We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Tiger or Jack?

Tiger or Jack?

  • Tiger

    Votes: 48 49.0%

  • Jack

    Votes: 50 51.0%
  • Total voters
    98
JB said:
Tiger has more wins than Jack.
Click to expand...

I should have said majors more what i meant and as that is what we judge a lot of this on but doesnt Snead also have more?

Updateed: FWIW I went out and checked and he does.
 
rollin said:
I should have said majors more what i meant and as that is what we judge a lot of this on but doesnt Snead also have more?

Updateed: FWIW I went out and checked and he does.
Click to expand...

Again, while I believe wins is the best metric, it's imperfect for judging who was a better player in their prime. 17 of Sam Snead's professional wins were the West Virginia Open. Nothing against the fine people of West Virginia, but let's just say the level of competition in that event is/was something less than elite. I believe he won 17 times by a combined 145 strokes.
 
This is a spirited discussion and lots of great info supporting both sides. If we take prime to mean 16 years for Jack and 8 for Tiger, and they both grew up at the same time, we might be able to say in fairness that Tiger had the edge the first 8 years and Jack had it the last. So to be completely fair, I would say if they played each other a lot of times, the outcome might have been close to a dead heat.

And that is the most fitting outcome for these two greats imo.
 
Jack 700 odd events to get to 70 wins on the PGA Tour

Tiger Woods about 270 events to reach the same mark

Think about that stat, there is only one winner in this argument

In his pomp Tiger Woods is possibly the dominant, impressive winning machine sportman ever
 
redandwhiterob said:
Jack 700 odd events to get to 70 wins on the PGA Tour

Tiger Woods about 270 events to reach the same mark

Think about that stat, there is only one winner in this argument

In his pomp Tiger Woods is possibly the dominant, impressive winning machine sportman ever
Click to expand...

Well not exactly. If one deems the compitition different or lesser than there is not. would you say its the same to go undefeated in the SEC as it is in the Sun Belt? Or if you are not familiar with American sports, would you say its the same to go undefeated on the PGA Tour as it is on the South Korean tour?

Sure extreme examples, but examples nonetheless.
If majors are how one measures (and Tiger says he does), then just wins have less impact. Nobody would make the argument that Sam Snead is above these two and he has more wins, despite a portion of them being against lesser competition.

Some of the tournaments won are unique examples. The Chevron comes to mind.
 
JB said:
Well not exactly. If one deems the compitition different or lesser than there is not. would you say its the same to go undefeated in the SEC as it is in the Sun Belt? Or if you are not familiar with American sports, would you say its the same to go undefeated on the PGA Tour as it is on the South Korean tour?

Sure extreme examples, but examples nonetheless.
If majors are how one measures (and Tiger says he does), then just wins have less impact. Nobody would make the argument that Sam Snead is above these two and he has more wins, despite a portion of them being against lesser competition.

Some of the tournaments won are unique examples. The Chevron comes to mind.
Click to expand...

When you look at the stat I posted, it took Woods about 430 less events to get the same wins as Jack. That is simply a phenomenal amount of tournaments less Woods played. Also should be noted Woods only plays the top events vast majority of times so comes up against the very strongest fields. Apart from winning less majors which Woods could well piut right is there anymore records of Jacks that Tiger has not smashed to pieces
 
redandwhiterob said:
When you look at the stat I posted, it took Woods about 430 less events to get the same wins as Jack. That is simply a phenomenal amount of tournaments less Woods played. Also should be noted Woods only plays the top events vast majority of times so comes up against the very strongest fields. Apart from winning less majors which Woods could well piut right is there anymore records of Jacks that Tiger has not smashed to pieces
Click to expand...

You said that there is only one right answer in this "argument". I just dont agree.
The only way that works is if they played against the same level fields and that just is not the case. Heck during half of Woods domination (which was incredible), the top half of the fields were rather average. The same could not be said for Nicklaus' fields.

