Comparing hogan jack tiger

[quote name='xgolfx' timestamp='1318285505' post='3653953']
Great players would be great in any era. Different equipment, course conditioning, quality of opposition, physical conditioning, money

MY OPINION

Jack above all. Hands down

WHY

Quality of opposition. Besides the 18 wins look at the places and shows

HE WAS IN POSITION TO WIN MAJORS ON THE LAST DAY FOR 20 YEARS AGAINST PALMER PLAYER TREVINO CASPER MILLER WATSON AND MORE

THE HALL OF FAME HE BEAT DWARFS TIGER OPPOSITION BY A MILE

WHO DID HOGAN BEAT. NELSON,SNEAD, DEMARET, LOCKE

NO COMPARISON

Charley Penna
[/quote]


No question Jack was the best. Best player, best course manager, best competitor, best winner. I'd also say, at the majors, best putter by far.

Jack made big putts, so did Arnie and Tiger. But only one guy would be my choice if my life depended on the putt


Arthur Darcy Locke

Charley Penna

I went to the final round of the 1976 PGA championship at Congressional and watched Dave Stockton hit it all over the lot and can every putt he looked at. At the same tournament I watched Hogan protege John Schlee puring it around and putting like he had a live eel in his hand.

I'd put Tiger Woods, Jack Nicklaus, Byron Nelson, and Bobby Jones at the very top of the long list of big time championship winners as far as golfers with the most natural aptitude for the sport.

Jones retired at 28, Nelson retired at 34. No question Jack has the most accomplished record. Like Jones and Nelson and Woods, he was great early in his career, having won a career slam of majors by age 26.

On the other side of the coin is Ben Hogan. Hogan turned pro 3 years before Nelson, but did not win his first "major" (Hale America Open) until age 30. Hogan didn't really break through to be consistently great until he was OLDER than both Jones and Nelson were when they retired. Once Hogan remade his swing, came back from war, and recovered from his accident he achieved a level of dominance in the sport that rivaled Jones, and surpassed either Nelson, Nicklaus or Woods (so far).

So they're all different people, all greats, who took different paths to greatness.

[quote name='xgolfx' timestamp='1318285505' post='3653953']
Great players would be great in any era. Different equipment, course conditioning, quality of opposition, physical conditioning, money

MY OPINION

Jack above all. Hands down

WHY

Quality of opposition. Besides the 18 wins look at the places and shows

HE WAS IN POSITION TO WIN MAJORS ON THE LAST DAY FOR 20 YEARS AGAINST PALMER PLAYER TREVINO CASPER MILLER WATSON AND MORE

THE HALL OF FAME HE BEAT DWARFS TIGER OPPOSITION BY A MILE

WHO DID HOGAN BEAT. NELSON,SNEAD, DEMARET, LOCKE

NO COMPARISON

Charley Penna
[/quote]


So then Jack is still the man?

When you look at winning percentage, Nicklaus ranks a distant third. But they are the top 3 all-time, IMO.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Nicklaus#Playing_style"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Nicklaus#Playing_style[/url]

seems like jack was quite the ball-striking beast himself.

Beast is right. Look at the driver swing! Has to be most "animalistic" I've seen from a pro. Great action !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI-qQhMQZMo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I love Jack, but Tiger at his best (all of them at their best), Tiger wins. AND the dude ain't done yet.

[quote name='xgolfx' timestamp='1318285505' post='3653953']
Great players would be great in any era. Different equipment, course conditioning, quality of opposition, physical conditioning, money

MY OPINION

Jack above all. Hands down

WHY

Quality of opposition. Besides the 18 wins look at the places and shows

HE WAS IN POSITION TO WIN MAJORS ON THE LAST DAY FOR 20 YEARS AGAINST PALMER PLAYER TREVINO CASPER MILLER WATSON AND MORE

THE HALL OF FAME HE BEAT DWARFS TIGER OPPOSITION BY A MILE

WHO DID HOGAN BEAT. NELSON,SNEAD, DEMARET, LOCKE

NO COMPARISON

Charley Penna
[/quote]
If we're judging by majors then I'd say it depends on the major

