Jack vs Tiger Major Win %

[RobotDoctor]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @lowheel said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Kdaniel72 said:

> > > > > > > > > > Tiger played with much better equipment, coaching and technology. The coaching he received was brought to the forefront by Jack! Without Jack there is no Tiger. I think they are in a dead heat as GOAT. However Jack never had self inflicted wounds. With more time to play for Tiger. I think he will overtake the Golden Bear.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Tiger was actually a victim of getting caught in the graphite/titanium driver revolution.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > He grew up and played steel shafts/heads in his driver when he came on tour and instead of upgrading faster as the tech rolled out, he stuck with old tech and left butch and changed his swing. By the time he upgraded, he had changed his swing, but never got the same advantage back.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Here is butch

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.golfdigest.com/story/gd0608_harmontiger/amp

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > "One of the reasons I believe Tiger felt he needed to change his swing was to increase his driving distance. When he first turned pro, Tiger drove it past everybody by a healthy margin. Davis Love III and John Daly were close, but no one consistently hit it as far and in as many fairways as did Tiger. When he needed to blast it past an opponent, he had that ability. Then, in about 2001, players started catching up with him. Ernie Els, Phil Mickelson and Vijay Singh all started hitting the ball close to, if not as long as, Tiger, and occasionally those players and others hit it by him. He never admitted it, but I believe that bothered him. He knew he generated more clubhead speed than anyone else out there, and he had gotten even faster since he'd started working out in his mid-20s, so being challenged off the tee was not something that was supposed to happen. When it did, I think he decided he needed to make some changes.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I believe that Tiger's perceived loss of distance (or the fact that the rest of the tour started catching up to him in the distance category) had more to do with his equipment than his golf swing. **He insisted on staying with a 43 3/4-inch steel-shafted driver with a smaller head, while his fellow-competitors were playing 45-inch graphite shafts and jumbo titanium heads.**

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > It's hard to question Tiger's reluctance to make a dramatic equipment change. He was the best player in the world. Tossing your driver when you're playing great is a tough thing to do. There were plenty of graphite shafts Tiger could have hit, but he took a cautious approach to change. No one can fault him for that decision. But I think overhauling his golf swing was a mistake when putting a new driver in the bag would have done the trick."

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > .

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Now, all this was TWs call. But, if TW had grown up with graphite/titanium OR that tech didnt come about right in his prime

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Man, its hard to imagine the even more insane numbers he would have put up.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Not necessarily BSC. Bigger distance, bigger misses. He stuck with what got him there as did others but some embraced tech quickly and took advantage.Tiger was stunned circa 2003-2004-2005 how many people were blowing it past him yet he still found his groove again.. Few had his combination of iron/wedge play, short game and of course reliable clutch putting.It didnt matter how he drove it, it never has.Only recently ( last year) did drives really cost him. He was the ultimate feel guy so finding a graphite shaft was a huge undertaking. In my opinion he should have switched way sooner but im sure he saw the results as a validation with the steel shaft in his woods. You think year 2000 tiger would look in to the future and see a 5 wood in the bag? No way but he adapted and succeeded. Hes fully invested in tech now and its extended his window.Molinari was outdriving him all of sunday round. Did it matter? nope

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Only last year did drives really cost him? Uh... I suppose game over.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Whats difficult for you to understand?Last year he literally had 4-5 tourneys in a row where he had 1 OB drive every other round.you cant recover from those and contend.He changed shafts and throttled back and voila his misses are way smaller. Did you watch his final round at the PGA last year? He was missing fairways with a 3-4 iron. His iron play and the fact the the greens were soaked helped him. Throughout his career he was never as wild as he was last year off the tee. His recovery game in his prime was second to none so what exactly are you not grasping?

> > > > >

> > > > > Only last year did his drives really cost him? Only last year. That was your assertion. Get serious.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > The burden is on you to prove the opposite. When did his driving cost him as bad as last year. You won’t answer because you can’t. Now I remember why you used to be on my ignore list...

> > >

> > > I can and I will. “It cost him more last year than other years” wasn’t your assertion. “Only last year did it really cost him” was your assertion.

> > > He drove it sideways on and off for about a decade. It cost him in many more years than last.

> > > Let’s try to use some logic going forward so we can avoid this look.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Buddy youre yelling into a void by yourself. Your semantic garbage doesnt pass the smell test. You were asked for direct evidence to back up your words 3 times and 3 times you refused to provide any. He literally had 7 OB drives last year.That never happened before. Just take the L and move on. Have a nice life

>

> So “It cost him more last year than it did in other years”. I don’t disagree. It’s unfortunate for you that that’s not what you asserted. “Only last year did his driving really cost him” is what you asserted. That is a patently false and ignorant statement. I’m sorry it’s hard for you to understand the difference, I really am.

>

>

 

There were more issues costing Tiger Woods last year than just the driver. As lowheel stated, Woods was missing fairways with irons, something he rarely did previously to his decline. Last year Tiger was working out issues caused by the lack of competition and a refined swing, one confidence is built on. He didn't have an absolute shot pattern if he missed, meaning taking one half of the golf hole out of play if he missed. Woods was all over the place and couldn't trust his swing. He put in the work, made adjustments, unraveled years of inactivity and conflicting ideas put in his head by coaches he should never have worked with. Now his game this year is very impressive. Tiger is driving the ball better and maybe not the most accurate driver, definitely good enough to contend and win major tournaments. At this point I wouldn't bet against the "old man" of 43. His distance issue (the 6" space between his ears) seems to be corrected, or is getting closer.

[RobotDoctor]

While Tiger Woods has a terrific wedge game, the same can be said regarding Nicklaus' driving. He was very straight and long and was a better driver of the ball than Tiger. Tiger was much better wedge player than Nicklaus. Over all iron play can be considered a draw as both were outstanding. Putting, both made their share of must makes and were clutch.

 

Jack Nicklaus played in a record 154 consecutive major championships for which he was eligible from the 1957 (146 as a professional)

U.S. Open to the 1998 U.S. Open.

Major Titles: 18

6 Masters; 5 PGA Championships; 4 United States Opens; 3 British Opens

Second Place: 19

Third Place: 9

Top-Three: 48

Top-Five: 56

Top-10: 73

______________________________________________________

Tiger Woods

Major Championships played: 80 (73 as a professional)

Major Titles: 15

5 Masters; 4 PGA Championships; 3 US Opens; 3 British Opens

Second Place: 7

Third Place: 4

Top-Three: 25

Top-Five: 32

Top-10: 40

______________________________________________________

 

If the totals are broken down they are nearly identical with exception that Woods has a higher career winning percentage and Nicklaus has a litte better percentage of second place finishes. Overall, as of now the records are nearly a wash except Nicklaus has more major victories. Moot point until Woods gets to 18 major victories, which very well might happen.

