities. "The only short game I ever had was the one I developed myself. I wasn't like Tiger, who was small as a boy and developed a tremendous short game. I didn't have any lessons with the short game. It was the one area Jack Grout [Nicklaus' longtime teacher] really didn't spend any time on with me. I didn't practice my short game, because I didn't know what to practice. I never learned anything. As a kid, if I had gone to see someone like Paul Runyan, my short game would have been so much different." It wasn't until 1980, when Nicklaus concedes that he had an attack of the chipping yips ("I wanted to putt it around bunkers"), that he contacted old friend Phil Rodgers for pointers. The dramatic improvement made at that late stage underscores what a difference the same kind of effort would have made earlier.

"Instead, because I didn't have a real good short game, my philosophy became, I'm going to hit 14 or 15 greens, I'm going to hit at least a couple of par 5s in two, and I'm going to make every putt inside 10 feet. That's what I thought. So it really didn't make any difference how good my short game was. As long as I could chip the ball, slop it around the hole somewhere -- six, eight, 10 feet -- I was going to probably make it anyway. But that was an accommodation. It wasn't ideal. And it was foolish for me to believe that it was good enough."

"If Jack had had a wedge, no doubt in my mind, he would have won 30 majors," says Lee Trevino, who won six -- several at Jack's expense. "I certainly would have had about three less majors; I'd maybe have gotten him only once. I mean, he was so good at everything else. I tell people all the time, 'If Jack in his prime could have played the clubs and balls these guys are playing today, he would have hit the sumbitch 400 yards.' I'm dead serious. I believe Tiger is going to catch him, but if Jack had had a short game, even Tiger wouldn't have been able to touch him."

and here's a quote about teachers from Cary Middlecoff:

Golf Digest would get all the teachers on their staff together and talk about golf and the golf swing. The subject one day turned to how good a teacher Jack Grout was--the man credited with coaching Nicklaus since age 10. One after another gave testimony of his genius, until it came to Doc, by this time into his third tomato juice. "Well, I can't tell you how good Grout was," drawled Middlecoff, "but I'll put it this way: There isn't a teacher in this room who could have stopped Jack Nicklaus from winning 15 major championships!"

Just as a fight was about to erupt, Gentleman Jim Flick reached out and saved the moment: "I think what Cary means is, it's better to be a great student than to have a great teacher."


Read More Jack's Back: Golf Digest

 

[ej20]

A lot of "if's".

If Jack had a better short game....if Jack had better equipment....if Jack had practiced more.

Somethings you are just gifted and no amount of practice will make you better beyond a point.I can say for a fact that everyone on this forum could practice 24 hours a day on their short game and would not be in same ball park as the guy with the worst short game on tour.Another case of circular logic.It assumes for a fact that had Jack practiced his short game more he would be as good as Tiger.....speculation at best.

Another assumption is that Jack could have handled the new longer and lighter drivers.Tiger hasn't and absolutely not a foegone conclusion that Jack would've either.

Can say the same for Tiger....if Tiger could drive it straight.....if Tiger didn't have to deal with a bunch of Trevino's to Jack's one....if Tiger never got caught....if,if,if.


No if's,but's,personal opinions and circular logic.Just facts.

 

[chipingguru]

Everytime I look at Jacks record the more amazed I am. The man finished 2nd and fourth at the U.S. Open as an amateur, and seventh in the Masters.

In the period from 1970-1979 he played in all 40 of the majors, and finished in the top ten in 35 of them, winning seven. That is sick.

Tiger's record is also superhuman, but the best ten year major stretch concerning top tens is 28/40. Although, he won more.

Jack more consistent Tiger more spectacular perhaps.

 

[ej20]

I think the one issue we need to get straight is whether or not the fields are stronger overall in depth in Tiger's era compared to Jack's.

I think you will find most people will agree that it is,even those biased in Jack's favor.

If this is the case then wins and majors would be spread over a larger number of players in Tiger's era.Guys like Trevino,Watson,Player would not win as much if they played today and would not be considered as "great".

My opinion is that Tiger has a better short game than Jack.The short game is more critical at tour level.Tiger has proven over the years he can consistently average under 69.Jack's best was 69.81.Tiger is over a shot better than Jack over their career thus far.

 

[Kevin Shields]

Another if

If Jack and Arnie (especially Arnie) had the media scrutiny Tiger has..............

