Poll about Tiger and Nicklaus
- Thread starter ThePhoenix
- Start date
Let's see, did Nicklaus take PED's? No, end of discussion.
If we're just basing it on majors then Nicklaus is in a class by himself IMO. Not counting his wins he had 19 runner-ups and 56 top fives.
Last edited:
There is no discussion. Trying to compare any golfer to Jack Nicklaus is beyond insulting to anyone that knows golf.
Comparing athletes across generations may be the most pointless argument ever. Jack has better statistics, Tiger faces deeper fields.
Tiger in his prime has an argument for best during a 5-10 year stretch but over an entire career have to give it to Jack.
There is nothing he can do at this time. Nicklaus is the best player ever and you youngsters can't change it. Period.
At their very best Tiger is the best golfer to ever play the game. If we want to talk about overall career and longevity then it is Jack who played at the highest level for a much longer period of time than Tiger.
The argument for 2nd best, era wise, is easier in a sport like Golf. Competition doesn't have nearly the direct effect that Basketball or football have.
Nicklaus didn't quite have an era of longevity like Tiger was afforded (medicine, sports science).. but at the same time, Tiger nuked his own longevity by taking a 7 Iron to the elbow. Have to imagine Tiger would have won quite a bit more majors than 14, if not for cheating..
What's amazing is that both became professionals near the same age, and both won their first major near the same age. Months apart, if that. Absurd.
Regardless, this conversation doesn't matter as much, Because.. you know.
Tiger's 18 WGC's have to count for something. I know Jack didn't have "major quality" fields outside the majors for the most part, however, slighting Tiger on this extraordinary accomplishment detracts from the debate.
I agree it's impossible to compare athletes across generations. I don't agree that Tiger played against better competition. I thought most of Tiger's competition was pretty weak in comparison to Jack's. Jack competed against Palmer, Player, Miller, Watson, Trevino, Ballesteros, etc. The only competitors from Tiger's era that have won significant majors are Mickelson and Els, neither of which, in my opinion are of the quality of the best players from Jack's era.. I do agree that Tiger probably had to compete against more quality players from Europe, etc., but those players didn't really compete at a high enough level to win majors. To me Jack did what he did against some of the toughest competition in the history of the game. What he accomplished was really incredible. That's not to take away anything from Tiger, who I also believe is one of the greatest to ever play the game.
I think we may be entering in another era where there are several outstanding golfers competing against each other. So many of them are very young though, it will be interesting to see if they can maintain that level of play over two decades.
Best peak is Tiger and there shouldn't be an argument. We will never see anyone again do what he did in his prime. He was slaying fields and winning almost half the time he teed it up. His performance at Pebble in 2000 was the greatest of all time, and the fact that he once held all 4 major trophies is outrageous.
Nicklaus has the better overall career, the 18 wins and 19 seconds in majors is ridiculous. Tiger may have one or 2 more left in him, but he isn't getting to 19, so I think this one has been laid to rest.
Nicklaus - best career
Tiger - best at his peak
Nicklaus has the better overall career, the 18 wins and 19 seconds in majors is ridiculous. Tiger may have one or 2 more left in him, but he isn't getting to 19, so I think this one has been laid to rest.
Nicklaus - best career
Tiger - best at his peak
From Tiger's first major to his last....25 different golfers won majors, w/ 5 of them winning multiple. Weak competition or is that only a couple have the name brand you are looking for.
The depth of the tour since Tiger started trumps Jack's by light years. The world of golf became huge, and as I said earlier, Tiger's WGC's are about as close to major championship quality as you will find, and Jack didn't have to face the worlds best on the level Tiger has.
Your statement is without merit.
Jack won a bunch of Sr majors too and well, Tiger hasn't won any. Advantage Jack
I’m not knowledgeable enough about either, but I’d venture to guess that Tiger had more of a global effect on golf than Jack did. That probably doesn’t matter, but still. Vote goes to Tiger because he’s about my age and our generation is the best at everything. You’re welcome.
People forget this. It’s like Tiger isn’t even trying.
People forget this. It’s like Tiger isn’t even trying.
What does Tiger need to do to catch Jack? Start screwin' multiple Waffle House-level whores again while trying to hide them from whoever is his current main whore, duh. Dude was slayin' both trim and majors while simultaneously being the biggest horn dog on the planet. Oh, and, uh taper off the Winstrol and stop pretending you're on SEAL Team 6. Idiot.
