The Secret History of Tiger Woods -

[drewtaylor21]

And he did all that in an era of unprecedented worldwide representation in golf. The talent pool from which the PGA Tour is picked is much, much larger than it was 40 years ago. Jack played at a time when very few non-Americans were playing. It's conceivable that the lack of money may have made for harder competitors, but it's also conceivable that the lack of money may have dissuaded some potential strong players from even trying. I choose to believe (and I acknowledge it is just a belief) that the vastly increased talent pool makes for better players at the top. If you pick the best ten players from a pool of 100 and I pick the best ten players from a pool of 1,000, it's quite likely that my ten players will be better than your ten players. That's true no matter how good your ten players are at beating each other.

 

Great post!

 

For those who only want to use 18 majors as the measuring stick, I get it, and will gladly concede Jack is the greatest major championship golfer of all time (or my title, "Greatest Champion."). For me personally, the whole body of work must be considered, and in that case, Tiger is my "Greatest Player Ever," for the very records you posted. When TW turned 40 over the winter, GC compiled a list of his top 40 numerical records. This stuff absolutely blows my mind. Literally, all i can do is read this and shake my head. I've made no secret that I'm also on the side of believing that the talent pool is much deeper today, which makes this all the more impressive, but as you said Ty, that's open to debate (see last 15 pages lol). Bottom line, wherever he stands on your list, Tiger Woods was a FREAK of a golfer.

 

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/stats-incredible-tigers-40-greatest-numerical-records/

[bscinstnct]

And he did all that in an era of unprecedented worldwide representation in golf. The talent pool from which the PGA Tour is picked is much, much larger than it was 40 years ago. Jack played at a time when very few non-Americans were playing. It's conceivable that the lack of money may have made for harder competitors, but it's also conceivable that the lack of money may have dissuaded some potential strong players from even trying. I choose to believe (and I acknowledge it is just a belief) that the vastly increased talent pool makes for better players at the top. If you pick the best ten players from a pool of 100 and I pick the best ten players from a pool of 1,000, it's quite likely that my ten players will be better than your ten players. That's true no matter how good your ten players are at beating each other.

 

Great post!

 

For those who only want to use 18 majors as the measuring stick, I get it, and will gladly concede Jack is the greatest major championship golfer of all time (or my title, "Greatest Champion."). For me personally, the whole body of work must be considered, and in that case, Tiger is my "Greatest Player Ever," for the very records you posted. When TW turned 40 over the winter, GC compiled a list of his top 40 numerical records. This stuff absolutely blows my mind. Literally, all i can do is read this and shake my head. I've made no secret that I'm also on the side of believing that the talent pool is much deeper today, which makes this all the more impressive, but as you said Ty, that's open to debate (see last 15 pages lol). Bottom line, wherever he stands on your list, Tiger Woods was a FREAK of a golfer.

 

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/stats-incredible-tigers-40-greatest-numerical-records/

 

You guys crushed it.

 

From your link:

 

 

"From 2002-05, Woods had 1,540 putts from 3 feet and in on the PGA Tour. He only missed three of them."

[Scotty1140]

And he did all that in an era of unprecedented worldwide representation in golf. The talent pool from which the PGA Tour is picked is much, much larger than it was 40 years ago. Jack played at a time when very few non-Americans were playing. It's conceivable that the lack of money may have made for harder competitors, but it's also conceivable that the lack of money may have dissuaded some potential strong players from even trying. I choose to believe (and I acknowledge it is just a belief) that the vastly increased talent pool makes for better players at the top. If you pick the best ten players from a pool of 100 and I pick the best ten players from a pool of 1,000, it's quite likely that my ten players will be better than your ten players. That's true no matter how good your ten players are at beating each other.

 

Great post!

