We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Tiger vs Nicklaus - By Chamblee

JB

JB

Follow @THPGolf on Social Media
Albatross 2024 Club
Staff member
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
283,973
Reaction score
436,960
Location
THP Experiences
Good read. Thanks for sharing. Oddly a more unbiased look at Tiger by Chamblee.
 
That was a really good article.

The 25% for TW in all events versus 18% for JN resonates with me.

I also have to think the quality of overall fields is much better now than it was 30 years ago. I could be wrong, just my gut feeling with how many different winners we have now and how the game is more accessible globally.

Hard for me to fathom ANYONE beating TW in his prime.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Admin
  • #4
#Cookie said:
That was a really good article.

The 25% for TW in all events versus 18% for JN resonates with me.

I also have to think the quality of overall fields is much better now than it was 30 years ago. I could be wrong, just my gut feeling with how many different winners we have now and how the game is more accessible globally.

Hard for me to fathom ANYONE beating TW in his prime.
Click to expand...

That is the million dollar question. In my opinion the depth of field is light year's better now than it was 30 years ago, but the top 20 is not as full of parity.
 
I think if anything comes out of Chamblee about Tiger there's always going to be someone better. He's got that track record and he will continue it. Me personally I love Tiger as the golfer and what he has done to game has been huge. But overall as a human being and a golfer The Golden Bear takes that Claret Jug all day long.
 
Loved the article. 25% is a huge winning percent, but I'd be curious how that would change if it was a weighted average skewed towards more recent years.
 
For once, I really enjoyed the article from Chamblee and thought he covered all the bases and angles. Hard to argue against his conclusion.
 
It was refreshing to see/read an article by Chamblee that was not roasting Tiger or written with an agenda. I'm a Tiger guy and think all things being equal Tiger gets the nod over Jack. It isn't this wide margin either, but I think Tiger has the edge. This isn't diminishing anything that Jack accomplished and I think by the time it's all said and done Tiger will equal 18 majors or have 19, but won't shatter the record. From the article on thing that stood out was the 25% win percentage Tiger holds over Jack at 18%. That just shows how dominant Tiger was.
 
JB said:
That is the million dollar question. In my opinion the depth of field is light year's better now than it was 30 years ago, but the top 20 is not as full of parity.
Click to expand...

One could make the argument that there were more guys "back in the day" had higher win totals because the depth of the fields wasn't as good as today. But those guys are considered legends because their win totals are higher than a lot of the top 20 guys today.
 
arydolphin said:
One could make the argument that there were more guys "back in the day" had higher win totals because the depth of the fields wasn't as good as today. But those guys are considered legends because their win totals are higher than a lot of the top 20 guys today.
Click to expand...

Just as one could make the argument that the money of today, gives players at the top the ability to pick and choose courses tailor made for their game. There are a million arguments that people can make based on lifeless debates. The end of the day, Tom Watson has marginally shown that the game holds up over the test of generations and that as with any sport, people quickly forget the greatness of eras past in favor of what they view.
 
It was a great article and an interesting read.

I don't really agree with his conclusions, but he at least appeared to try and be unbiased.
 
Great read....however, I question the legitimacy of the normal event winning % that favors Tiger. While Tiger's winning percentage of 25% is amazing and Jack's was 19% (if I remember correctly from the article), I think you must consider the total # of events played. Tiger is EXTREMELY selective and does not play week to week, whereas in Jack's day that is just how the game was played. More events entered, more events you are likely not to win....thus a lower win percentage.

To counter my own point, the events that Tiger does opt to play generally have the best fields playing, which makes his win percentage that much more special.

I'm glad that Chamblee gave an unbiased perspective here too.
 
Nebgolfer said:
Loved the article. 25% is a huge winning percent, but I'd be curious how that would change if it was a weighted average skewed towards more recent years.
Click to expand...

I think he was something like 5 for 16 in PGA Tour events last year.
 
Just the American way of thinking now. A tramp chasing no class jerk with an inferior record is more popular than the best ever that personifies family values.
 
geneinnc said:
Just the American way of thinking now. A tramp chasing no class jerk with an inferior record is more popular than the best ever that personifies family values.
Click to expand...
Wow......
 
geneinnc said:
Just the American way of thinking now. A tramp chasing no class jerk with an inferior record is more popular than the best ever that personifies family values.
Click to expand...

Other than the number of major wins, which part of Tiger's record is inferior to Jack's?
 
geneinnc said:
Just the American way of thinking now. A tramp chasing no class jerk with an inferior record is more popular than the best ever that personifies family values.
Click to expand...
Looking at this impartially I am unsure how that is related to the article. There are great family men on tour right now that nobody is comparing just as there were a hundred guys nicer than Jack nobody is comparing.

This is about the game of golf...not which guy is a bigger scumbag.
 
Interesting read and a well done article.

Like others the 25% vs. 18% really stood out for me. But the other intersting fact that stood out was from major #47 for each of them - Nicklaus pulled away from Tiger in that comparison. Really speaks to the drought that Tiger has had in the majors.
 
geneinnc said:
just the american way of thinking now. A tramp chasing no class jerk with an inferior record is more popular than the best ever that personifies family values.
Click to expand...


wow, such an evil and inappropriate choice of words on multiple levels !!!!
 
Intresting read i guess that is one of the best ways to accually try to compare them
 
The one thing that stands out to me is that during Tiger's heyday it appeared that guys would crumble under the weight of being in contention against him. The intimidation factor played a large role in the competitiveness of the field whereas in Jack's day the gnats kept coming after him. Definitely deeper fields today but they were hungrier in Jack's day.
 
That was a good read and I am glad he wrote that piece and did the research. As he said, this is about majors only. It is the bench mark Tiger wants to hit and is a very fair assessment. You can conjecture all you want about the depths of field but neither man has ever played the field. They play the course and won doing so. Neither had a rival in their prime and just needed to play to win. If they were off their game in majors they didn't win but they didn't lose either.

I think TW will break JN record by more than a couple and will be considered by most to be the greatest of all time. Others will point to the near misses jack had and say he is the best. Personally having watched both play I feel fortunate and look forward to TW marching after jack's well earn record.
 
Tadashi70 said:
That was a good read and I am glad he wrote that piece and did the research. As he said, this is about majors only. It is the bench mark Tiger wants to hit and is a very fair assessment. You can conjecture all you want about the depths of field but neither man has ever played the field. They play the course and won doing so. Neither had a rival in their prime and just needed to play to win. If they were off their game in majors they didn't win but they didn't lose either.

I think TW will break JN record by more than a couple and will be considered by most to be the greatest of all time. Others will point to the near misses jack had and say he is the best. Personally having watched both play I feel fortunate and look forward to TW marching after jack's well earn record.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree
 
Interesting read.

Like cookie said. Its hard to see anyone beating TW in his prime
 
There are too many variables to compare athletes from different eras. Some will argue depth of field, parity, advancements in technology, training, etc etc etc.

All we can do is speculate. And it's fun to speculate. I will say this, I have never seen someone dominate golf like Tiger Woods did from 99-03'ish. Tiger had a killer instinct. He looked at you and basically said, "I am going to crush you, why are you even paired with me today?" And he would then proceed to do whatever he wanted on a golf course. Putting especially.

Both Woods and Nicklaus in their prime, walking down the 18th, I really believe even the Golden Bear would feel Tiger's aura of dominance.

I would say Nicklaus gets the nod based on Major wins so far. But if we're talking about a certain "prime" period, who was the best golfer in the history of the game when they were at their best? Tiger.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top