Get back to basics, Eldrick -- that's pussy and practice -- if you wanna win 19.
Get back to basics, Eldrick -- that's pussy and practice -- if you wanna win 19.
I agree that the depth is better because of Europe, but most of those players didn't consistently compete for titles. You have to remember that someone has to win the tournament, so every year has a winner. Your statistics don't really prove your point. It shows mainly what I said originally. The field in Tiger's era was filled with average golfers from a historical perspective, and the top level of golf was fairly weak. In other words, there wasn't very many historically talented golfers, therefore lots of different golfers won tournaments, but very few won multiple majors, or would be on a list of the games greatest golfers. The field may have been more consistent from top to bottom than in Jack's days, but that doesn't make the field competitive with the historically great golfers. Tiger played against very few historically talented golfers and your stats back that up.
I'll give you the same stats for Jack's era for comparison. From his first major in 1962 until his last in 1986, 41 different golfers won majors. 18 won multiple majors. Some of those multiple major winners include some of the best ever. Palmer won 7, Player won 9, Trevino won 6, Floyd won 4, Watson won 8, Ballisteros won 5. Several other very good golfers won 2 or 3. Almost half of the major winners won more than one (18 out of 41). In comparison, based on your stats, only 25% won of the major winners won multiple times during Tiger's era. I don't think it makes your case to say a bunch of different guys won majors over that period of time. It just shows the field had no superstars except for Tiger. It's much tougher to compete against 6 or 7 guys who have won multiple majors and know they can win than it is to compete against mostly guys who have won 1 major or less and aren't sure they can beat you.
Again, I think Tiger is one of the games greatest, so I'm not saying this to discredit his accomplishments. I watched both eras and believe the people Jack had to beat to win his majors were much better than who Tiger had to beat to win his.
Until Tiger beats Jack's record, Jack is the greatest. Maybe Tiger will do better on the Senior Tour
...now there is a subjective statement. I will list these as whom I consider to be "historically talented", or will be considering their youth (that compete-d) against Tiger
Phil
Rory
Els
Sergio
Spieth
Koepka
Thomas
Harrington
Clarke
Vijay
DJ
Rose
Goosen
Monty
Olazabal
Jack won a few tournaments playing with something actually made of wood (pun points).
Tigers lore was built in the hyper active communication age, the market was flooded with his every move/exploit. Jack played in many tournaments not even televised, he didn’t have social media and 32 ESPN channels for exposure.
Golf is more accessible and affordable to the common person now, far more weekend warriors in tigers era that can relate to the game. It was somewhat of a rich mans game in jacks time and given the lack of coverage his accomplishments weren’t discussed all the time. There’s a lot to consider when comparing players across technological advancement eras.
Tigers lore was built in the hyper active communication age, the market was flooded with his every move/exploit. Jack played in many tournaments not even televised, he didn’t have social media and 32 ESPN channels for exposure.
Golf is more accessible and affordable to the common person now, far more weekend warriors in tigers era that can relate to the game. It was somewhat of a rich mans game in jacks time and given the lack of coverage his accomplishments weren’t discussed all the time. There’s a lot to consider when comparing players across technological advancement eras.
Lot of stupid posts in here.
Jack's overall career (Majors) will likely never be topped, but Tiger is the best golfer to ever swing a club.
Whichever side you're on, there is most certainly a great argument to be made either way, there simply isn't a clear & decisive winner. Comparing Tiger to Jack "an insult to those who know golf" ?![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
![[eyeroll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/rolleye/rolleye0011.r191677.gif "Eye roll [eyeroll]")
Jack's overall career (Majors) will likely never be topped, but Tiger is the best golfer to ever swing a club.
Whichever side you're on, there is most certainly a great argument to be made either way, there simply isn't a clear & decisive winner. Comparing Tiger to Jack "an insult to those who know golf" ?
Look, i will refer to Jack Nicklaus himself who said: "Nicklaus and I were watching Tiger play on TV," Tom Watson says. "I can't remember where it was. I think it was at the Senior Skins Game. So we were in Hawaii. I said, 'Bear, he's the best, isn't he?' Jack said, 'Yeah, he's the best.'"