 

[trickyric67]

Those who believe Jack was better than Tiger are resorting to a couple of bits of circular logic:

1. The quality of Jack's and Tiger's opposition cannot be assessed by comparing their records in major championships. It was far easier to win majors in Jack's day because the depth of field was tiny compared to today. The middle and lower-echelon pros of today are far, far superior to those of Jack's era. How could it not be so, given the enormous increase in the size of the talent pool?
Today, even guys like Rocco Mediate have realistic chance to beat the best. Jack was not threatened by so many highly skilled players week in and week out. Nor did Jack have to face so many top-quality players from Europe and Asia.
Compare the fields, and it becomes obvious why Jack's opposition won so many majors in comparison with Tiger's opposition. The small group of guys who challenged Jack had the playground to themselves. They drove up their winning percentage in a way they could not possibly do today. To say that Jack is better because he beat more "legends" is a case of circular logic, because few of those players would earn such a title if they were competing today.

2. To say that Tiger's opposition is poor because they consistently loose to him is also a case of circular logic. It penalizes Tiger for winning! The fact that so few players can catch Tiger from behind does not show the opposition is weak; it shows that Tiger is the greatest frontrunner of all time.

3. It is grasping at straws to include 2nd and 3rd-place finishes in comparing the records of Jack and Tiger. Such an approach assigns as much value to falling short as to winning. It looks impressing to say Jack was 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in 54% of his majors, compared to Tiger's 46%. While it is true that Jack deserves credit for coming close in more of his losses than Tiger has, they were still losses. If we are to compare "top3" finishes, much more weight ought to be given to 1st place finishes.
Furthermore, a 2nd or 3rd-place finish today is more meaningful than in Jack's day - again because the number of players in the top echelon was so small. When Jack fell a little short, he might finish 2nd or 3rd. If you fall a little short in the modern era, you are likely to find yourself out of the top 10, because so many more good players are waiting to sweep past you.

The best way to compare Jack and Tiger is by looking at their winning percentages. This eliminates such factors as course quality or equipment. Tiger wins more often, against a much deeper field of excellent golfers.
It is true that we can never know how well Jack would do if he played today, any more than we can know the same about Babe Ruth. For this reason, we can never reach absolute certainty in this debate. But one thing is sure: one cannot claim that Jack is the better golfer on the basis of the quality of his competition.

so I give you a list of hall of famers that Nicklaus had to beat over many decades including only 10 years before tiger wins his first major and you just dismiss it and don't give a list of comparable players? I guess Barry Sanders wasn't as good as Frank Gore either? you know 10 years is a long time.
are you running for Nancy Pelosi's seat in San Fran cisco because you got the political spin down!

 

[mgranato]

Does "scrutiny" mean the same thing as insatiable man love? Because until he decided to get his fire hydrant on, that's mostly what I remember the media having for him.

Exhibit A - The Golf Channel.
Exhibit B - ESPN
Exhibit C - The PGA Tour Network

 

[trickyric67]

Does "scrutiny" mean the same thing as insatiable man love? Because until he decided to get his fire hydrant on, that's mostly what I remember the media having for him.

Exhibit A - The Golf Channel.
Exhibit B - ESPN
Exhibit C - The PGA Tour Network

you beat me to it!
I have never seen an athlete worshiped like Tiger, not even Jordan got the other worldly adoration while running around doinking skanks.
BTW I am a huge Tiger fan, but he will never replace Jack as one of my Idols

 

[ScottRob]

I think the one issue we need to get straight is whether or not the fields are stronger overall in depth in Tiger's era compared to Jack's.

I think you will find most people will agree that it is,even those biased in Jack's favor.

If this is the case then wins and majors would be spread over a larger number of players in Tiger's era.Guys like Trevino,Watson,Player would not win as much if they played today and would not be considered as "great".

My opinion is that Tiger has a better short game than Jack.The short game is more critical at tour level.Tiger has proven over the years he can consistently average under 69.Jack's best was 69.81.Tiger is over a shot better than Jack over their career thus far.

What percentage of this deeper field actually compete in the tournament? Tiger simply has no peer (until recent ownership by the the likes of Yang and McDowell) because he does not have a posse like Trevino, Watson, Palmer, Player, Miller etc running him down. Who gives a crap if the top 100 golfers on "average" are better. One of the things I find unique to Nicklaus is that he won 7 more majors after passing Hagens total of 11 (reluctant to count Bobby Jone's 13) Tiger is fueled by chasing Nicklaus. I guess I do not like the man. I never have, so my opinion is pickled. I attended the 2001 (I think it was) US Open. Tiger let out one salvo of obscentities after the other in front of young virgin ears. one father yelled "give it a rest, Tiger, there are kids around!" Tiger just glared and Steve Williams glared even harder! So I guess I have predjudice there and probably should recuse myself! Nicklaus did what he did without becoming a twisted individual.