[RobotDoctor]

> @JAMH03 said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > Back to the topic. This stat from page 1 is just mind boggling to me:

> > First 22 majors played: nicklaus 40 over, TW 81 under.

> > I know it doesn't tell the whole story because it's not adjusted for field stroke average, etc., but it's pretty staggering. It would have been pretty awesome to see someone with TW's game play back then.

>

> Yeah when I'm feeling sad. I often sit back put on some good organ music...

>

> Wistfully imagine myself...

> Taking my modern high single digit handicap back to some of the first US Open championships

> [](https://s3.amazonaws.com/golfwrxforums/uploads/editor/y2/e1dhvq126qnc.png "")

>

> With my 240 yard drives modern 60º wedge mallet putter. modern golf ball. I think given those EXTREME advantages I could've MAYBE given these guys a good couple of rounds

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

Every tournament is a golfer playing the field. While championships back in the late 1800s drew small fields, very few people played golf. Would I directly compare a major championship from 1895 to today? Absolutely not. To compare a major from the mid 20th century and today has relevance but are really not a straight across comparison. Equipment, talent, conditioning, availability to play as a professional, income, endorsement income, etc make a straight across comparison nearly impossible. Again, golfers are playing the field.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Jahm03, I was more talking about TW playing in the Nicklaus era with that era’s equipment. As many have stated, TW played less than modern stuff with historic result early in his career. Would’ve been cool to see his talent have an entire career Just a bit earlier.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @RobotDoctor said:

> While Tiger Woods has a terrific wedge game, the same can be said regarding Nicklaus' driving. He was very straight and long and was a better driver of the ball than Tiger. Tiger was much better wedge player than Nicklaus. Over all iron play can be considered a draw as both were outstanding. Putting, both made their share of must makes and were clutch.

>

> Jack Nicklaus played in a record 154 consecutive major championships for which he was eligible from the 1957 (146 as a professional)

> U.S. Open to the 1998 U.S. Open.

> Major Titles: 18

> 6 Masters; 5 PGA Championships; 4 United States Opens; 3 British Opens

> Second Place: 19

> Third Place: 9

> Top-Three: 48

> Top-Five: 56

> Top-10: 73

> ______________________________________________________

> Tiger Woods

> Major Championships played: 80 (73 as a professional)

> Major Titles: 15

> 5 Masters; 4 PGA Championships; 3 US Opens; 3 British Opens

> Second Place: 7

> Third Place: 4

> Top-Three: 25

> Top-Five: 32

> Top-10: 40

> ______________________________________________________

>

> If the totals are broken down they are nearly identical with exception that Woods has a higher career winning percentage and Nicklaus has a litte better percentage of second place finishes. Overall, as of now the records are nearly a wash except Nicklaus has more major victories. Moot point until Woods gets to 18 major victories, which very well might happen.

 

Man, when you see it expressed as 15 out of 73 versus 18 out of 146, it really is amazing. TW has played in exactly HALF as many majors as a pro as Nicklaus.

[RobotDoctor]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @RobotDoctor said:

> > While Tiger Woods has a terrific wedge game, the same can be said regarding Nicklaus' driving. He was very straight and long and was a better driver of the ball than Tiger. Tiger was much better wedge player than Nicklaus. Over all iron play can be considered a draw as both were outstanding. Putting, both made their share of must makes and were clutch.

> >

> > Jack Nicklaus played in a record 154 consecutive major championships for which he was eligible from the 1957 (146 as a professional)

> > U.S. Open to the 1998 U.S. Open.

> > Major Titles: 18

> > 6 Masters; 5 PGA Championships; 4 United States Opens; 3 British Opens

> > Second Place: 19

> > Third Place: 9

> > Top-Three: 48

> > Top-Five: 56

> > Top-10: 73

> > ______________________________________________________

> > Tiger Woods

> > Major Championships played: 80 (73 as a professional)

> > Major Titles: 15

> > 5 Masters; 4 PGA Championships; 3 US Opens; 3 British Opens

> > Second Place: 7

> > Third Place: 4

> > Top-Three: 25

> > Top-Five: 32

> > Top-10: 40

> > ______________________________________________________

> >

> > If the totals are broken down they are nearly identical with exception that Woods has a higher career winning percentage and Nicklaus has a litte better percentage of second place finishes. Overall, as of now the records are nearly a wash except Nicklaus has more major victories. Moot point until Woods gets to 18 major victories, which very well might happen.

>

> Man, when you see it expressed as 15 out of 73 versus 18 out of 146, it really is amazing. TW has played in exactly HALF as many majors as a pro as Nicklaus.

 

That's really true, but there's a bigger picture here. Nonetheless, Tiger's accomplishments are very impressive. That doesn't diminish or take away Nicklaus' accomplishments. Keep in mind who some of Nicklaus' competition was. Watson, Palmer, Player, Casper, Trevino, Ballesteros, Floyd, Nelson, Irwin. Just these players attributed 51 majors during Nicklaus' years of winning a major. Compare this with Mickelson, McIlroy, Singh, Harrington, Spieth, Koepka and that's 21 majors. I, on purpose, left out anyone not winning more than 3 majors then the numbers would really side with Nicklaus. Payne Stewart, Nick Price, Nick Faldo was left out because they won their majors between the Nicklaus and Woods eras.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @RobotDoctor said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @RobotDoctor said:

> > > While Tiger Woods has a terrific wedge game, the same can be said regarding Nicklaus' driving. He was very straight and long and was a better driver of the ball than Tiger. Tiger was much better wedge player than Nicklaus. Over all iron play can be considered a draw as both were outstanding. Putting, both made their share of must makes and were clutch.

> > >

> > > Jack Nicklaus played in a record 154 consecutive major championships for which he was eligible from the 1957 (146 as a professional)

> > > U.S. Open to the 1998 U.S. Open.