Btw, maybe some of you should try steroids. You'll be firing darts, holing putts, and getting up and down from everywhere in no time!
Only if you take golf steroids. If you take baseball steroids it won’t help your golf game. It’s just science.
Of course it's subjective. It's a comparison across generations.
I will list these as whom I consider to be "historically talented", or will be considering their youth (that compete-d) against Tiger
Phil
Rory
Els
Sergio
Spieth
Koepka
Thomas
Harrington
Clarke
Vijay
DJ
Rose
Goosen
Monty
Olazabal
You are showing your bias with that list. During the years Tiger was winning majors, you can't really include Rory, Spieth, Koepka, Thomas, or DJ. Now he will compete against them going forward. Let's see how he does. If he wins against them, then he deserves the credit for beating that competition and I will happily give it.
Phil is the best golfer in the remainder of that group. Many of the rest are good players, but not historically great players.
.
I Don’t disagree with any of the facts listed. Tiger is the best to ever play the game.
I Don’t disagree with any of the facts listed. Tiger is the best to ever play the game.
My thoughts:
Tiger played better golf than anyone ever from 1999-2008. Jack Nicklaus had the best career any professional golfer ever had.
Tiger played better golf than anyone ever from 1999-2008. Jack Nicklaus had the best career any professional golfer ever had.
So much of this is false, that makes it laughable. If you think Watson, Player, Weiskof, Palmer,Sevi, Travino,are weak,then it is useless to debate you.
With or without the PED.s? I will admit he was more dominate at his peak, but for me, that is clouded because of the PED's.
We will never know how tiger would have played not using p.e.d. We know Jack played with natural skill and has more major wins. The only thing that could put tiger ahead is propaganda, Nicklaus is the factual best until Woods can catch up.
Even then the P.E.D. use is against Tiger, if that stuff wasn’t an advantage then Barry Bonds, Marion Jones along with a slew of others wouldn’t have taken them and been designated cheaters.
Even then the P.E.D. use is against Tiger, if that stuff wasn’t an advantage then Barry Bonds, Marion Jones along with a slew of others wouldn’t have taken them and been designated cheaters.
exactly, Jack did it in a age without social media, Tiger was in the middle of it.
Another thing that makes it hard to compare Jack with Tiger, or any player whose career happened mainly before around 1995, is equipment. The movement to lighter shafts, metal driver heads, more forgiving head design, and balls that fly dramatically further, have completely changed the game from what it was before. I remember reading an article where Brandt Snedeker played back to back rounds at some course using modern equipment and modern balls and then with vintage equipment and balls. His tee shots were 25 - 30 yards shorter with the vintage equipment on solid hits, and if I remember correctly, 50 - 60 yards shorter on off center hits. And of course the newer equipment was easier to hit in general and make shots with, so it reduced the frequency of those off center hits. It's impossible to compare players simply because of the tremendous impact the equipment changes and ball changes have made in the game.
Aside from not being able to see how Bobby Jones, Sam Snead, Palmer, Player, and Jack for most of his career, would have been able to play with modern equipment, it's impossible to quantify how the timing of the technology boom in golf affected careers. For example, as technology exploded in golf, courses did not immediately adapt to the longer hitting fields. Many golf courses in the 90s and 2000s were still set up the same way they always had been. How many scores by golfers during this transition period were artificially lower because they were able to overpower the course because their equipment had changed but the course hadn't adapted yet?
Aside from not being able to see how Bobby Jones, Sam Snead, Palmer, Player, and Jack for most of his career, would have been able to play with modern equipment, it's impossible to quantify how the timing of the technology boom in golf affected careers. For example, as technology exploded in golf, courses did not immediately adapt to the longer hitting fields. Many golf courses in the 90s and 2000s were still set up the same way they always had been. How many scores by golfers during this transition period were artificially lower because they were able to overpower the course because their equipment had changed but the course hadn't adapted yet?
Also, Nicklaus played in 154 straight majors that he was eligible for from 1957-1998 and finished in the top 10 in 73 of them. Nearly 48%. Remarkable!
Last edited:
At their peaks, I'm betting on Tiger to beat anyone.
He hit shots that Nicklaus could only dream about.
But Nicklaus' historical performance is still the GOAT.
He hit shots that Nicklaus could only dream about.
But Nicklaus' historical performance is still the GOAT.
