Opinion & Analysis
Tiger vs. Jack: A definitive answer
The debate
Tiger Woods was voted PGA Tour Player of the Year, an award named after Jack Nicklaus, for the 11th time in his illustrious career, but what does this mean? It shows his resurgence of dominance in golf, and proves his greatness and longevity in the game. However, does it mean anything in the debate between Tiger vs. Jack for the greatest player ever?
A T40 finish at this year’s PGA Championship continued Woods’ major championship drought, which was unthinkable after his 2008 U.S. Open victory, where Woods won his 14th major championship in the short span of 12 years.
But here we are, five years later, and Tiger is still stuck on N0. 14 — five major championships short of passing Jack Nicklaus’ record total of 18 majors.
In 2008, it was a forgone conclusion that Woods would win at least 19 major championships, but after several serious injuries, a scandal that led to an ugly public divorce and an inability to come through in the clutch in recent major championships, many golf fans are doubting Woods’ ability to break Nicklaus’ record.
Woods’ 79 PGA Tour victories (including 14 major championships) make him without a doubt the second best golfer ever. But to be considered the best, golf pundits agree that Woods must win more major championships than Jack Nicklaus.
There’s no doubt that winning 19 major championships would make Woods the undisputed greatest golfer ever, but here’s a scenario that few critics are considering”
What if Tiger ties Nicklaus’ total of 18 major championships? Who will be considered the better golfer then?
Let’s recap some of the arguments that already proclaim either Nicklaus or Woods to be the greatest golfer of all time.
Jack Fan:“18 major championships are more than 14 last time I checked.”
Tiger Fan: “That’s funny, 79 total PGA Tour wins are more than Nicklaus’ total of 73, if my math is right.”
JF: “Jack also finished second 19 times in majors, everyone forgets that.”
TF: “Tiger has won 30 percent of all tournaments he’s played, while Jack won only 12 percent. Second place is just the first loser, anyways.”
JF: “Tiger never came from behind to win in a major.”
TF: “Tiger is the best closer ever.”
JF: “Jack had worse equipment, let’s see Tiger try to play with Jack’s persimmon clubs.”
TF: “Tiger’s more forgiving equipment has lessened the gap between the best and worst golfers, making it harder for him to separate himself.”
JF: “If Jack used the clubs we use today, he would have shot several tournament rounds in the 50s.”
TF: “Tiger would destroy those short-hitters of yesteryear. He simply overpowered courses when he was younger.”
JF: “Are you kidding? Jack could hit it 300-plus yards at will, and he had way better competition. He competed against 19 hall-of-famers. Let’s see Tiger beat the likes of Watson, Palmer, Snead, Player, Trevino or Hogan.”
TF: “Tiger plays against much deeper fields. The worst player on the PGA Tour is better than some good players in Jack’s era.”
JF: “Jack is the best pressure putter of all time”
TF: “No, Tiger is!”
JF: “Tiger can’t hit a fairway!”
TF: “Jack couldn’t chip to save his life!”
JF: “Jack was more of a gentlemen in victory and defeat, and cared more about his family.”
TF: “Tiger transformed the game, more kids play now, and he broke down racial barriers.”
The debate goes on, getting more heated, less rational and increasingly irrelevant as it continues.
So what is the argument here? Is it who is more consistent? Who’s more of a winner? Who wins more majors? Who beat better competition? For the sake of ending this debate, I’m setting out to determine who would win on the same course, under the same pressure, in the same conditions.
The problem is that so many variables go into tournament golf, and so much has changed over the years within the game. How can it be possible to compare players of two different eras against different pools of competition?
Lucky for us, there’s been one tournament that has stubbornly kept its traditions throughout the years: The Masters, held at Augusta National. It provides the fairest ground for comparison between Tiger and Jack, favoring neither golfer or generation.
Augusta has remained relatively unchanged since Jack played it. Minor green alterations have been made, and the golf course has been lengthened, approximately to scale. Golfers of today are hitting roughly the same clubs into every green as they did in Jack’s era (I emphasize the use of the words roughly and approximately).
Yes, Jack played with inferior clubs, but Tiger plays a longer course (I know, Tiger went driver-Sand wedge into the 15th hole in 1997, but it’s always been an eagle opportunity regardless). And while the ball goes farther these days, the greens of today are firmer and faster than they were in Jack’s era.
The “pressure” of the Masters has also remained constant. It has always been counted as a major championship, and both players regarded the majors as significantly more important than regular tournaments.
The argument of which player had stiffer competition is subjective when talking about specific players. However, when looking at the scores that their competition shot (“how many” instead of “who”), the argument becomes more objective. The requirements to gain entry into the Masters have been nearly unchanged since the tournament’s inception, which means the competition is relatively similar (invitational of a few top amateurs and the top professionals, competing for the Green Jacket).
The weather in Georgia in the second week of April is consistently mild, essentially eliminating weather as a variable (the antithesis of the Open Championship). This provides us with the ideal event and venue to use as a basis for comparison and statistical analysis.
The method
I looked at The Masters’ tournament results, starting with the years that Jack and Tiger each turned professional. Tiger has played in 17 Masters since he turned pro, therefore, I only took into account Jack’s first 17 Masters appearances since he too began competing for money. This means I examined the Masters leaderboards from 1963 to 1979, and from 1997 to 2013.