> > > Major Titles: 18

> > > 6 Masters; 5 PGA Championships; 4 United States Opens; 3 British Opens

> > > Second Place: 19

> > > Third Place: 9

> > > Top-Three: 48

> > > Top-Five: 56

> > > Top-10: 73

> > > ______________________________________________________

> > > Tiger Woods

> > > Major Championships played: 80 (73 as a professional)

> > > Major Titles: 15

> > > 5 Masters; 4 PGA Championships; 3 US Opens; 3 British Opens

> > > Second Place: 7

> > > Third Place: 4

> > > Top-Three: 25

> > > Top-Five: 32

> > > Top-10: 40

> > > ______________________________________________________

> > >

> > > If the totals are broken down they are nearly identical with exception that Woods has a higher career winning percentage and Nicklaus has a litte better percentage of second place finishes. Overall, as of now the records are nearly a wash except Nicklaus has more major victories. Moot point until Woods gets to 18 major victories, which very well might happen.

> >

> > Man, when you see it expressed as 15 out of 73 versus 18 out of 146, it really is amazing. TW has played in exactly HALF as many majors as a pro as Nicklaus.

>

> That's really true, but there's a bigger picture here. Nonetheless, Tiger's accomplishments are very impressive. That doesn't diminish or take away Nicklaus' accomplishments. Keep in mind who some of Nicklaus' competition was. Watson, Palmer, Player, Casper, Trevino, Ballesteros, Floyd, Nelson, Irwin. Just these players attributed 51 majors during Nicklaus' years of winning a major. Compare this with Mickelson, McIlroy, Singh, Harrington, Spieth, Koepka and that's 21 majors. I, on purpose, left out anyone not winning more than 3 majors then the numbers would really side with Nicklaus. Payne Stewart, Nick Price, Nick Faldo was left out because they won their majors between the Nicklaus and Woods eras.

 

Fair point, for sure. But I never really know how to feel about the "Nicklaus had to fight off more multiple major champs" line of thinking.

(1) Were there more multiple major winners because they were truly better and harder to beat?

(2) Or, were there more multiple major winners because there were fewer players truly capable of winning any particular major?

 

Tend to think it's a combo of (1) and (2) above. Winning breeds winning, etc. But, I mean, a club with only 3 scratch players will certainly have more guys with multiple club championships over a certain period than a club with 20 scratch players. I believe it's probably a wash.

 

 

 

[RobotDoctor]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @RobotDoctor said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > @RobotDoctor said:

> > > > While Tiger Woods has a terrific wedge game, the same can be said regarding Nicklaus' driving. He was very straight and long and was a better driver of the ball than Tiger. Tiger was much better wedge player than Nicklaus. Over all iron play can be considered a draw as both were outstanding. Putting, both made their share of must makes and were clutch.

> > > >

> > > > Jack Nicklaus played in a record 154 consecutive major championships for which he was eligible from the 1957 (146 as a professional)

> > > > U.S. Open to the 1998 U.S. Open.

> > > > Major Titles: 18

> > > > 6 Masters; 5 PGA Championships; 4 United States Opens; 3 British Opens

> > > > Second Place: 19

> > > > Third Place: 9

> > > > Top-Three: 48

> > > > Top-Five: 56

> > > > Top-10: 73

> > > > ______________________________________________________

> > > > Tiger Woods

> > > > Major Championships played: 80 (73 as a professional)

> > > > Major Titles: 15

> > > > 5 Masters; 4 PGA Championships; 3 US Opens; 3 British Opens

> > > > Second Place: 7

> > > > Third Place: 4

> > > > Top-Three: 25

> > > > Top-Five: 32

> > > > Top-10: 40

> > > > ______________________________________________________

> > > >

> > > > If the totals are broken down they are nearly identical with exception that Woods has a higher career winning percentage and Nicklaus has a litte better percentage of second place finishes. Overall, as of now the records are nearly a wash except Nicklaus has more major victories. Moot point until Woods gets to 18 major victories, which very well might happen.

> > >

> > > Man, when you see it expressed as 15 out of 73 versus 18 out of 146, it really is amazing. TW has played in exactly HALF as many majors as a pro as Nicklaus.

> >

> > That's really true, but there's a bigger picture here. Nonetheless, Tiger's accomplishments are very impressive. That doesn't diminish or take away Nicklaus' accomplishments. Keep in mind who some of Nicklaus' competition was. Watson, Palmer, Player, Casper, Trevino, Ballesteros, Floyd, Nelson, Irwin. Just these players attributed 51 majors during Nicklaus' years of winning a major. Compare this with Mickelson, McIlroy, Singh, Harrington, Spieth, Koepka and that's 21 majors. I, on purpose, left out anyone not winning more than 3 majors then the numbers would really side with Nicklaus. Payne Stewart, Nick Price, Nick Faldo was left out because they won their majors between the Nicklaus and Woods eras.

>

> Fair point, for sure. But I never really know how to feel about the "Nicklaus had to fight off more multiple major champs" line of thinking.

> (1) Were there more multiple major winners because they were truly better and harder to beat?

> (2) Or, were there more multiple major winners because there were fewer players truly capable of winning any particular major?

>

> Tend to think it's a combo of (1) and (2) above. Winning breeds winning, etc. But, I mean, a club with only 3 scratch players will certainly have more guys with multiple club championships over a certain period than a club with 20 scratch players. I believe it's probably a wash.

>

>

>

 

Sure, you can look at it that way. Then again I would take the talent of a Tom Weiskopf over Shaun Micheel any day that ends with a Y. Same goes for Justin Thomas over Tommy Aaron. While many believe the tour is much deeper today than it was 40-50 years ago, the situations were different. The PGA Tour as we know it was not in existance back in the '60s or earlier. These were PGA Professional touring golfers and the exempt field was limited. The PGA Tour came to be in the early/mid '70s. Back then the fields were a bit smaller, prize money was significantly smaller, travel amenities more spartan than today, fitness was nearly non existant maybe with exception of Gary Player and his work out regime which was more spartan than today. Equipment was significantly different, and more limited. Both eras produced terrific golfers and only in a theoretical world can golfer from each era be pitted against each other. However, this is only possible based on statistics and paper. The ultimate intangible, the mental challenge of playing with the other cannot be replicated. Would Jack Nicklaus have performed as dominantly today because of his incredible ability to strategize and execute on a course along with his sheer talent? Would Tiger Woods dominate the tour pros in the like of Palmer, Watson, Trevino and Nicklaus in their primes? That's the million dollar question and no data can support this because there is some level of objectiveness involved here.

 

Ultimately both Nicklaus and Woods are generational talents and the golf world is better for them to have played as they did.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Agreed. I think the depth of field stuff could be a wash. That’s why the total number of majors played thing is so incredible to me. That said, Nicklaus played in a LOT of them with no chance to sniff the lead, so that skews the stat.