Since that has changed (and its a much deeper tour now), some are saying he is out of his prime. I dont believe its a coincidence and FWIW, I think Jack Nicklaus is up there with Johnny Miller and Colin Montgomery as great golfers that are very easy to dislike.
 
rollin said:
I dont know if that would be so correct. Firstly I dont think it makes them better ball strikers. It may allow a tad more of getting away with less than pefect ball striking but the two are different things imo and even if they are not, Tiger also has that very same benefit. Tiger too was/is able to gain from everything and anything the others in his field have today just the same. Why wouldnt he also be better off for all/any advancements from this same high tech and computer age as any of his competitors?

No matter how one tires to slice it they are from two different times in the sport and neither one can be blamed for that, awarded anything for that, or be discredited for any of that. There are just too many variables we can bring into the equation to make a case either way and for every one that favors or discredits one of them it can easily just as well work the other way and to be fair it must. Neither one can be blamed for playing when they did or with whatever was available at the time and whoever played against them. Its simply not fair to do this imo.

The only thing in the end we have are the wins and also top place finishes which do count in golf too and until "Tiger" or some one else manages to beat him, jack is still on top. I wouldnt loose any sleep if he was dethroned as that is life but he has yet to be and that is what it is.
Click to expand...

Not sure who is better but I know you have never left a short post. :D
 
JB said:
You said that there is only one right answer in this "argument". I just dont agree.
The only way that works is if they played against the same level fields and that just is not the case. Heck during half of Woods domination (which was incredible), the top half of the fields were rather average. The same could not be said for Nicklaus' fields.

Since that has changed (and its a much deeper tour now), some are saying he is out of his prime. I dont believe its a coincidence and FWIW, I think Jack Nicklaus is up there with Johnny Miller and Colin Montgomery as great golfers that are very easy to dislike.
Click to expand...

Its the sheer number of tournaments played that makes Tiger records stand out. As I pointed out earlier its about 430 events. That is a absolutely huge amount, really quite staggering when you sit and think about it for a moment. The one record Jack has over Tiger he may well still get to but every other record Tiger has just not beat it, he as smashed them out of sight. Dont forget also Tiger won 6 times last year against these deep fields you talk about, some great golfers dont win that many times in there life on the PGA tour so its hardly like he has done nothing lately. It was nigh on impossible for him to keep up there same standards from 1997-2007 say but has still won more than anyone from 2007 onwards and thats with plenty of time off to
 
I do think the players Jack beat(and lost to) - Palmer, Player, Watson, Casper, Miller, Trevino - were a lot tougher to beat than Mickelson, Els, Ogilvy, Bjorn, Goosen, Dimarco, Duval, Sergio, May, Micheel, Mongomerie, Mediate and Kite. The field is deeper now just like other sports but it doesn't make the greats of the past any less great. Heck, Jack had tougher competition from a 50 year old Snead than some of the guys in their prime that finished 2nd to Tiger in majors.

If Jack would have just played a decent golf ball like a Titleist instead of that crappy MacGregor Tourney, half of those 19 second place finishes in major's would have been wins and Jack would be sitting with 25+ majors. The Tourney ball was a notoriously bad ball, going out of round after only a few hits. Some of the MacGregor staff members used to play Titleist for tournaments and only switch if a MacGregor rep was around. Jack was true to his sponsor and won all 18 of his majors with a sub-standard ball.
 
Last edited:
redandwhiterob said:
Its the sheer number of tournaments played that makes Tiger records stand out. As I pointed out earlier its about 430 events. That is a absolutely huge amount, really quite staggering when you sit and think about it for a moment. The one record Jack has over Tiger he may well still get to but every other record Tiger has just not beat it, he as smashed them out of sight. Dont forget also Tiger won 6 times last year against these deep fields you talk about, some great golfers dont win that many times in there life on the PGA tour so its hardly like he has done nothing lately. It was nigh on impossible for him to keep up there same standards from 1997-2007 say but has still won more than anyone from 2007 onwards and thats with plenty of time off to
Click to expand...

I think you missed my point, but thats okay. Im not (nor have I) said Jack was more more dominant or the better player. Merely pointing out that the argument that he has more wins in less time is meaningless in my opinion unless they played against the same level of playing field, which I dont believe they have.
 