I calculated each golfer’s average 72-hole total scores over the 17-year period (Jack missed the cut in ’67, so I threw out Tiger’s highest total of 293 in 2012 to keep it fair). I also looked at the average total score of the winner, 2nd-place finisher, 10th place finisher and last place finisher (of the players that made the cut).
These numbers provide a comparison of the scores required to win, finish 2nd, and finish inside the top-10. Looking at the average last-place score gives an idea of what the lower tier of players were shooting in the respective time periods.
The Results:
*the number in bold denotes the lower score
Average score (17 years, 16 events)
Tiger: 281.75
Jack: 282.12
Difference= 0.37 strokes
Average Winning Score
Tiger Era: 277.64
Jack era: 279.05
Difference= 1.41 strokes
Average 2nd place score
Tiger Era: 279.76
Jack Era: 281.30
Difference= 1.54 strokes
Average 10th place score
Tiger Era: 285.29
Jack Era: 287.23
Difference= 1.94 strokes
Average last-place finishing score
Tiger Era: 303.23
Jack Era: 305.80
Difference= 2.57 strokes
Tiger and Jack’s score from each year compared to the total averages:
How many times did Tiger and Jack shoot below the average winning score (277.64) in Tiger’s era?
- Tiger shot 277 or lower five times, while Jack only did it three times.
How many times did Jack and Tiger shoot below the average second-place score in Jack’s era (281.30)?
- Jack shot 281 or lower eight times, while Tiger only did it seven times.
How many times did Jack and Tiger shoot below the 10th place score in Jack’s Era (287.23)?
- Jack shot 287 or lower 14 times, while Tiger did it only 12 times.
The Conclusion
What these stats mean is debatable. To me, it shows that the competition during today’s era is tougher than when Jack played. That statement is substantiated by the fact that the winning score, second-place score, 10th-place score and last-place score are all significantly lower today than in Jack’s era (anything over a full stroke IS significant).
Also, it shows that Jack would hypothetically finish in the top-10 and top-2 more consistently than Tiger, when compared to the 17-year averages. It does prove, however, that Tiger shot lower scores than Jack on a more frequent basis (because he shot lower than 277 five times compared to Jack’s three).
It’s important to remember, before we move to my definitive conclusion, that these are the two most dominant golfers of all time, and the assumption is purely hypothetical, but here’s my conclusion.
If Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus played at Augusta, in the Masters, in the same year, under the same conditions, against the same competition, and you gambled based purely on statistics, you’d pick Tiger Woods as your winner, and Jack Nicklaus to finish second.
So, who do you think is the best golfer of all-time?
As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!
Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.
Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.
One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?
Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.
Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.
Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”
For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…
Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…
That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.
Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.
@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic
Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!
Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.
View this post on Instagram
“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”
Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.
That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.
As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.
I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.
One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.
The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.
If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.
Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.
As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.
It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.
David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.
In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:
“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”
Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”
Eventually, though, something shifts.
We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.
Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.
Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.
Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.
So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.
I see someone evolving.
He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.
It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.
‘Why would anybody want to change that swing?’ – Brandel Chamblee says PGA Tour star was wrong to change his swing
‘The stupidest freaking thing I’ve ever heard’ – Billy Horschel slams Open idea suggested by Padraig Harrington
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Golfer proudly posts photo of ball mark on iron, receives immediate roasting
WITB Time Machine: Matthew Wolff’s winning WITB, 2019 3M Open
Oakmont Country Club bans Wyndham Clark over locker incident; Reveals specific conditions to earn reinstatement
Adam Scott puts Callaway blades in the bag at Wyndham Championship
Report: LIV star fires caddie and coach in shock shake up
Rickie Fowler makes equipment change to ‘something that’s a little easier on the body’
The championship formula: How 3 key stats separate winners from the field
Peter Malnati WITB 2025 (August)
Peter Malnati what’s in the bag accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. More photos from the event here. Driver: Titleist...
Cameron Young’s winning WITB: 2025 Wyndham Championship
Driver: Titleist GT2 (9 degrees, A1 SureFit setting) Buy here. Shaft: Mitsubishi Tensei 1K Pro Orange 70 TX 3-wood: Titleist...
Camilo Villegas WITB 2025 (July)
Camilo Villegas WITB accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. Villegas was undecided on a 3-wood when we shot his bag. ...
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Brandt Snedeker fired a final-round 65 at the 2018 Wyndham Championship to outlast Webb Simpson and C.T. Pan. His 5-under...
Gregoire Lamarche
May 16, 2024 at 4:11 am
Hi
Why don’t we just compare strokes gained total finally ? This would probably eliminates all other variables such as equipments, course maintainable, weather, etc…
This then could be extended to other courses played by both players, not only Augusta.
It would be fair I guess. Wouldn’t it ?
m559o
Oct 23, 2013 at 3:42 am
The conclusion says based on statistics, you would have to pick Tiger. From the statistics presented I see that Jack’s avg. score is only 3.07 strokes behind the avg. winning score, while Tiger’s is 4.11. Jack’s avg. score is only 0.82 strokes behind the avg. second place score, while Tiger’s is 1.99 and Jack’s avg. score is 5.11 strokes better than the avg. 10th place score, while Tiger’s is only 3.54 better. So based on the statistics presented wouldn’t you have to pick Jack. Jack averages a better score against the field of his day than Tiger did against his field of competition. And don’t forget Tiger’s run away victory year probably has shifted his stats even better than they would be otherwise, yet Jack avg. score is still higher against his field of competition than Tiger.
Robert Maranger
Apr 4, 2018 at 9:01 pm
Tiger and Jack are the two best golfers who ever lived.