 

For those who only want to use 18 majors as the measuring stick, I get it, and will gladly concede Jack is the greatest major championship golfer of all time (or my title, "Greatest Champion."). For me personally, the whole body of work must be considered, and in that case, Tiger is my "Greatest Player Ever," for the very records you posted. When TW turned 40 over the winter, GC compiled a list of his top 40 numerical records. This stuff absolutely blows my mind. Literally, all i can do is read this and shake my head. I've made no secret that I'm also on the side of believing that the talent pool is much deeper today, which makes this all the more impressive, but as you said Ty, that's open to debate (see last 15 pages lol). Bottom line, wherever he stands on your list, Tiger Woods was a FREAK of a golfer.

 

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/stats-incredible-tigers-40-greatest-numerical-records/

 

You guys crushed it.

 

From your link:

 

 

"From 2002-05, Woods had 1,540 putts from 3 feet and in on the PGA Tour. He only missed three of them."

That stat is crazy.

[Shilgy]

And he did all that in an era of unprecedented worldwide representation in golf. The talent pool from which the PGA Tour is picked is much, much larger than it was 40 years ago. Jack played at a time when very few non-Americans were playing. It's conceivable that the lack of money may have made for harder competitors, but it's also conceivable that the lack of money may have dissuaded some potential strong players from even trying. I choose to believe (and I acknowledge it is just a belief) that the vastly increased talent pool makes for better players at the top. If you pick the best ten players from a pool of 100 and I pick the best ten players from a pool of 1,000, it's quite likely that my ten players will be better than your ten players. That's true no matter how good your ten players are at beating each other.

 

Great post!

 

For those who only want to use 18 majors as the measuring stick, I get it, and will gladly concede Jack is the greatest major championship golfer of all time (or my title, "Greatest Champion."). For me personally, the whole body of work must be considered, and in that case, Tiger is my "Greatest Player Ever," for the very records you posted. When TW turned 40 over the winter, GC compiled a list of his top 40 numerical records. This stuff absolutely blows my mind. Literally, all i can do is read this and shake my head. I've made no secret that I'm also on the side of believing that the talent pool is much deeper today, which makes this all the more impressive, but as you said Ty, that's open to debate (see last 15 pages lol). Bottom line, wherever he stands on your list, Tiger Woods was a FREAK of a golfer.

 

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/stats-incredible-tigers-40-greatest-numerical-records/

That's all pretty good and all but is he better than Hagen? He did beat Bobby Jones one day. :)

[jffuller]

And he did all that in an era of unprecedented worldwide representation in golf. The talent pool from which the PGA Tour is picked is much, much larger than it was 40 years ago. Jack played at a time when very few non-Americans were playing. It's conceivable that the lack of money may have made for harder competitors, but it's also conceivable that the lack of money may have dissuaded some potential strong players from even trying. I choose to believe (and I acknowledge it is just a belief) that the vastly increased talent pool makes for better players at the top. If you pick the best ten players from a pool of 100 and I pick the best ten players from a pool of 1,000, it's quite likely that my ten players will be better than your ten players. That's true no matter how good your ten players are at beating each other.

 

Great post!

 

For those who only want to use 18 majors as the measuring stick, I get it, and will gladly concede Jack is the greatest major championship golfer of all time (or my title, "Greatest Champion."). For me personally, the whole body of work must be considered, and in that case, Tiger is my "Greatest Player Ever," for the very records you posted. When TW turned 40 over the winter, GC compiled a list of his top 40 numerical records. This stuff absolutely blows my mind. Literally, all i can do is read this and shake my head. I've made no secret that I'm also on the side of believing that the talent pool is much deeper today, which makes this all the more impressive, but as you said Ty, that's open to debate (see last 15 pages lol). Bottom line, wherever he stands on your list, Tiger Woods was a FREAK of a golfer.

 

http://www.golfchann...erical-records/

 

Number 1...126 under par in majors from 1997-2008. Next best? 63 over par, 189 shots worse. Wow.