Tiger or Jack?

redandwhiterob said:
Its the sheer number of tournaments played that makes Tiger records stand out. As I pointed out earlier its about 430 events. That is a absolutely huge amount, really quite staggering when you sit and think about it for a moment. The one record Jack has over Tiger he may well still get to but every other record Tiger has just not beat it, he as smashed them out of sight. Dont forget also Tiger won 6 times last year against these deep fields you talk about, some great golfers dont win that many times in there life on the PGA tour so its hardly like he has done nothing lately. It was nigh on impossible for him to keep up there same standards from 1997-2007 say but has still won more than anyone from 2007 onwards and thats with plenty of time off to
Click to expand...

One thing people forget is that jack won with family in tow. Sure he played more but he had to, it was his profession. The money today means TW doesn't have to play as much. No doubt tiger is way above the rest the tour but he and Jack are very close. It's not so cut and dry as some think. Oh and tiger won 5 times on the PGA tour last year.
 
This has nothing to do with this topic except for the part about equipment....I just found it interesting

Last week they had Playing lesson with the Pros on the Golf Channel with Greg Norman

On one of the holes he broke out the exact driver he used to win his first British Open and compared it to his current driver, then he hit tee shots with each with a modern ball

Old persimmon driver - 240 carry
New Driver - 280 yard carry

Just thought that was interesting.
 
I think most here know how bad the MacGregor Tourney ball was that Jack used to win all 18 of his majors with, but here's the story from Frank Thomas(director of ball testing for 26 years) of the USGA testing the ball in 1977. The ball was made for many years with equipment used for making baseballs that was modified. Hogan in the 50's refused to use the ball because of it's inconsistent flight even though he was sponsored by MacGregor at the time.

When Thomas put the Tourney through its paces on “Iron Byron” at the USGA’s test center in New Jersey, he said the MacGregor ball veered 2-3 yards to the left; the next one turned a little more; and some moved as much as 15 yards off target. Having never before seen such an inconsistent ball flight, Thomas stopped the test.
“I thought something must be wrong with ‘Iron Byron,’ ” Thomas said recently in a telephone interview.
But the machine operated properly, and the results of MacGregor’s re-test were identical.
At the 2000 U.S. Open at Pebble Beach, following Thomas’ retirement, he revealed to Nicklaus the startling results of the ’77 test. Nicklaus told him he wasn’t surprised.
“He knew it wasn’t a very good golf ball,” Thomas said. “It just shows how good he really was. I truly believe he would’ve won several more majors if he had played a better ball.”
 
TripleBogieTim said:
This has nothing to do with this topic except for the part about equipment....I just found it interesting

Last week they had Playing lesson with the Pros on the Golf Channel with Greg Norman

On one of the holes he broke out the exact driver he used to win his first British Open and compared it to his current driver, then he hit tee shots with each with a modern ball

Old persimmon driver - 240 carry
New Driver - 280 yard carry

Just thought that was interesting.
Click to expand...

I was actually laughing with a friend while watching that Arnie documentary a few weeks ago. They were talking about Palmer having to drive this 320+ yard par 4 in this tournament (forgot which one it was) and he ended up rolling it off the back. Made me think if he could hit it that far wayyy back when, what would their distances be with modern equipment. I dont have a pick for jack vs tiger because I like them both but sometimes I think about guys without all the technology (clubs, monitors, balls, etc). Both are legends
 
The only way one will ever know any of this is if they were able to go head to head through many rounds and tourneys together both in the prime and both in the same era. But this obviously cant happen and to take it even further just perhaps either one if in reverse era's could have blown away everyone far better than they have or also could have failed miserably. Life in general was also very different and very many factors outside of golf make people who they are. The debate is fun imo but as i said a few times to me it really is apples to oranges. One thing for ceratin is that they will both have an all time legacy forever lasting in golf regardless.
 