[lowheel]

Winning majors back then didnt set you financially for life. Last year Koepka made 2 million for his US open win 1.8 for the pga.

In 1980 Jack won 55000$ for the US Open. converted for inflation today its not even 200K (170k to be exact). Guys were hungrier back then because they were scrapping for less money. Couldnt be complacent. Guys like Trevino and Floyd were major champs and still playing money games to get by. Johnny Miller confirmed this many times. That doesnt mean those guys were better but maybe hungrier. you finish 5th now and clear 400K-500k in major. the 3 2nd place finishers at the masters made 900K this year. Its easy for complacency to set in. Thats what makes Jack and Tiger so special. They dont give a damn about money.Only trophies. the mental discipline it takes to do that over 20-25 years is tremendous. I will always admire Tiger and Jacks resiliency.They have/had all the money in the world and still put themselves out there over 3 decades taking on "the next ones".

[tiderider]

> @lowheel said:

> Winning majors back then didnt set you financially for life. Last year Koepka made 2 million for his US open win 1.8 for the pga.

> In 1980 Jack won 55000$ for the US Open. converted for inflation today its not even 200K (170k to be exact). Guys were hungrier back then because they were scrapping for less money. Couldnt be complacent. Guys like Trevino and Floyd were major champs and still playing money games to get by. Johnny Miller confirmed this many times. That doesnt mean those guys were better but maybe hungrier. you finish 5th now and clear 400K-500k in major. the 3 2nd place finishers at the masters made 900K this year. Its easy for complacency to set in. Thats what makes Jack and Tiger so special. They dont give a **** about money.Only trophies. the mental discipline it takes to do that over 20-25 years is tremendous. I will always admire Tiger and Jacks resiliency.They have/had all the money in the world and still put themselves out there over 3 decades taking on "the next ones".

 


 

[lowheel]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @RobotDoctor said:

> > While Tiger Woods has a terrific wedge game, the same can be said regarding Nicklaus' driving. He was very straight and long and was a better driver of the ball than Tiger. Tiger was much better wedge player than Nicklaus. Over all iron play can be considered a draw as both were outstanding. Putting, both made their share of must makes and were clutch.

> >

> > Jack Nicklaus played in a record 154 consecutive major championships for which he was eligible from the 1957 (146 as a professional)

> > U.S. Open to the 1998 U.S. Open.

> > Major Titles: 18

> > 6 Masters; 5 PGA Championships; 4 United States Opens; 3 British Opens

> > Second Place: 19

> > Third Place: 9

> > Top-Three: 48

> > Top-Five: 56

> > Top-10: 73

> > ______________________________________________________

> > Tiger Woods

> > Major Championships played: 80 (73 as a professional)

> > Major Titles: 15

> > 5 Masters; 4 PGA Championships; 3 US Opens; 3 British Opens

> > Second Place: 7

> > Third Place: 4

> > Top-Three: 25

> > Top-Five: 32

> > Top-10: 40

> > ______________________________________________________

> >

> > If the totals are broken down they are nearly identical with exception that Woods has a higher career winning percentage and Nicklaus has a litte better percentage of second place finishes. Overall, as of now the records are nearly a wash except Nicklaus has more major victories. Moot point until Woods gets to 18 major victories, which very well might happen.

>

> Man, when you see it expressed as 15 out of 73 versus 18 out of 146, it really is amazing. TW has played in exactly HALF as many majors as a pro as Nicklaus.

 

Thats horribly misleading and wrong. the real #s are:

 

Jack : 15 majors in his first 67 majors. ( won his 14th in his 57th start/ won his 15th in his 67th start)

Tiger: 15 majors in his first 77 majors ( won his 14th in his 46th start/ won his 15th in his 77th start)

 

Jack played 84 majors after the age of 40. Won 3 majors, 2 at age 40 and 1 at 46.

Tiger has played in 5 majors past 40. Won 1 just now at age 43.

 

Context matters. Thats why those 2 stand alone in history.In 5-10-15 years we will have a better picture.The parallels are staggering except in the top 10s top 5s and top 3s where jack doubles anybody including tiger. its staggering.

 

 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @lowheel said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @RobotDoctor said:

> > > While Tiger Woods has a terrific wedge game, the same can be said regarding Nicklaus' driving. He was very straight and long and was a better driver of the ball than Tiger. Tiger was much better wedge player than Nicklaus. Over all iron play can be considered a draw as both were outstanding. Putting, both made their share of must makes and were clutch.

> > >

> > > Jack Nicklaus played in a record 154 consecutive major championships for which he was eligible from the 1957 (146 as a professional)

> > > U.S. Open to the 1998 U.S. Open.

> > > Major Titles: 18

> > > 6 Masters; 5 PGA Championships; 4 United States Opens; 3 British Opens

> > > Second Place: 19

> > > Third Place: 9

> > > Top-Three: 48

> > > Top-Five: 56

> > > Top-10: 73

> > > ______________________________________________________

> > > Tiger Woods

> > > Major Championships played: 80 (73 as a professional)

> > > Major Titles: 15

> > > 5 Masters; 4 PGA Championships; 3 US Opens; 3 British Opens

> > > Second Place: 7

> > > Third Place: 4

> > > Top-Three: 25

> > > Top-Five: 32

> > > Top-10: 40

> > > ______________________________________________________

> > >

> > > If the totals are broken down they are nearly identical with exception that Woods has a higher career winning percentage and Nicklaus has a litte better percentage of second place finishes. Overall, as of now the records are nearly a wash except Nicklaus has more major victories. Moot point until Woods gets to 18 major victories, which very well might happen.

> >

> > Man, when you see it expressed as 15 out of 73 versus 18 out of 146, it really is amazing. TW has played in exactly HALF as many majors as a pro as Nicklaus.

>

> Thats horribly misleading and wrong. the real #s are:

>

> Jack : 15 majors in his first 67 majors. ( won his 14th in his 57th start/ won his 15th in his 67th start)

> Tiger: 15 majors in his first 77 majors ( won his 14th in his 46th start/ won his 15th in his 77th start)

>

> Jack played 84 majors after the age of 40. Won 3 majors, 2 at age 40 and 1 at 46.

> Tiger has played in 5 majors past 40. Won 1 just now at age 43.

>

> Context matters. Thats why those 2 stand alone in history.In 5-10-15 years we will have a better picture.The parallels are staggering except in the top 10s top 5s and top 3s where jack doubles anybody including tiger. its staggering.

