Tiger or Jack?

[robmypro]

Who's the better player in their prime, with equal equipment?

I watched both play and would definitely say Jack was the better player. You give him the same equipment and data that Tiger had the benefit of and Jack gets the better of Tiger the majority of the time.

I would say they were easily the two best players in my lifetime. But Jack is a level above. I would also add that Jack faced better competition, and still won more majors.

That's my opinion (and it is just an opinion!), so what's yours? This isn't "who's the best player of all time" but just between these two.

 

[Erky]

I disagree. Tiger is much, much stronger and more physically fit than Jack in his prime. He is also perhaps the best putter of all time, though Jack was a great putter under pressure. In addition, I am not convinced that Jack faced superior competition. The gap between the top guy and bottom guy on tour these days is tiny. This is not to take away from Watson, Player and Palmer, but I believe the fields are much deeper these days. Just my opinion.

 

[coers]

I am going to have to go with Tiger. I believe he has changed golf more than Jack and just had to go through much more challenging things than him.

 

[Ole Gray]

My vote is for Jack because I believe he faced tougher competition. Many of the guys he played against had multiple major championships. The proof (his record) is in the pudding with 18 major championships. I don't believe Tiger has it in him to reach that goal any longer.

 

[Brianbigoats]

I go with Tiger as he still has some years left to play this will be an easier one to judge after Tiger is done playing

 

[Erky]

It's just so hard to compare these things. If you normalize equipment, do you get to normalize golf courses? Because I am guessing Augusta National with greens rolling at 8 or 9 is totally different than what we see today. Courses are longer, greens are harder and faster, and the game in general has changed quite a bit.

 

[Brianbigoats]

It's just so hard to compare these things. If you normalize equipment, do you get to normalize golf courses? Because I am guessing Augusta National with greens rolling at 8 or 9 is totally different than what we see today. Courses are longer, greens are harder and faster, and the game in general has changed quite a bit.

Very true plus many course play much longer now

 

[JoeyJoeJo]

I go with Jack for a few reasons.

1963 - 1981, 17 top tens in the Open, 3 wins.
Masters, 16 top tens, 5 wins.
US Open, 13 top tens, 3 wins
PGA, 13 top tens, 5 wins

Tiger 1996-2014, only gets close at the Masters.

Jack's last major was 24 years after his first, can't see Tiger winning in 2021.

Fields are undoubtedly deeper/closer these days but Jack was still consistently dominating the best of his peers for 18 years.

All IMHO obviously

 

[Smithfaced]

Honest question because I admittedly don't know a ton about Jack. Were players intimidated by him the way they used to be about Tiger and to an extent the way they were last year?

 

[jmatt]

Honest question because I admittedly don't know a ton about Jack. Were players intimidated by him the way they used to be about Tiger and to an extent the way they were last year?

From what I recall, yes. Tiger didn't invent this hard-nosed competitor thing. Jack was there to win. There's a reason Arnie's loved and Jack's respected.

It's a moot point to me. Jack's called Tiger the best, Tiger's called Jack the greatest. I lean toward Jack for a total career, both at their peak? Tiger wins 1 up after 23 holes because of his fitness. Maybe.

 

[GenErr]

I watched Nicklaus in his prime, and Tiger in his prime - I'd have to go with Tiger. Jack Nicklaus was a truly great player, but Tiger, in his prime had all the tools, plus a tremendous short game, and his drives were much better than they have been recently. Both were remarkable pressure putters, so that may be a "wash." but again I'd go with Tiger.

 

[TripleBogieTim]

It's just so hard to compare these things. If you normalize equipment, do you get to normalize golf courses? Because I am guessing Augusta National with greens rolling at 8 or 9 is totally different than what we see today. Courses are longer, greens are harder and faster, and the game in general has changed quite a bit.

You could also say that courses are longer, harder and faster because the equipment has made everyone longer.

You hear even Faldo talk about it all the time, when somebody is hitting a wedge or 9 iron into a green and he says "we used to hit 5 iron into this green"

I think if you took Jack in his prime and gave him todays equipment, he would mow down the field.

 

[IceyShanks]

I think Jack was just a smarter player.

 

[Jericho]

Jack had access to the best equipment of his day as did Tiger. Courses had to be adjusted because of Tiger.