The scoring average comparison is laughable. I'm not sure Tiger would have faired as well as Jack did with persimmon and Tourneys. I guess this is a silly debate, huh?

 

[ej20]

Who gives a crap if the top 100 golfers on "average" are better.

Ok.Good logical argument.

 

[ej20]

The scoring average comparison is laughable. I'm not sure Tiger would have faired as well as Jack did with persimmon and Tourneys. I guess this is a silly debate, huh?

Why is it laughable?

The equipment has allowed the player to hit it longer but they have lengthened courses and in a lot of instances over compensated and made them unplayable like a few of the majors were.

Again circular logic.Your argument is based on the assumption that Tiger would not be able to play persimmon as well as Jack.

I am purely debating who is the better player.I know Tiger is an @$$hole but we are not discussing who should win the Nobel Peace Prize here.

 

[ej20]

Back in the 60's and 70's,you might see 6 or 7 guys within 10 shots at the end.Maybe 2 or 3 has a chance to win going into the weekend.These days you might see 20 guys within 10 shots.

 

[ej20]

so I give you a list of hall of famers that Nicklaus had to beat over many decades including only 10 years before tiger wins his first major and you just dismiss it and don't give a list of comparable players? I guess Barry Sanders wasn't as good as Frank Gore either? you know 10 years is a long time.
are you running for Nancy Pelosi's seat in San Fran cisco because you got the political spin down!

Circular logic again.Your whole argument is based around these "great" HOF players.Would they have been as "great" if the fields were deeper in talent?

Anyway,we could go on and on and no amount of reasoning on my part or yours is going to change either of our minds so let's just agree to disagree.I realize Tiger is hated by many.I have put forth my reasoning.Take it or leave it.

 

[ej20]

Here is a quote from Lee Trevino.


Hard question: Who's better, Jack or Tiger?

Well, there's no way you can put the label "better" on Tiger until he breaks Nicklaus' records. He's fixing to beat Jack in total tournaments won [behind Sam Snead]. In the major championships, it remains to be seen. But it's just a waiting game. It's going to happen.

‘I said to Jack, "I've got to finish, or I'm going to have a heart attack." and he started laughing.’
If Tiger had been playing in Nicklaus' era with that equipment, I think they would have beat each other up. It would have been much closer than this Mickelson-Tiger thing. There's no rivalry there; Phil can't handle Tiger consistently. Nicklaus could have handled him. Tiger wouldn't have beaten Nicklaus every week. Nicklaus would have still won his majors and still won his golf tournaments.

The problem would have been that if you had those two, hell, there would have been nothing there for me. Or Miller or Watson. We wouldn't have won anything. [Laughs.] But to answer your question—and I bite my lip every time I say this—Tiger's better.

Why?

The only weakness that Tiger has is his driver. But he overcomes it with his short game. If Jack Nicklaus had driven the ball like Tiger, with the short game Jack had, he might never have won a major championship. Jack was a mechanic with his driver, great with his irons—especially long irons, high—and he was an excellent putter. He wasn't very good with his short game or the bunkers. But Tiger from 100 yards in, with the wedges and the chipping and the creativity, is as good as anyone who has ever lived. Usually the harder the shot, the better shot he hits. That makes up for so much, and that's where Tiger gets the edge on Jack.



Read More Q&A with Lee Trevino: Golf Digest

 

[trickyric67]

So Jack was the best from tee to green, but since he was so accurate (and long for the time) he loses points in your book?
They are both amazing putters but Jack did it on tour at the highest levels until he was 46 when he won his last major and played the tour until he was in his fifties. Let's look at Tigers career winning percentage in 20 years.
your point about short game works against you anyway. If Tigers putter gets cold (as it has for about 15 months)and he still misses fairways his scores will climb just like Seve's did. Jack was such a good driver of the ball and he hit so many greens that if he wasn't putting well he was still in the hunt. Comparing Tigers prime against Nicklaus's whole career is very weak. and if you compare individual years than where does Byron Nelson's consecutive wins record of 11 in a row and 18 wins overall in 1945 fit into your analysis? BTW Byron was only playing profesionally for 14 years and he won 64 times, he won all 4 majors 6 in all and the PGA was played opposite the British Open so you couldn't play both.
one last point I don;t think 1975-1986 was all that long ago in the terms of profesional sports. 24 years is not 50 and tiger won his first major in 1997 not 2097, athletes were rich including golfers long before 1980 and we havent't even brought Sam Snead into the conversation.

 

[dbl]

Not sure what you mean by Nelson winning all 4 majors. Are you counting a North and South or something? No British for him.