>

>

Please see my previous post. #100. I think the stat is skewed because Nicklaus played a LOT of majors late in his career with absolutely no chance to win.

 

[Steele47]

You 'stat' guys are intense. Very telling.

[Forged4ever]

“If.....”

 

“If......”

 

“If......”

 

18!!

 

All the Best Bros?

RP

[Darth Putter]

> @Forged4ever said:

> “If.....”

>

> “If......”

>

> “If......”

>

> 18!!

>

> All the Best Bros?

> RP

 

Tiger has 18

 

It's just that Jack has 20 :D

[bscinstnct]

 

 

> @Forged4ever said:

> “If.....”

>

> “If......”

>

> “If......”

>

> 18!!

>

> All the Best Bros?

> RP

 

Richard! Hope things are cool.

 

Yes, Jack has 18.

 

The TW skeptics had a go to template in these debates....

 

18>14

 

I assume they made the appropriate adjustment ; )

 

This win was big for TW. You had to think that all the crap about how he could never beat Jordan and BK and Bryson and the uber golfers at his age might get in his head.

 

So what happens? After 2 full years, 2016 and 2017 of not even playing in one major. Not one. He gets back surgery

 

and wins in the 5th Major he plays in. And the 2nd Masters he plays in.

 

For context, Rickie Fowler has played in 37 Majors and won zero

DJ, #1 in the world and JRose, #2 in the world have played, BK #3, and Rory #4 have played in a combined 38 Masters

and won zero.

 

And back fused 43 year old TW comes out and wins on his 2nd try, lol.

 

These guys are shaking their heads ; )

 

 

 

[Forged4ever]

> @bscinstnct said:

>

>

> > @Forged4ever said:

> > “If.....”

> >

> > “If......”

> >

> > “If......”

> >

> > 18!!

> >

> > All the Best Bros?

> > RP

>

> Richard! Hope things are cool.

>

> Yes, Jack has 18.

>

> The TW skeptics had a go to template in these debates....

>

> 18>14

>

> I assume they made the appropriate adjustment ; )

>

> This win was big for TW. You had to think that all the **** about how he could never beat Jordan and BK and Bryson and the uber golfers at his age might get in his head.

>

> So what happens? After 2 full years, 2016 and 2017 of not even playing in one major. Not one. He gets back surgery

>

> and wins in the 5th Major he plays in. And the 2nd Masters he plays in.

>

> For context, Rickie Fowler has played in 37 Majors and won zero

> DJ, #1 in the world and JRose, #2 in the world have played, BK #3, and Rory #4 have played in a combined 38 Masters

> and won zero.

>

> And back fused 43 year old TW comes out and wins on his 2nd try, lol.

>

> These guys are shaking their heads ; )

>

>

>

 

Hey Brother, I hope all’s well?

 

Yeppers, I’m really happy for Tiger and glad that he got that Monkey off of his back.

 

He came back from the fire hydrant debacle to reach #1 again and he’s come back from four spinal surgeries and his road side sleep over to bag possibly the biggest Major.

 

I really think that with this mental hurdle of getting his “first” major since the fire hydrant that if he stays healthy, he’s got at least 1-2 more in him and this being Tiger, who knows from there.

 

Look, Jack is my GOAT but give the man his due, he’s indisputably one of the two Greatest Champions ever.

 

That being said, it’s cute when guys bring out all of these stats about Players in their 40’s, winning Major in their 40’s, yada yada yada, when in fact, Tiger is a once in a few generations Player so any analytics, statistics or data that may be used are antiquated irrelevant and don’t apply to him.

 

Stay well Bro?

RP

 

 

[bscinstnct]

> @bscinstnct said:

>

>

>

> > @Forged4ever said:

> > “If.....”

> >

> > “If......”

> >

> > “If......”

> >

> > 18!!

> >

> > All the Best Bros?

> > RP

>

> Richard! Hope things are cool.

>

> Yes, Jack has 18.

>

> The TW skeptics had a go to template in these debates of

>

> 18>14

>

> I assume they made the appropriate adjustment ; )

>

> This win was big for TW. You had to think that all the **** about how he could never beat Jordan and BK and Bryson and the uber golfers at his age might get in his head.

>

> So what happens? After 2 full years, 2016 and 2017 of not even playing in one major. Not one. He gets back surgery

>

> and wins in the 5th Major he plays in. And the 2nd Masters he plays in.

>

> For context, Rickie Fowler has played in 37 Majors and won zero

> DJ, #1 in the world and JRose, #2 in the world have played, BK #3, and Rory #4 have played in a combined 38 Masters

> and won zero.

>

> And back fused 43 year old TW comes out and wins on his 2nd try, lol.

>

> These guys are shaking their heads ; )

>

>

>

 

> @Forged4ever said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> >

> >

> > > @Forged4ever said:

> > > “If.....”

> > >

> > > “If......”

> > >

> > > “If......”

> > >

> > > 18!!

> > >

> > > All the Best Bros?

> > > RP

> >

> > Richard! Hope things are cool.

> >

> > Yes, Jack has 18.

> >

> > The TW skeptics had a go to template in these debates....

> >

> > 18>14

> >

> > I assume they made the appropriate adjustment ; )

> >

> > This win was big for TW. You had to think that all the **** about how he could never beat Jordan and BK and Bryson and the uber golfers at his age might get in his head.

> >

> > So what happens? After 2 full years, 2016 and 2017 of not even playing in one major. Not one. He gets back surgery

> >

> > and wins in the 5th Major he plays in. And the 2nd Masters he plays in.

> >

> > For context, Rickie Fowler has played in 37 Majors and won zero

> > DJ, #1 in the world and JRose, #2 in the world have played, BK #3, and Rory #4 have played in a combined 38 Masters

> > and won zero.

> >

> > And back fused 43 year old TW comes out and wins on his 2nd try, lol.

> >

> > These guys are shaking their heads ; )

> >

> >

> >

>

> Hey Brother, I hope all’s well?

>

> Yeppers, I’m really happy for Tiger and glad that he got that Monkey off of his back.

>

> He came back from the fire hydrant debacle to reach #1 again and he’s come back from four spinal surgeries and his road side sleep over to bag possibly the biggest Major.

>

> I really think that with this mental hurdle of getting his “first” major since the fire hydrant that if he stays healthy, he’s got at least 1-2 more in him and this being Tiger, who knows from there.

>

> Look, Jack is my GOAT but give the man his due, he’s indisputably one of the two Greatest Champions ever.