A valid argument can be made for either of them as the best of all time.
Dlygrisse
Oct 15, 2013 at 5:56 pm
I have never heard Tiger say he is the greatest of all time, I have only heard him say Jack was, and his goal was to break his major record.
Tiger has another 10 years or so to make it happen, call me in 10 years let me know how it ends up.
Why is everyone in such a hurry to anoint him as the GOAT? Patience young ones.
Philip
Oct 14, 2013 at 10:07 am
Like Jordan, Tiger has changed the game of golf more so than any one player. That, coupled with his rediculous statistics, makes him the greatest golfer ever.
Tim
Oct 12, 2013 at 12:26 pm
Well then……… lets just compare statistics before each major and declare a statistical winner! What people seem to forget is that Jack Nicklaus was an absolute “FIERCE” competitor. Tiger? Great player, but lacks something in that department. Both men are great golfers, Tiger is definitely the better player, and he does have the most diverse game. BUT, Jack was by far the strongest competitor. And in my experience, those guys simply find a way to win. ’86 Masters is just one example, but enough said.
Sapper
Nov 28, 2017 at 5:08 pm
I would have to say that is Garbage Tim! Players back I. jacks day still thought they could beat him at his best. In Tigers day they knew that they were playing for second!!!
Johnny Scoll
Oct 9, 2013 at 8:06 am
Tiger caught cheating four times in one year (2013) and Jack never cheated in his whole career.
Johnny Scoll
Oct 9, 2013 at 8:04 am
Tiger was caught cheating 4 times in 2013 and Jack zero on his whole career.
Joe
Oct 25, 2013 at 11:23 pm
If there was television replay and all the technological advances that there are in Tiger’s era I guarantee that Jack would have been caught cheating many times. And if you truly look at the Tiger’s masters “penalty” you will see that it is complete bull shit… so do your homework bud.
Bart
Oct 3, 2013 at 3:04 pm
Ho hum, wonder why anyone couldn’t be bothered asking the two most important people in this topic? truth be known they’d prob’ly find the whole thing as weird and bizarre as I do. It’s just soooo! pointless. WTF?
Stephen
Oct 2, 2013 at 8:46 pm
I would also argue that when you look at the problems tiger has hitting his driver in play! he would have zero shot to be as consistent as Jack who played with MUCH less forgiving equipment
Stephen
Oct 2, 2013 at 8:44 pm
How can we look at shot averages across generations, equipment changes and course changes. Those stats don’t mean too much to me. Jack is the best. I would argue he beat better player more consistently and the completion back then was better.
Blake
Oct 2, 2013 at 3:59 pm
Sorry to bomb an old thread, but you know the internet… Tj said – “Tiger needs to exceed Jack’s major number to even make the case for himself.” This is spot on the money. The funniest part of this discussion is when you read “Tiger would have not done as well/done better with Jack’s equipment”, or vice versa. Gotta say this, both were/are consummate professionals. Which means they work all the time at perfecting the shots they need. Nicklaus at 25, if he would have seen a 60 degree wedge and those opportunities, would have practiced until his hands bled to master the club – knowing that if he wasn’t the best with it, he wouldn’t get the wins. Woods at 24, seeing those tough 1 and 2 irons shots, that need to drop out of heaven and land dead, on concrete greens, would have hit shot after shot until it was absolutely perfect and he could use the shot when others dared not. The work ethic of them both is not the debate, but saying the equipment matters because poorer players can score nowadays and couldn’t before, or that one or the other would have stalled – just disingenuous. Here’s a real fact – both players won because more often than the others they get/got pars on the impossible holes, birdies on the tough holes and didn’t get bogies. It is this consistency in excellence that we see in Jack’s record – and of course that we also see in Tiger’s record, but over a shorter period of time. Tiger Woods is 38 years old. He’s got an opportunity over the next 6 or 8 years of being the best golfer on the tour. He can win 30 more tournaments. And I wouldn’t bet against 5 of those being a major. And neither would Jack Nicklaus. I’m happy to wait and see. But it is just not possible to say Tiger Woods is better than Jack Nicklaus today, whereas I think you can say the reverse – for now…
Mark Littlejohn
Oct 2, 2013 at 6:50 pm
The prospect of Jack practicing/mastering a 60 degree wedge back in the day is not realistic. By his own admission, Jack hated practicing the “little” shots, he found them to be boring. What finally drove him to learn these shots was the complete deterioration of his golf game in general and short game in particular during 1979. Jack stated he was trying to putt around bunkers when he missed a green, as prior to that Jack felt he didn’t need much of a short game because he was hitting 75-85% of the greens in regulation. Jack also recently admitted if he had learned/practiced those shots he would probably have won even more tournaments/majors. As for Tiger mastering the high fade with an old style 1 or 2 iron, that was something even accomplished pros such as Lee Tervino, Gary Player, and Arnold Palmer had difficulty with.
James
Apr 9, 2016 at 11:18 pm
They didn’t need 60 degree wedges with wound balata balls
Bart
Oct 2, 2013 at 3:34 pm
Wow, you say Tomato, I say Tomato, what a pointless, ridiculous argument,y’all should go take an Aspirin and have a lie down.
Billy Freeland
Oct 2, 2013 at 3:14 pm
You can’t compare really. If Jack played only the courses that he likes as Tiger tends to do, than he surely would have had a higher percent of wins in tournaments played. Who’s the best? No one will ever know. But they are both really good. It’s kind of like JIm Brown vs Barry Sanders. Both really good, but many of us never saw Jim Brown play, so how would we know?
yo!