Jack has the most majors because he just wanted to win. Tiger wants to win but he wants to win doing it a certain way. He's reconstructed his swing 3 times (twice, just because and this last one because of his knee) which shows he wants to not only win but have the best swing with the most control. If he just played his 2000-2002 swing he'd have been past Jack a while ago.

 

[Sox_Fan]

I went with Tiger. Although I did have to ponder my choice. 5 years ago, there was no question in my minds whatsoever.

 

[FSUGolfdog]

I'd give Tiger a slight edge, if it were a horse race it would be a photo finish.

 

[Martsy]

I'll go with Jack. Better attitude, composure, and better overall ambassador of the game, to go along with his more majors. And as far as the competition argument...who would you even remotely say is Tigers "Palmer and Player"...and then let's not forget Trevino and Watson. Maybe you can argue Mickleson...and then who?

 

[Wakit300]

As a player I go with Tiger because his short game is/was way beyond Jack's. I'd give Jack the edge on driver, say they're even in iron play and putting but in the past I've read that Jack admitted he was just an OK wedge, bunker player and probably would have doubled his majors if he was as good as Watson around the greens.

 

[robmypro]

I'll go with Jack. Better attitude, composure, and better overall ambassador of the game, to go along with his more majors. And as far as the competition argument...who would you even remotely say is Tigers "Palmer and Player"...and then let's not forget Trevino and Watson. Maybe you can argue Mickleson...and then who?

That is pretty much exactly what I meant by competition. Jack was up against some of the greatest of all time. And he was that much better. Tiger has never faced that level of competition.

If you took both guys in their primes, gave them state of the art equipment, and put them on the same modern courses, it would be an amazing shoot out but I would give the edge to Jack.

 

[Erky]

That is pretty much exactly what I meant by competition. Jack was up against some of the greatest of all time. And he was that much better. Tiger has never faced that level of competition.

If you took both guys in their primes, gave them state of the art equipment, and put them on the same modern courses, it would be an amazing shoot out but I would give the edge to Jack.

]

Jack's competition at the high end was stiff. However, the fields Tiger is competing against are far deeper. You also have to consider that Tiger has more wins than Jack in a shorter time period, and while playing in relatively few events.

 

[robmypro]

Also, people know Jack had 18 major championships, which is incredible. They forget he had 19 second place and 9 third place finishes. And consider the competition Jack played against?

Arnold Palmer
Gary Player
Lee Trevino
Chi-Chi Rodriguez
Johnny Miller
Raymond Floyd
Hale Irwin
Lanny Wadkins
Nick Faldo
Tom Kite
Paul Azinger
Hal Sutton
Curtis Strange
Tom Watson
Ben Crenshaw
Seve Ballesteros

These are among the greatest players golf has ever known. Jack won an amazing number of times, and consistently placed in the top 3 against the greatest.

 

[JoeyJoeJo]

I don't really understand the points about deeper fields, whether Jack had 7 guys chasing and capable of winning, or Tiger has 20, each still regularly beat entire fields to win and I don't think the top 5s in Jack's era are any poorer or further behind than the top 5s in Tiger's era. But Jack bested his more often.

Might have an influence on the top ten finishes but I don't think it comes in to play on the wins.

 

[Tadashi70]

It's hard to quantify like Ali vs Tyson. Both faced hard comp. both won a great deal. I give the TW the nod because as we have seen if he isn't winning majors other step up. He was so many in such a short amount no one else had a chance. I do believe he has a higher winning % as well. I think TW has more in him as well.

Both should go down as the greatest to play the game.

 

[Tadashi70]

Also, people know Jack had 18 major championships, which is incredible. They forget he had 19 second place and 9 third place finishes. And consider the competition Jack played against?

Arnold Palmer
Gary Player
Lee Trevino
Chi-Chi Rodriguez
Johnny Miller
Raymond Floyd
Hale Irwin
Lanny Wadkins
Nick Faldo
Tom Kite
Paul Azinger
Hal Sutton
Curtis Strange
Tom Watson
Ben Crenshaw
Seve Ballesteros

These are among the greatest players golf has ever known. Jack won an amazing number of times, and consistently placed in the top 3 against the greatest.

Half the guys you listed didn't play Jack in his prime. Only in this debate do people give 2nd place any type of hype.

 

[Golf Ghost]

I went Tiger. Though it's hard to compare prime vs prime because everything becomes speculation.