I give jack the nod at masters because like tiger he putts those slick funky greens well but I think he had the desired high draw more on demand than tiger
Us open Ben because his fairways and greens consistency trumps the others power game
British open is tough because Ben only played once and jack and tiger did well there. I'm going go with Ben because I think his lower ball flight serves him well in the wind. he did win his only appearance which was at the brutal carnoustie. slower pace greens also work in his favor.
Pga I give to tiger because it's the most normal event type setup. I think he gets a chance to use his superior short game to offset his wildness off the tee

This line of reasoning gives the edge to hogan across all 4

I give masters and us open to jack. Jack has 6 masters...enough said there. I give the us open to jack over hogan because jack was as long and accurate as anyone off the tee. He was conservative and patient and didn't beat himself up too much. He was also deadly in the 15-25 foot range. I don't think Hogan could hold the greens in the more modern set ups of the us open.

Tiger I would give the pga.

British open is tough. It's either hogan or tiger. If Tiger goes back to hitting those stingers then tiger....if he keeps doing this foley thing where he can't shape it too much...then hogan.

[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1319809335' post='3730915']
When you look at winning percentage, Nicklaus ranks a distant third. But they are the top 3 all-time, IMO.
[/quote]
You have to factor in competition when discussing winning percentage, and Jack's competition was head and shoulders
above the others. When is the last time Tiger ever faced off with one of his "primary" competitors in a major championship, where the competitor shot a superb or even high quality final round......every one of his prime contemporaries shrink under pressure consistently...it's Jack for sure.

[quote name='tembolo1284' timestamp='1319810894' post='3731023']
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Nicklaus#Playing_style"]http://en.wikipedia....s#Playing_style[/url]

seems like jack was quite the ball-striking beast himself.
[/quote]


I used to play with a guy who played against Jack in college regularly. He was big ten player of the year when Jack and Tom were at Ohio State. He said Jack was longest driver by far. Consistently 30 yards past everybody.

[quote name='creecool' timestamp='1320078982' post='3742125']
[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1319809335' post='3730915']
When you look at winning percentage, Nicklaus ranks a distant third. But they are the top 3 all-time, IMO.
[/quote]
You have to factor in competition when discussing winning percentage, and Jack's competition was head and shoulders
above the others. When is the last time Tiger ever faced off with one of his "primary" competitors in a major championship, where the competitor shot a superb or even high quality final round......every one of his prime contemporaries shrink under pressure consistently...it's Jack for sure.
[/quote]
Ever hear of Sam Snead? Byron Nelson?

Watson trumps all in British.

[quote name='groveler' timestamp='1320113461' post='3744643']
Watson trumps all in British.
[/quote]

Too much of a specialist. He didn't win a PGA. That hurts.

[quote name='JD3' timestamp='1320110273' post='3744361']
[quote name='creecool' timestamp='1320078982' post='3742125']
[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1319809335' post='3730915']
When you look at winning percentage, Nicklaus ranks a distant third. But they are the top 3 all-time, IMO.
[/quote]
You have to factor in competition when discussing winning percentage, and Jack's competition was head and shoulders
above the others. When is the last time Tiger ever faced off with one of his "primary" competitors in a major championship, where the competitor shot a superb or even high quality final round......every one of his prime contemporaries shrink under pressure consistently...it's Jack for sure.
[/quote]
Ever hear of Sam Snead? Byron Nelson?
[/quote]


hard to say Hogan really competed against Nelson in Hogan's prime when Nelson was basically done by 1947. But he def competed against Snead. Ya baby!

[quote name='JD3' timestamp='1320110273' post='3744361']
[quote name='creecool' timestamp='1320078982' post='3742125']
[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1319809335' post='3730915']
When you look at winning percentage, Nicklaus ranks a distant third. But they are the top 3 all-time, IMO.
[/quote]
You have to factor in competition when discussing winning percentage, and Jack's competition was head and shoulders
above the others. When is the last time Tiger ever faced off with one of his "primary" competitors in a major championship, where the competitor shot a superb or even high quality final round......every one of his prime contemporaries shrink under pressure consistently...it's Jack for sure.
[/quote]
Ever hear of Sam Snead? Byron Nelson?
[/quote]


hard to say Hogan really competed against Nelson in Hogan's prime when Nelson was basically done by 1947. But he def competed against Snead. Ya baby!