Oct 1, 2013 at 7:06 pm
Far from “a definitive answer,” but good for generating posts.
The Answer
Oct 1, 2013 at 10:13 pm
Are you ready for The Answer? Here it is…..Jack was the greatest….of his era. Tiger is the greatest……of his era. To try to compare is stupid and a waste of time….too many variables between the era’s. Look at it this way….try to compare Babe Ruth to Barry Bonds…..Johnny Unitas to Peyton Manning…..Kareem to Shaq…..see what I mean? They were all the greatest….of their era’s, just like Jack and Tiger. You can’t compare….different equipment, competition, etc. Sit back and enjoy….it’s just a GAME.
Big_5_Hole
Oct 1, 2013 at 3:32 pm
Worst headline ever.
Andy
Oct 18, 2013 at 7:00 pm
amen to that
dan de Luca
Oct 1, 2013 at 8:29 am
Matt summed it up best. One thing Jack is hands down better at than Tiger and that’s being a gentleman with class!
John Perron
Sep 30, 2013 at 6:10 pm
There is a huge factor that the writer of this article has forgotten to factor in. He looks at the Masters from 1963 to 1979, and compares it to 1997 to 2013. This is not an apples to apples comparison because of two very linked reasons. 1) From 1963 to 1979 many of the worlds best players were not qualified to play in the Masters unless they came over to the US Tour and won a tournament or finished high enough in one of the 4 majors, or got a special exemption. World ranking points were not a factor in being invited to play. Therefore the field that did play, which did not include all the best players were shooting average scores very close to the Tiger era scores. Had all the best players played, if the qualifying standards for an invite were the same, the scores would have been much lower on average from 1963 to 1979 than between 1997 to 2013. This points to two possible conclusions…1) Jack may not have won as many Masters if those qualifying standards were the same, and 2) the quality of players back then were probably better. Npot all of them played each year at the Masters. If they had, average scores would have been lower then than now. Had Jack found a way to win as many despite that, he would most certainly have proven himself as best ever.
In any case…we will never know. It is not an apples to apples comparison.
Dante
Sep 30, 2013 at 4:11 pm
I just wanted to say that I thoroughly enjoyed this article and the scientific way you went about your analysis. Kudos to the author.
TJ
Sep 30, 2013 at 10:27 am
Based on the criteria used by most everyone in this discussion, Bobby Jones was easily the greatest player of all time. If Jones would have played up until age 40, and he was only half as successful in those years as he was in his 20’s, his stats would still be off the charts — majors, win percentage, the Grand Slam, etc.
Nicklaus contends that competition level was poor for Jones. I contend that the same was true for Tiger Woods. When Tiger hit the scene, golf was unpopular, and played mostly by…”non-athletes.” The first 6 or 7 years of Tiger’s career, and all of the tournaments and majors he won, were against some of the worst overall competition in professional golf history. Look at the guys who won majors in that era when Tiger didn’t: Shaun Micheel, Rich Beem, Steve Jones, Lee Janzen, Mark O’Meara, Justin Leonard etc. None of those guys in their primes in today’s game would even have Tour status.
When golfers began to approach the game the way Tiger did, and actual athletes began to show up in the professional ranks about a decade later, Tiger was nowhere near as dominant. He was simply the first of his kind. Look at his record since 2007, it’s all reflected.
By far, Jack Nicklaus had the hardest competition throughout his entire career: Palmer, Player, Watson, Seve, Trevino…even Faldo and Norman. Based on this, and his major record, I don’t see how anyone could argue that he’s not the best of all time. Tiger needs to exceed Jack’s major number to even make the case for himself.
Bobby
Mar 31, 2019 at 5:02 pm
I agree no question Jack is the best even tiger admits it. I suspect the guy who wrote this is a fan boys of tiger.
The competition Jack had was much stiffer. he finished 2nd 19 times and 18 majors. Tiger vs Phil the weakest rival in history.
Kimmel
Sep 30, 2013 at 9:49 am
I really feel that those of us under the age of 30 cannot truly compare the two because the main tool we use is a combination of who knows how many stats. What Tiger did for those in my generation was almost unreal. Personally Tiger is the #1 reason I not only play golf but am in the golf business. Now what Arnold Palmer did for the game deserves a hand-shake from each and every one of us but what Tiger did has had major effects from children to the professional level. The way in which he dominated the game was so amazing to me and what it did for an entire generation was absolutely great for the game and everyone associated. Personally I dont see how that could ever be done again (I say that and some 17 year-old will when the masters next year). My point is that someone much smarter than me with a lot more time should find a way to consider that in the “Tiger vs. Jack” debate.
DPavs
Sep 30, 2013 at 8:44 am
This has got to be the dumbest analysis I have seen yet in order to justify Tiger is better than Jack and it totally disregards changes equipment including the ball, wedge spin, weather and so many factors that it is just plain nonsense.
Let’s not forget kids despite the statistical camouflage posted above. Jack has won the Masters 6 times to Tigers 4. To equal this over the same number of years (24 for Jack) Tiger has to win 2 more Masters in the next 5 years. It could happen but it very well might not. Only time will tell and only time will tell if Tiger will go down in history as the best golfer ever.
Either way though it’s really a stupid question. Who really cares? Both Tiger and Jack have done great things for the game in their own ways. Can’t we just say that they are both great but different and just let it go already? You simply cannot compare apples to oranges and trying to compare Jacks career to how things were then to Tigers career and how things are now… is just a needless exercise.