>

> That being said, it’s cute when guys bring out all of these stats about Players in their 40’s, winning Major in their 40’s, yada yada yada, when in fact, Tiger is a once in a few generations Player so any analytics, statistics or data that may be used are antiquated irrelevant and don’t apply to him.

>

> Stay well Bro?

> RP

>

>

 

Yup, you have been saying that about TW, I remember, and you were right.

 

BK says it best at 7:50 seconds ; )

 

[Forged4ever]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> >

> >

> >

> > > @Forged4ever said:

> > > “If.....”

> > >

> > > “If......”

> > >

> > > “If......”

> > >

> > > 18!!

> > >

> > > All the Best Bros?

> > > RP

> >

> > Richard! Hope things are cool.

> >

> > Yes, Jack has 18.

> >

> > The TW skeptics had a go to template in these debates of

> >

> > 18>14

> >

> > I assume they made the appropriate adjustment ; )

> >

> > This win was big for TW. You had to think that all the **** about how he could never beat Jordan and BK and Bryson and the uber golfers at his age might get in his head.

> >

> > So what happens? After 2 full years, 2016 and 2017 of not even playing in one major. Not one. He gets back surgery

> >

> > and wins in the 5th Major he plays in. And the 2nd Masters he plays in.

> >

> > For context, Rickie Fowler has played in 37 Majors and won zero

> > DJ, #1 in the world and JRose, #2 in the world have played, BK #3, and Rory #4 have played in a combined 38 Masters

> > and won zero.

> >

> > And back fused 43 year old TW comes out and wins on his 2nd try, lol.

> >

> > These guys are shaking their heads ; )

> >

> >

> >

>

> > @Forged4ever said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > >

> > >

> > > > @Forged4ever said:

> > > > “If.....”

> > > >

> > > > “If......”

> > > >

> > > > “If......”

> > > >

> > > > 18!!

> > > >

> > > > All the Best Bros?

> > > > RP

> > >

> > > Richard! Hope things are cool.

> > >

> > > Yes, Jack has 18.

> > >

> > > The TW skeptics had a go to template in these debates....

> > >

> > > 18>14

> > >

> > > I assume they made the appropriate adjustment ; )

> > >

> > > This win was big for TW. You had to think that all the **** about how he could never beat Jordan and BK and Bryson and the uber golfers at his age might get in his head.

> > >

> > > So what happens? After 2 full years, 2016 and 2017 of not even playing in one major. Not one. He gets back surgery

> > >

> > > and wins in the 5th Major he plays in. And the 2nd Masters he plays in.

> > >

> > > For context, Rickie Fowler has played in 37 Majors and won zero

> > > DJ, #1 in the world and JRose, #2 in the world have played, BK #3, and Rory #4 have played in a combined 38 Masters

> > > and won zero.

> > >

> > > And back fused 43 year old TW comes out and wins on his 2nd try, lol.

> > >

> > > These guys are shaking their heads ; )

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Hey Brother, I hope all’s well?

> >

> > Yeppers, I’m really happy for Tiger and glad that he got that Monkey off of his back.

> >

> > He came back from the fire hydrant debacle to reach #1 again and he’s come back from four spinal surgeries and his road side sleep over to bag possibly the biggest Major.

> >

> > I really think that with this mental hurdle of getting his “first” major since the fire hydrant that if he stays healthy, he’s got at least 1-2 more in him and this being Tiger, who knows from there.

> >

> > Look, Jack is my GOAT but give the man his due, he’s indisputably one of the two Greatest Champions ever.

> >

> > That being said, it’s cute when guys bring out all of these stats about Players in their 40’s, winning Major in their 40’s, yada yada yada, when in fact, Tiger is a once in a few generations Player so any analytics, statistics or data that may be used are antiquated irrelevant and don’t apply to him.

> >

> > Stay well Bro?

> > RP

> >

> >

>

> Yup, you have been saying that about TW, I remember, and you were right.

>

> BK says it best at 7:50 seconds ; )

>

>

 

Brooks is a Class Class Act and I’ve really liked him since I saw his first US Open Sunday back nine and he’s the first since Pre-09 Tiger of ANY of these guys who I thought had Tiger’s level of intensity, focus and discipline in pressure situations and in fact I’ve got $3500($1500, $1k, $1k) riding on him getting one more major by 2022. I said that afternoon after his romp at Erin Hills that he’s gonna get 4 majors in the next 5 years(2022) and three dbags doubted me and took me up on it, lol. I’ll always back my mouth with my money, lolol

 

It’s funny cuz guys were callin, texting and all in a tizzy last Sunday cuz they thought that this was gonna his fourth however I told em that I hoped not, not if it was Tiger that he had to beat to get it, lolol

 

Brooksy’s gonna get his fourth soon, definitely before 2022 and I’m gonna win my bet(s), though I’m glad that Tiger did his thing and got his 5th/15th.

 

The amazing thing to me is that his swing & his game now is nothing like it was in the past though just as when guys would marvel over Sam’s swing and game into his 70’s, pre-stroke, and they’d ask him what his key was and he’d hold his hands up and turn them palm out and back in front of the guy then tap the side of his head~

 

Hands & Head!!

 

The head is obvious and as Tiger said, he’s got a library to call upon that no other golfer on earth has, and as long as his hands are good, and this is extremely critical with his putting, he’s ALWAYS gonna be a threat.

 

Will he dominate as he did in his earliest days?

 

Of course not, cuz not even he could keep that up

 

BUT, that domination has given him thousands of chapters, pictures and visions that he can summon and draw on in pressure situations that NO ONE else can even fantasize about, much less call upon to act on.

 

Nah, as long as his back holds out and he’s got the hands, Ole Tiger’s gonna be just fine?

 

All the Best?

Richard

[Hawkeye77]

> @bscinstnct said:

>

>

> > @Forged4ever said:

> > “If.....”

> >

> > “If......”

> >

> > “If......”

> >

> > 18!!

> >

> > All the Best Bros?

> > RP

>

> Richard! Hope things are cool.

>

> Yes, Jack has 18.

>

> The TW skeptics had a go to template in these debates....

>

> 18>14

>

> I assume they made the appropriate adjustment ; )

>

> This win was big for TW. You had to think that all the **** about how he could never beat Jordan and BK and Bryson and the uber golfers at his age might get in his head.

>

> So what happens? After 2 full years, 2016 and 2017 of not even playing in one major. Not one. He gets back surgery

>

> and wins in the 5th Major he plays in. And the 2nd Masters he plays in.