As stated both are the best of their era and no one can definitively compare players across generations but I am getting a little annoyed at some of the "facts" being presented as accurate here. I'm not picking fights by only alluding to one or two so please don't take this personally, but the internet has always been a place where less than accurate numbers easily become "facts" if repeated enough. One that has bugged me for two days is the 13 majors in 31 events / 13 majors in 8 years. I looked it up because I was thoroughly impressed but found the number inaccurate. I'm assuming the time span quoted bookends TW's wins at the '99 PGA an '08 US Open, his tightest cluster of 13 major victories. Well that spans 35 tournaments, not 31. Still tremendously impressive but can only be classified as 8 years if you want to stretch the definition. JN never had a 9 year stretch as dominant, but then again TW never had a decade of majors domination like when JW finished top 10 in 35 of the 40 he played in the 70s. If I wanted to cherry pick (ie bookended 13 wins) I could add make it a 16 year consecutive decade ('66 thru '81) in which JW finished top 10 in 51 of 64 entries. I also think the 'took him 700 tourneys to win 70 might be internet fiction too but I'm not looking that all up.
Also somehow TW's prime is being shortened here for argument sake yet he is resounding claimed as the fittest strongest etc... etc... of the two? I don't get that? There is a certain degree of validity in a dominant career that lasts longer, as JB alluded to. You think JW was always at his 100% peak health? As for weak fields in Jack's day, just WOW?
When I look at what BOTH these golfers accomplished in the majors it is truly incredible and dominant. But IMO Jack's star just shines a little brighter there. Even as an amateur when he came in 2nd place in the US Open (and think about THIS ... played again the following year as an amateur finishing top 10 in both professional majors he could play (Masters US Open). Contrast that to TW withdrawing from the US Open as an amateur. OBTW I'll say this might not be true but did Jack ever make an excuse an with draw from any tourney? TW seems to often enough. I mean dude can play on a broken leg if has a chance to win a major (extremely impressed) but when it's going sour for him he seems to look for a reason to bail lately. Maybe my perception?
 
Who is JW?
Is that the super baby that would take place if Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods had a child? :D
 
Just a quick stat.
Tiger Woods has 6 WDs in his career I believe.
Jack Nicklaus had 7 WDs in his career.

Now granted Jack had about double the events, neither are dropping out at an alarming rate. Although TW does seem to have a few more recently.
 
JB said:
Who is JW?
Is that the super baby that would take place if Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods had a child? :D
Click to expand...
Oh sorry, I've kinda taken to referring to Nicklaus as "Jack Wayne" ever since reading Dan Jenkin's book way back in the day. I guess the fictional protagonist actually refers to Nicklaus as J F W when he sees him charging up the leaderboard to pressure him. But the F is never suitable so it's evaporated over time like my swing speed and most of my memory.
 
I go with Tiger. Granted I didn't see the Jack era but I think Tiger got more people interested in the sport both playing and watching. Not to mention the big payouts we see now on Tour.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
JB said:
Who is JW?
Is that the super baby that would take place if Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods had a child? :D
Click to expand...

Now THAT would be the most dominate player EVER!
 
I went with Tiger purely from a statistical standpoint. Tiger has a better winning %. Then I think about how many 5+ wins Tiger has had in a year compared to the number of times Jack has had 5+ wins in a year.

In my opinion the only thing that Jack has over Tiger as of now is the 18 versus 14, which is obviously a big one, but I don't think it should be the sole deciding factor. I've said it before and I get criticized every time for it, but major championships are just golf tournaments. They are stroke play events just like almost every other event that's played on tour. I love watching them and the hype that goes with them, but in the end they are just stroke play golf tournaments.
 
tahoebum said:
I do think the players Jack beat(and lost to) - Palmer, Player, Watson, Casper, Miller, Trevino - were a lot tougher to beat than Mickelson, Els, Ogilvy, Bjorn, Goosen, Dimarco, Duval, Sergio, May, Micheel, Mongomerie, Mediate and Kite. The field is deeper now just like other sports but it doesn't make the greats of the past any less great. Heck, Jack had tougher competition from a 50 year old Snead than some of the guys in their prime that finished 2nd to Tiger in majors.

If Jack would have just played a decent golf ball like a Titleist instead of that crappy MacGregor Tourney, half of those 19 second place finishes in major's would have been wins and Jack would be sitting with 25+ majors. The Tourney ball was a notoriously bad ball, going out of round after only a few hits. Some of the MacGregor staff members used to play Titleist for tournaments and only switch if a MacGregor rep was around. Jack was true to his sponsor and won all 18 of his majors with a sub-standard ball.
Click to expand...

Don't disregard the argument that Tiger's contemporaries never had a chance to be great because Tiger was winning everything he entered.

Tiger's win percentage is staggering
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top