Mark Littlejohn
Sep 30, 2013 at 3:33 am
The equipment issue shouldn’t be about the driver, there isn’t that much difference between persimmon and titatium with today’s ball and a good swing…try it yourself–about 10-15% distance. Forged blades aren’t that much different either…what’s the difference between MacGregor VIP/Muirfield and say Mizuno MP-67 or 69? Same shaft, and heads almost exactly alike. The BIG DIFFERENCE is in wedges and the short game. The 60 degree wedge was invented in the mid to late 80s and Tome Kite was the first to use one. Took his one iron out and put in a 60…immediate results. Prior to that all the pros had was a 55-57 degree wedge. Jack never had a wedge game until 1980 when he spent a week with Phil Rogers learning all the short shots early in the year…a direct result of that was winning the US Open and PGA in the summer at age 40. Take away Jack’s wedge and you get no impact–he didn’t have one till the very end. Take away Tiger’s wedge…….
Steve
Sep 30, 2013 at 10:55 am
You really think Tiger couldn’t adjust from a 60 degree wedge to a 55 or 57? That’s a horrible argument
Mark Littlejohn
Sep 30, 2013 at 6:37 pm
With v grooves, and a balata ball…not for one minute do I believe he could hit the same shots as with a Vokey spin milled wedge, or what ever. I think Golf Digest settled that argument a few years ago when they tested a pristine “71 Wilson Staff 56 degree wedge against current wedges. It only produced about 6000 rpms compared to almost 13000 for a Vokey. kind a hard to hold a green from out of the rough with that. No pro could hit the ridiculous shots they do now with the old wedges…you’re kidding yourself if you do. Physically, scientifically impossible. If you have ever played with that kind of equipment you would know that.
ahan
Sep 29, 2013 at 11:41 pm
I believe Tiger is a better player than Jack because he plays against tougher competition. But your Masters stats could be interpreted the opposite way. One could say Augusta plays easier now by 1.5-2 strokes because of the equipment, but somehow Tiger only plays the 0.37 strokes better than Jack. Meaning Jack’s adjusted score at Augusta is better. Before reading your conclusion, I was convinced you were going to argue that the stats indicated Jack was better.
purkjason
Sep 29, 2013 at 10:14 pm
How about this … Who cares who the best golfer of all time is ? It’s just a game anyways. Why can’t everyone agree to say that both men are truly the best of their era and leave it at that. No one will never know who the greatest is or was unless someone invents a time machine or the fountain of youth and let these two men battle it out on the same course in their primes for a best of seven series and that’s not gonna happen. Everyone has to respect what these two men have accomplished on the course. I may not like Tiger’s foul language on the course or what he chose to do in his personal life but it doesn’t change what he accomplished in his profession. Jack is an Icon and Tiger will tell you that as well. I just wish the MEDIA would leave this argument alone. There has to be something else to discuss that makes more sense.
Love2golf
Sep 29, 2013 at 8:42 pm
Not even a debate in my mind…. Tiger is clearly the King of all times.
Josh
Sep 29, 2013 at 6:59 pm
The equipment debate amazes me!! “Tiger couldn’t play in Jack’s day”
Are you crazy?? Tiger has been able to play with every type of equipment he has been faced with. Did you forget that he has played with a persimmon driver, a steel driver with both steel and graphite shafts, titanium headed drivers, then the ever growing driver head (forgive me for not knowing the cc of each through the progression). The one thing that stands out above all that tho is the fact that the man himself stated that he wished there would be a tournament that was played on tour with persimmon and balatas, because he knows he can hit the sweet spot and in his words there are to many people on tour who can’t consistently find the sweet spot and take advantage of the equipment. He would perfer to play older clubs!!! If that isn’t a wake up call then I don’t know why you would even talk about this subject because you are so set in your ways that your only goal must me to preach about how awesome your take on it is or to just argue with people!!!
Brock
Sep 30, 2013 at 12:01 am
Please show me a tourney that Tiger played a persimmon head driver.
purkjason
Sep 30, 2013 at 9:17 am
It would be cool to see these guys play the older equipment for one televised event each year. All money going to the charity of these guys liking.
Taylor
Sep 29, 2013 at 6:42 pm
No disrepect to Jack, but Tiger is the best ever. The field now a days is way deeper. Having said this, in order to nullify this arguement,
Tiger needs to at least tie Jack’s total major victories. If tiger get 18, 19- he’s the best.
Last time I’ve checked, the exact words out of Jack’s mouth were “Tiger is better.” Take away the outside comments about character or “class”; on the course, Tiger is the best. You can’t take outside influence as a factor.
BigBoy.
Sep 29, 2013 at 6:16 pm
you guys count majors like they are the holy grail…4 courses with 18 holes of grass like the other courses they play….Tiger has more wins….is he better? who cares…its just golf and not life.
Andy
Sep 29, 2013 at 4:12 pm
Some other amazing golfer will come along someday and this debate will happen again and once again it will be immeasurable because they will have been around in different time periods so the answer will remain unknown. It’s also quite funny how the article is called” Tiger vs Jack: A Definitive Answer’, yet the article finished with a question…………….
Pooch
Sep 29, 2013 at 1:23 pm
I believe it is too close to call. My only thought is what would a young Jack have done with today’s equipment? I think he would be head and shoulders above all others including Tiger.