>

> For context, Rickie Fowler has played in 37 Majors and won zero

> DJ, #1 in the world and JRose, #2 in the world have played, BK #3, and Rory #4 have played in a combined 38 Masters

> and won zero.

>

> And back fused 43 year old TW comes out and wins on his 2nd try, lol.

>

> These guys are shaking their heads ; )

>

>

>

18>15

 

I made the adjustment!

 

And I'm not a Tiger skeptic, just waiting to judge, if I do, when the regular Tour career is over and the dust settles! But they can both be the greatest players of the eras they competed in and why isn't that enough?

 

 

 

[tatertot]

I've always said Jack is better than Tiger ... Because we've seen the totality of Jack's career. Tiger is still writing his. Everybody is in such a hurry today to anoint somebody the GOAT in the middle of their career. Let it play out, and than let the record books prove it.

 

In the meantime, sit back and enjoy the show guys like Tiger, LeBron and Brady are putting on for us.

[JAMH03]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @RobotDoctor said:

> > While Tiger Woods has a terrific wedge game, the same can be said regarding Nicklaus' driving. He was very straight and long and was a better driver of the ball than Tiger. Tiger was much better wedge player than Nicklaus. Over all iron play can be considered a draw as both were outstanding. Putting, both made their share of must makes and were clutch.

> >

> > Jack Nicklaus played in a record 154 consecutive major championships for which he was eligible from the 1957 (146 as a professional)

> > U.S. Open to the 1998 U.S. Open.

> > Major Titles: 18

> > 6 Masters; 5 PGA Championships; 4 United States Opens; 3 British Opens

> > Second Place: 19

> > Third Place: 9

> > Top-Three: 48

> > Top-Five: 56

> > Top-10: 73

> > ______________________________________________________

> > Tiger Woods

> > Major Championships played: 80 (73 as a professional)

> > Major Titles: 15

> > 5 Masters; 4 PGA Championships; 3 US Opens; 3 British Opens

> > Second Place: 7

> > Third Place: 4

> > Top-Three: 25

> > Top-Five: 32

> > Top-10: 40

> > ______________________________________________________

> >

> > If the totals are broken down they are nearly identical with exception that Woods has a higher career winning percentage and Nicklaus has a litte better percentage of second place finishes. Overall, as of now the records are nearly a wash except Nicklaus has more major victories. Moot point until Woods gets to 18 major victories, which very well might happen.

>

> Man, when you see it expressed as 15 out of 73 versus 18 out of 146, it really is amazing. TW has played in exactly HALF as many majors as a pro as Nicklaus.

 

 

FWIW I have to imagine a fair # of those majors Jack played in after 1989 Jacks 50th year?

And if we were being truly fair I think we'd have to stop taking away from Jack's major wins after age 45 or even 40 but of course still give him credit for his high finishes then as so few players win after those ages.

 

Just a little note from Wikipedia here.

 

Looks like 48 Majors played in after 50

 

Probably changes the comparisons and win %'s a bit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

@JAMH03 said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @RobotDoctor said:

> > > While Tiger Woods has a terrific wedge game, the same can be said regarding Nicklaus' driving. He was very straight and long and was a better driver of the ball than Tiger. Tiger was much better wedge player than Nicklaus. Over all iron play can be considered a draw as both were outstanding. Putting, both made their share of must makes and were clutch.

> > >

> > > Jack Nicklaus played in a record 154 consecutive major championships for which he was eligible from the 1957 (146 as a professional)

> > > U.S. Open to the 1998 U.S. Open.

> > > Major Titles: 18

> > > 6 Masters; 5 PGA Championships; 4 United States Opens; 3 British Opens

> > > Second Place: 19

> > > Third Place: 9

> > > Top-Three: 48

> > > Top-Five: 56

> > > Top-10: 73

> > > ______________________________________________________

> > > Tiger Woods

> > > Major Championships played: 80 (73 as a professional)

> > > Major Titles: 15

> > > 5 Masters; 4 PGA Championships; 3 US Opens; 3 British Opens

> > > Second Place: 7

> > > Third Place: 4

> > > Top-Three: 25

> > > Top-Five: 32

> > > Top-10: 40

> > > ______________________________________________________

> > >

> > > If the totals are broken down they are nearly identical with exception that Woods has a higher career winning percentage and Nicklaus has a litte better percentage of second place finishes. Overall, as of now the records are nearly a wash except Nicklaus has more major victories. Moot point until Woods gets to 18 major victories, which very well might happen.

> >

> > Man, when you see it expressed as 15 out of 73 versus 18 out of 146, it really is amazing. TW has played in exactly HALF as many majors as a pro as Nicklaus.

>

>

> FWIW I have to imagine a fair # of those majors Jack played in after 1989 Jacks 50th year?

> And if we were being truly fair I think we'd have to stop taking away from Jack's major wins after age 45 or even 40 but of course still give him credit for his high finishes then as so few players win after those ages.

>

> Just a little note from Wikipedia here.

>

> Looks like 48 Majors played in after 50

>

> Probably changes the comparisons and win %'s a bit.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

Totally. See posts #s 100 and 104 above.

[Big A HG]

There are arguments that support both Jack and Tiger being the GOAT. The reason is, there is a different foundation to each logic. I categorize them like this:

 

-Greatest golf career: Jack

-Greatest golf ability: Tiger

 

The career part is pretty self-explanatory when referencing Jack. What I mean by greatest golf ability for Tiger is that his best would beat Jack's best. When Tiger won the grand slam (I don't believe it's any less of an achievement that he didn't do it entirely in a calendar year), he was borderline unstoppable. There wasn't a flaw in his game. He was longer than almost all, his irons were unrivaled, a short game that Seve would admire, and the lights out putting. Whether it be individual shots or entire tournaments, Tiger could do things that no one else would dream of doing, including Jack.

 

I greatly admire and respect Jack as someone who grew up watching Tiger Woods since day one. I really hate trouncing on his career like it's nothing compared to Tiger. But, even with Tiger not matching Jack's record there yet, the heart of my bias puts Tiger's career at or above Jack's, even at only 15. But...we're not done yet, either. :)

[LICC]

> @Anchor44 said:

> What shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that the PGA tour was VERY different when Jack played. There was only a handful of superstars and he didn't have to compete with near the depth that Tiger did. And, courses were shorter when Jack played.

> I have great respect for Jack but Tiger is the GOAT.