[quote name='JD3' timestamp='1320110273' post='3744361']
[quote name='creecool' timestamp='1320078982' post='3742125']
[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1319809335' post='3730915']
When you look at winning percentage, Nicklaus ranks a distant third. But they are the top 3 all-time, IMO.
[/quote]
You have to factor in competition when discussing winning percentage, and Jack's competition was head and shoulders
above the others. When is the last time Tiger ever faced off with one of his "primary" competitors in a major championship, where the competitor shot a superb or even high quality final round......every one of his prime contemporaries shrink under pressure consistently...it's Jack for sure.
[/quote]
Ever hear of Sam Snead? Byron Nelson?
[/quote]


Hogan didn't really compete against Nelson in his prime since Nelson was basically done by 1947. He def competed against Snead though. Ya baby!

I love Jack, but Tiger at his best (all of them at their best), Tiger wins. AND the dude ain't done yet.

Tiger would be behind Jack by about 15 to 20 yards with equal clubs.....Jack was more accurate...an equally good putter and a better iron player.....Jack wins
]

This is an easy pick, the only thing that can be considered is the overall record. Nicklaus (no. 1), has the most majors and that is the only measure that can be applied. However, if Tiger can manage to win another 5 majors then he will be the best.

At their best is not germaine to the question. One or two years woul include a lot of players who have not been mentioned, ie Curtis or Johnny Miller.

Career record is consistent longevity over more than a decade. Jack was in position to win on the back nine for each and every major for nearly twenty years. To match him, Tiger would need to have the best career of anyone from this point forward. I doubt that he will

CHARLEY PENNA

I still say Jack.

My opinion, so take it for what it's worth, but if there's a young kid out there, like Tiger was 25 years ago, and he has a poster on his wall of a guy whose record he wants to beat, that poster is still Jack.

[quote name='bell812' timestamp='1326895886' post='4104635']
My opinion, so take it for what it's worth, but if there's a young kid out there, like Tiger was 25 years ago, and he has a poster on his wall of a guy whose record he wants to beat, that poster is still Jack.
[/quote]


yap true. Well said. Jack is still the standard.

The thing that Jack does better than Tiger is drive the ball. The thing Tiger does better than Jack is pitch and chip. Which one gives the most advantage? It's up to the beholder, but their games are probably so close that it boils down to course setups and lucky breaks.

However, I believe that if today's driving accuracy measurements were taken with people predominantly using 43 inch drivers like in Jack's day, Tiger's driving accuracy would be right there in line with the all time greats.

[quote name='eroc' timestamp='1327936612' post='4177999']
The thing that Jack does better than Tiger is drive the ball. The thing Tiger does better than Jack is pitch and chip. Which one gives the most advantage? It's up to the beholder, but their games are probably so close that it boils down to course setups and lucky breaks.

However, I believe that if today's driving accuracy measurements were taken with people predominantly using 43 inch drivers like in Jack's day, Tiger's driving accuracy would be right there in line with the all time greats.





[/quote]

Hard to say for sure. The ball spun much more back in Jack's day. Fairways weren't as tight though. I'd like to think Tiger would be more accurate with essentially a 3 wood length club and slightly lower loft than a 3 wood.

[quote name='tembolo1284' timestamp='1327940899' post='4178355']
[quote name='eroc' timestamp='1327936612' post='4177999'] 4 thing that Jack does better than Tiger is drive the ball. The thing Tiger does better than Jack is pitch and chip. Which one gives the most advantage? It's up to the beholder, but their games are probably so close that it boils down to course setups and lucky breaks.

However, I believe that if today's driving accuracy measurements were taken with people predominantly using 43 inch drivers like in Jack's day, Tiger's driving accuracy would be right there in line with the all time greats.





[/quote]

Hard to say for sure. The ball spun much more back in Jack's day. Fairways weren't as tight though. I'd like to think Tiger would be more accurate with essentially a 3 wood length club and slightly lower loft than a 3 wood.
[/quote]


I need to check but my offhand guess is that Woods uses a driver less than 44inches long

CHARLEY PENNA

right now? he's at 44.75 inches....even tried one for a bit that was 45.5 inches...but was too wild so went back to 44.75.

Had 44.5 for a long time.