Steve
Sep 29, 2013 at 2:58 pm
What would Tiger have done with the old equipment? Dominated. Just like he did at the beginning of his career when everything wasn’t as “technological” as it is now. I think he’d be head and shoulders above everyone, including Jack.
Hector
Sep 29, 2013 at 8:09 pm
If Jack had the new equipment he would have fared worse, not because he would have played worse, he would have obviously played better, but because the new equipment helps out the bottom of the field more than the top. Jack was a great ballstriker/driver, but that advantage was multiplied by how hard it was for everyone else to hit the clubs of his era. His driving advantage would be much smaller today. And it’s not just with the driver, the long irons/hybrids of today are much easier to hit high and land soft and one of Jack’s biggest advantages was that no one could do that with the old equipment like he could. Likewise, young Tiger had a massive advantage when everyone was hitting balata and though he still dominated with the solid core ball, he would have dominated even more without it.
To me, the concept of the equipment being a competitive advantage for Tiger in his relative to Jack in his is one of the silliest arguments. There’s little doubt that new equipment levels the playing field more and helps makes it harder to the top guys to distinguish themselves. There are other reasons to prefer Jacks record, but the equipment is certainly not one of them, the new equipment has only made Tiger’s task of getting to 18 tougher, because it makes so many guys competitive that never would have been in the past.
Brock
Sep 29, 2013 at 11:59 pm
Jack beat everyone with the equipment of HIS day. The argument is that you can’t compare Tiger and Jack head-to-head score-wise because they played vastly different equipment. Go play your home course with balatas and a persimmon head driver with a steel shafted driver and see how you fare. I’m not saying it definitively ends the argument, but it’s definitely not a congruent one.
Lou
Sep 29, 2013 at 10:10 am
One huge difference, the term “come from behind” means victory for Jack while it means something entirely different for tiger.
Lou
Sep 29, 2013 at 10:05 am
The competition in Jacks era was much better….Arnold, Seve, Norman, Kite, WATSON, Trevino….even the older guys like Snead and Hogan…..nobody in their right mind can compare todays golfers to all those legends…I don’t care what the scores suggest. Tiger cant hit a driver straight….imagine him trying to hit Jacks 1 iron? lol….that would e funny….tiger is absolutely the 2nd best golfer of all time, but # 1 is a joke…anyone ever see Jack cheat at a major or move his ball on purpose> Fake a back injury after he shanks a drive into the woods? This article while interesting is clearly slanted towards woods..interesting write up but so wrong on so many levels
Jed
Sep 29, 2013 at 12:51 pm
Does your period key automatically put elipsies in? Should get that looked at.
Lyle
Sep 29, 2013 at 10:32 pm
You hit it spot on when you simply said “Tiger can’t hit a driver straight.” Regardless of the era of equipment, that says quite a bit. Yet, everyone would agree it would be harder to hit it straight with the older stiff. He might have never hit a fairway and that severely limits your ability to win at least 2 majors and possibly 3.
Alec Hilliard
Sep 30, 2013 at 12:10 am
Its so cool that you know that Tiger cheats on purpose and that all his injury’s are fake, i bet you would cry if you played 18 holes with a broken leg
Lou
Sep 29, 2013 at 3:03 am
I don’t get the equipment argument. Yes todays equipment is different than the equipment in Jacks time but Jack played against others who used the same equipment and Tiger plays against a field that uses the same updated equipment as he does.
So where is the advantage?
Brock
Sep 29, 2013 at 11:48 pm
Comparing them to their own era there is no advantage. But, if you want to compare Jack directly to Tiger, which we are doing here, you have I consider the difference the equipment.
Lou
Oct 1, 2013 at 6:18 pm
Not getting this either. When we compare the two we look no further than their winning record against others and their dominance. Both of these cases are decided by their talent, not equipment. If Tiger gets a bump from the technology so does the field he’s playing. None of Jacks fans, those who point to the equipment ever say that jack wasn’t as good because the field he played had inferior equipment than the field that plays Tiger. Doesn’t even throw in that the courses today have been adjusted, sometimes by more than what gains equipment has made.
Forsbrand
Oct 4, 2013 at 4:14 pm
Nobody has yet commented on the condition of courses nowadays to the condition when jack knocked it around! Jack achieved so much with wooden persimmon woods, remember guys that macgregor had to use six screws in the faces of his drivers as jack would regularly break the standard four screw inserts. The shafts were no where near as good as they are these days, so forget head technology. Nineteen second places and 18 wins in Majors, enough said, Jack every time!
KK
Sep 29, 2013 at 2:40 am
If Tiger gets 17 majors and 105 wins, no sensible golfer would say Jack is better so clearly it’s more than just majors. There’s so much more competition nowadays because of the money that Tiger has brought to golf and such advanced training for amateurs that his dominance clearly shows his superiority. Put Tiger back in Jack’s day and he would be even more dominant like he was before graphite came around. Put Jack in today’s PGa and he might be on the level of Phil.
nik
Sep 29, 2013 at 3:40 pm
U r high.
naflack
Sep 30, 2013 at 2:54 am
very high
bigd8880
Sep 30, 2013 at 12:44 pm
out of this world, man
Matt
Sep 29, 2013 at 2:38 am
I think one specific point is left out. Yes Tiger has an over all higher win percentage but in Jacks day players didn’t hand pick the courses that fit their game and play those specific same tournaments year in and year out. Tigers win percentage is so high because he plays the same tournaments, the one’s he’s very, very comfortable on. But he can’t hand pick the majors or WGC venues and we see how well he’s done on those the last few years. Tiger and Jack are both great players period there’s no argument to that, but there’s one thing that Jack is hands down better at than Tiger and that’s being a gentleman with class!