 

> @bulls9999 said:

> I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

>

 

The current day fields are clearly much deeper than the 1960s and 1970s. But I don’t know how much that matters when evaluating Jack’s accomplishments vs Tiger, because even today the top 1/4th of players win almost all the tournaments. The talent levels are such that the bottom half to 3/4 of the fields don’t matter most of the time.

[Lagavulin62]

> @LICC said:

> > @Anchor44 said:

> > What shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that the PGA tour was VERY different when Jack played. There was only a handful of superstars and he didn't have to compete with near the depth that Tiger did. And, courses were shorter when Jack played.

> > I have great respect for Jack but Tiger is the GOAT.

>

> > @bulls9999 said:

> > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> >

>

> The current day fields are clearly much deeper than the 1960s and 1970s. But I don’t know how much that matters when evaluating Jack’s accomplishments vs Tiger, because even today the top 1/4th of players win almost all the tournaments. The talent levels are such that the bottom half to 3/4 of the fields don’t matter most of the time.

 

Every sport they try and compare in this way. It never works out as it’s all relative. Everybody shoots for majors and the one with the most wins. I think Jack’s record is safe for a long time. Even Tiger’s at second.

[bscinstnct]

> @Lagavulin62 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Anchor44 said:

> > > What shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that the PGA tour was VERY different when Jack played. There was only a handful of superstars and he didn't have to compete with near the depth that Tiger did. And, courses were shorter when Jack played.

> > > I have great respect for Jack but Tiger is the GOAT.

> >

> > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > >

> >

> > The current day fields are clearly much deeper than the 1960s and 1970s. But I don’t know how much that matters when evaluating Jack’s accomplishments vs Tiger, because even today the top 1/4th of players win almost all the tournaments. The talent levels are such that the bottom half to 3/4 of the fields don’t matter most of the time.

>

> Every sport they try and compare in this way. It never works out as it’s all relative. Everybody shoots for majors and the one with the most wins. I think Jack’s record is safe for a long time. Even Tiger’s at second.

 

Cy Youngs win record will never be broken either. But it doesn't mean that we end the discussion on the greatest pitcher of all time with him.

 

Lot's of things to look at with Jack. As some have pointed out, there were a handful of actual full time travelling tournament players and a lot of guys who were local pros playing events. Nowhere near the depth.

 

And physically? Jack would be another big hitter now. He'd be out there with a bunch of guys his size or bigger hitting as far or farther.

 

Look at 2 of his main competitors. Trevino and Gary player. They were both like 5' 6, 5'7. Besides Rory, and unlike LT and GP, Rory is a big hitter, is there anyone on the tour now that size who wins majors or even wins with any regularity?

[LICC]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @Lagavulin62 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Anchor44 said:

> > > > What shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that the PGA tour was VERY different when Jack played. There was only a handful of superstars and he didn't have to compete with near the depth that Tiger did. And, courses were shorter when Jack played.

> > > > I have great respect for Jack but Tiger is the GOAT.

> > >

> > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > >

> > >

> > > The current day fields are clearly much deeper than the 1960s and 1970s. But I don’t know how much that matters when evaluating Jack’s accomplishments vs Tiger, because even today the top 1/4th of players win almost all the tournaments. The talent levels are such that the bottom half to 3/4 of the fields don’t matter most of the time.

> >

> > Every sport they try and compare in this way. It never works out as it’s all relative. Everybody shoots for majors and the one with the most wins. I think Jack’s record is safe for a long time. Even Tiger’s at second.

>

> Cy Youngs win record will never be broken either. But it doesn't mean that we end the discussion on the greatest pitcher of all time with him.

>

> Lot's of things to look at with Jack. As some have pointed out, there were a handful of actual full time travelling tournament players and a lot of guys who were local pros playing events. Nowhere near the depth.

>

> And physically? Jack would be another big hitter now. He'd be out there with a bunch of guys his size or bigger hitting as far or farther.

>

> Look at 2 of his main competitors. Trevino and Gary player. They were both like 5' 6, 5'7. Besides Rory, and unlike LT and GP, Rory is a big hitter, is there anyone on the tour now that size who wins majors or even wins with any regularity?

 

I think this whole "depth" argument against Jack is overblown. In today's game, after the top 60-70 players it doesn't matter. After them, the rest of the players almost never win.

Jack was an amazingly long hitter relative to his peers. There is no reason to think that if he was in his prime youth today, he wouldn't be at the top in driving distance as well. He would dial up 300+ yard drives with persimmon drivers and balata balls. A 25 year-old Jack today would be hitting booming drives. Height isn't the major factor in driving distance. JB Holmes is under 6' and he crushes it. Justin Thomas, Xander Schauffele, Rickie Fowler are not big guys. And there were physically taller players than Gary Player back in the 1960s and 1970s. Arnie, Weiskopf, Miller, etc.

[Lagavulin62]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @Lagavulin62 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Anchor44 said:

> > > > What shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that the PGA tour was VERY different when Jack played. There was only a handful of superstars and he didn't have to compete with near the depth that Tiger did. And, courses were shorter when Jack played.

> > > > I have great respect for Jack but Tiger is the GOAT.

> > >

> > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > >

> > >

> > > The current day fields are clearly much deeper than the 1960s and 1970s. But I don’t know how much that matters when evaluating Jack’s accomplishments vs Tiger, because even today the top 1/4th of players win almost all the tournaments. The talent levels are such that the bottom half to 3/4 of the fields don’t matter most of the time.

> >

> > Every sport they try and compare in this way. It never works out as it’s all relative. Everybody shoots for majors and the one with the most wins. I think Jack’s record is safe for a long time. Even Tiger’s at second.

>

> Cy Youngs win record will never be broken either. But it doesn't mean that we end the discussion on the greatest pitcher of all time with him.

>

> Lot's of things to look at with Jack. As some have pointed out, there were a handful of actual full time travelling tournament players and a lot of guys who were local pros playing events. Nowhere near the depth.

>

> And physically? Jack would be another big hitter now. He'd be out there with a bunch of guys his size or bigger hitting as far or farther.

>

> Look at 2 of his main competitors. Trevino and Gary player. They were both like 5' 6, 5'7. Besides Rory, and unlike LT and GP, Rory is a big hitter, is there anyone on the tour now that size who wins majors or even wins with any regularity?

 

I just think it’s unfair to try and knock the competition of the past and then say that the star player back then couldn't dominate today. Well he couldn't if he were the same person with the same equipment back then trying to compete with today’s standards. It’s just as silly as knocking any historical figure for his ancient beliefs as compared to today.

 

But I think if you take snapshots and compare how each did within their era that can be useful.