Lyle
Sep 28, 2013 at 11:18 pm
Jack. I’m only 43 but have seen them both play. I have to rely most heavily on the fact that Jack beat more great players. He beat Palmer, Player and Trevino not to mention Casper and others. Then he beat Miller, Weiskopf, Watson, Floyd, Irwin and Crenshaw. Then he managed another while taking on the European Invasion of Ballesteros, Langer, Faldo. Not to mention a few other guys like Couples, Norman, Payne Stewart, Hal Sutton, Tom Kite and Curtis Strange. Heck, he even finished 6th at the 1998 Masters at 58 years old (beating Tiger by 2 shots)
Almost every great golfer has a window of about 10 years to exhibit their greatness and win majors. Jones, Sarazen, Hagen, Nelson, Snead, Hogan, Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson, Ballesteros, Faldo, Norman, and others. Tiger has won majors from 1997-2008. He may win more but likely not more than 1. Nicklaus won majors from 1962-1980 and then threw in another in the 86 Masters. This was all while raising a family (5 kids) and keeping Barbara happy (although she seems to be a genuine lady and easy to keep happy.
There are some greats in this era. I would consider Mickelson, Els and Singh the best but I don’t see the depth that Jack contended against.
Finally, I seem to remember Jack coming up short on a British Open chip-in by Trevino and a US Open chip-in by Watson. There are probably others. Tiger has mostly had big leads (which he built) and then benefitted from contenders lackluster performance on Sunday. Bob May did match him shot for shot at Valhalla and came up short thanks to Tiger’s clutch play but I really only remember Y.E. Yang sticking it to him with a great shot.
Lots of golf still to be played by Tiger. With 5 wins this year I wouldn’t count him out but every passing Major and year makes it less likely. He might be the Mike Tyson or Bo Jackson of golf. The incredible and amazing best for a period of time but possibly not the greatest of all time.
Josh
Sep 29, 2013 at 6:15 pm
My question to you is why do you think tiger will only win one more major? You talk about Jack winning in 1986 and at age of 58 finishing 6th. What makes you think Tiger cannot do that? Tiger prides himself on his body and staying in shape so I believe he will still be able to win on the PGA Tour well into his 50’s. If you dispute his physical abilities then it proves your opinion is skewed and bias.
Lyle
Sep 29, 2013 at 10:16 pm
I’m basing my “1 more Major” statement on the fact that 10 years is typically the real serious run for any great player. Trevino added the PGA in 1984 several years after his 10 year run was over and I believe Player did something similar but I would have to look it up. Nicklaus is the only great player with a near 20 year run and then he added one more several years later as well. I just think Tigers 10 year run is over. He will add one more but I don’t think he will make another serious run at 4-5-6 more majors. As for his body, he appears fit, obviously strong and is certainly something to look at but he seems to be injured more than any golfer I can think of in my lifetime. I wouldn’t say he really takes care of his body. I would say he assumes that because he is strong and fit his body will do everything he requires of it. Anyone his age should be starting to figure out that things just change. What was once simply assumed cannot be taken for granted any longer.
Lyle
Sep 29, 2013 at 10:24 pm
BTW… I guess I am disputing his physical abilities because of his injuries. In addition, I think that is a limited part of winning Major Championships. Jack was a stocky and strong athletic guy but I would venture to say he won many of his majors based on strategy and intangibles that developed over a long period. I once heard someone say Jack wasn’t the best at any one aspect of the game but he was the best at allowing others to lose to him. Patience is a big part of strategy and I think Tiger is growing impatient.
Brock
Sep 28, 2013 at 10:18 pm
Interesting thought experiment and look at some numbers but obviously doesn’t end the argument. The difference in equipment and the course nullifies all these stats. Maybe if you apply some sort of “equipment adjustment” to Jack’s scores based on how much straighter/longer a Pro V1 is compared to a balata the comparison holds more water.
I’d also like to see Tiger storm back to win on a Sunday. It just feels like unless he has a 54 hole lead, he won’t win. That’d be another interesting stat to look at–wins from behind, how many strokes back, etc.
Jack
Sep 28, 2013 at 11:14 pm
The equipment difference is assumed to be negated by the length in the courses. Though I’d say its harder to hit it more accurately if the shot becomes longer. Regardless of equipment.
Martin
Sep 28, 2013 at 8:50 pm
I think a goofy argument, sort of like Bob Cousy vs Dwayne Wade and using the argument the net is the same height.
David
Sep 28, 2013 at 8:46 pm
Tiger. As the older generation dies off, the people that are 50+ Jack will fade and Tiger will become the best. Tiger four majors is a big deal how many have you won? That would be zero.
naflack
Sep 30, 2013 at 2:49 am
if 4 majors doesnt matter then it doesnt matter if ive won zero and youve won…4
Bman
Sep 28, 2013 at 6:43 pm
I love these “Jack, not close, 18 > 14”. Context, people!! Eras were different, the compo can’t be that simplistic. There are tons more players now good enough to win majors, not just the handful NIcklaus had to beat. Jack won more majors, Tiger won a lot more tournaments (and his winning % was way better) and was more dominant when he was on than Jack was. Holding all four major titles at once, along with all the pressure that came with it, IMO makes up for 4 less major titles. Especially when there are so many more capable major winners.
John
Sep 28, 2013 at 6:30 pm
Big Jack by a landslide. Not even close.
Santiago Golf
Sep 28, 2013 at 5:20 pm
Jack is the most accomplished golfer
Tiger is the better all-round golfer
Ethan
Sep 28, 2013 at 5:10 pm
WHEN Tiger gets 19 these articles won’t even need be written. Tiger beats Jack now anyway. Good article and good choice. I was raised on Tiger and could never and would never bet against him
naflack
Sep 28, 2013 at 4:39 pm
Its Jack and it isn’t close…four majors is a huge difference!
If tiger ties him at 18 majors then I agree it will be deservedly tiger at overall #1 all time.
Drew
Sep 28, 2013 at 7:10 pm
Your comment assumes that Tiger’s career is over… soooo it’s a meaningless comparison.
Joe Golfer
Sep 29, 2013 at 12:15 am
@Drew. Read the second line of the guy’s comment and stop being “soooo” snarky.
naflack
Sep 30, 2013 at 2:43 am
@drew
you seriously dont have the attention span to read a 2 line comment in its entirety…lol
Jeremy
Sep 28, 2013 at 4:28 pm
To me the second most important stat is that Tiger won 30% of the tournaments he played in. That crushes Jack’s 12%. It’s not even close and it speaks to how great Tiger is. But until Tiger wins more majors, he is second best.
Steve
Sep 28, 2013 at 11:04 pm
The first part of this is what I believe too. By the time it is all said and done, Tiger may or may not have 18+ majors (I still think he will). That being said, he will (already does) have significantly more wins while playing less tournaments. Winning 30% of your events compared to 12% is every bit as impressive as winning 4 more majors in my opinion (which is where we differ). Especially since we know Tiger doesn’t waste his time to go to tournaments that have crap fields to play against.
Either way, if Jack and Tiger switched era’s somehow, I wouldn’t doubt that Jack would be dominating today or Tiger would be dominating back them. Both of them are ridiculously skilled and could win a ton in either era.
Don
Oct 2, 2013 at 9:18 pm
It crushes Jack’s 12% only if talking about same time period. If taking Jack’s entire PGA career (till retired from PGA competition in his 50’s) versus Tiger’s current career (16 years), then it’s not that dramatic. I’d like to see comparison of like time frames.
Interesting to note that during time frame listed above (first 17 masters appearances) Jack had won 15 majors, Tiger has 14.
Tiger wins or flames out and you know the answer before Sunday starts, Jack could chase down the leader, and won or finished 2nd a combined 37 times over his career. Right now I think Jack has overall edge, Tiger still has lot of time to catch him.
Dolph Lundgrenade
Oct 10, 2013 at 5:11 am
To put things into context, Tiger also plays a limited schedule (and has for most of his career), and when he does enter a tournament it is usually a major or a very competitive tournament; so to win near 1/3rd of them is simply pure domination.
If the question were: Who is the greatest Major player? The debate would be interesting because of the obvious 18-14 figure, but also because of other quantifiable factors. The question isn’t however. Based purely on statistics and not era, race or personality, Eldrick is the greatest of all-time (GOAT). I’m surprised that it always comes down to just these two players- especially for Jack-era fans because there was once a man named Hogan and before him a man named Bobby. Arguments could be made for them as well. Statistics are objective if you have enough of them however. Tiger “people don’t like me because I date blondes” Woods is the man.
metrybill
Oct 16, 2013 at 3:31 pm
Yes; let’s put this discussion in context. Tiger, the golfer, is awesome, but ….
Unless it’s a Major, as a general rule Tiger only plays the courses that he likes and that suit his game. There are several tournaments and courses on the Tour that he has NEVER played. New Orleans, a City with a majority black population, has NEVER seen him as a pro. There are many, many others.
Quite a number of his victories have come abroad against limited fields, where he received guaranteed money. Those were not available to Nicklaus.
Majors, the bellwether: Per the article, “He (Nicklaus) competed against 19 hall-of-famers,” and finished 1st 18 times and 2nd 19 times = 37. That is 13 more than all of Tiger’s 1st, 2nd, and 3rd finishes combined = 24.
Name for me the hall-of-famers (present and future-in-waiting) that Tiger has competed against. Those of you who have never seen Raymond Floyd, Lee Trevino, and Tom Watson play in their prime have no idea how good they were. Tiger would have been the prey, rather than the predator, and he would have been intimidated on occasion. btw, Colin Montgomerie counts as a hall-of-famer, but he shouldn’t with 0 majors.
Tiger is a clear 2nd-ever, but he is never going to be a clear no. 1-ever.
Re: the article, I don’t buy into the margin of victory analysis. Winners play for the win not for the margin of victory. I do buy into the “rarely wins from behind” analysis, though.
I will say this. Tiger plays with crappy Nike golf balls just like Nicklaus played with crappy MacGregor golf balls. MacGregor had crappy wedges but the Nike wedges are a little better than ok. If both played Titleist golf balls, they both would have won more.
Beat this up, but beat it up with facts or stats and not emotion. Educate me, us.
metrybill
Rik Clarke
Oct 19, 2013 at 10:58 am
Did you know that at every PGA tournament, more PGA Pro’s MISS THE CUT using Titleist balls than all other balls combined? Check it for yourself. Now, you might say it is because of the number of players using Titleist only. Well, that can be said about the winners, too. It is the golfer, not the ball. It is the golfer, not the club maker.