[tannyhoban]

And he did all that in an era of unprecedented worldwide representation in golf. The talent pool from which the PGA Tour is picked is much, much larger than it was 40 years ago. Jack played at a time when very few non-Americans were playing. It's conceivable that the lack of money may have made for harder competitors, but it's also conceivable that the lack of money may have dissuaded some potential strong players from even trying. I choose to believe (and I acknowledge it is just a belief) that the vastly increased talent pool makes for better players at the top. If you pick the best ten players from a pool of 100 and I pick the best ten players from a pool of 1,000, it's quite likely that my ten players will be better than your ten players. That's true no matter how good your ten players are at beating each other.

 

Great post!

 

For those who only want to use 18 majors as the measuring stick, I get it, and will gladly concede Jack is the greatest major championship golfer of all time (or my title, "Greatest Champion."). For me personally, the whole body of work must be considered, and in that case, Tiger is my "Greatest Player Ever," for the very records you posted. When TW turned 40 over the winter, GC compiled a list of his top 40 numerical records. This stuff absolutely blows my mind. Literally, all i can do is read this and shake my head. I've made no secret that I'm also on the side of believing that the talent pool is much deeper today, which makes this all the more impressive, but as you said Ty, that's open to debate (see last 15 pages lol). Bottom line, wherever he stands on your list, Tiger Woods was a FREAK of a golfer.

 

http://www.golfchann...erical-records/

 

Number 1...126 under par in majors from 1997-2008. Next best? 63 over par, 189 shots worse. Wow.

 

Which begs the question, where was his competition?

[tsecor]

And he did all that in an era of unprecedented worldwide representation in golf. The talent pool from which the PGA Tour is picked is much, much larger than it was 40 years ago. Jack played at a time when very few non-Americans were playing. It's conceivable that the lack of money may have made for harder competitors, but it's also conceivable that the lack of money may have dissuaded some potential strong players from even trying. I choose to believe (and I acknowledge it is just a belief) that the vastly increased talent pool makes for better players at the top. If you pick the best ten players from a pool of 100 and I pick the best ten players from a pool of 1,000, it's quite likely that my ten players will be better than your ten players. That's true no matter how good your ten players are at beating each other.

 

Great post!

 

For those who only want to use 18 majors as the measuring stick, I get it, and will gladly concede Jack is the greatest major championship golfer of all time (or my title, "Greatest Champion."). For me personally, the whole body of work must be considered, and in that case, Tiger is my "Greatest Player Ever," for the very records you posted. When TW turned 40 over the winter, GC compiled a list of his top 40 numerical records. This stuff absolutely blows my mind. Literally, all i can do is read this and shake my head. I've made no secret that I'm also on the side of believing that the talent pool is much deeper today, which makes this all the more impressive, but as you said Ty, that's open to debate (see last 15 pages lol). Bottom line, wherever he stands on your list, Tiger Woods was a FREAK of a golfer.

 

http://www.golfchann...erical-records/

 

Number 1...126 under par in majors from 1997-2008. Next best? 63 over par, 189 shots worse. Wow.

 

if you throw in Jacks whole body of work and compare it to tigers, it makes it worse.....head to head Nicklaus has a huge advantage in major competition.....this argument is basically funny especially when you compare top 10's

 

Nicklaus finished second in 19 majors, and Woods has six runner-up results....lol..... Nicklaus had 48 top-three finishes at Slams, twice as many as Woods.....lol!!!!!

• 
  The list of records that resides next to Jack Nicklaus's name is long. Most notable are his 18 major championships and his half-dozen Masters titles. Only Tiger Woods (14) and Walter Hagen (11) have even half as many of the sport's coveted crowns as Nicklaus.
   
  Just as staggering: Jack finished in the top three 46 times in 164 starts. In the British Open alone, he has seven second-place showings. How many majors should Jack have won? he easily could have set the bar at 28
  
• 
  here is some other facts that show the total body of work makes tiger look like an amateur next to the BEAR, the greatest golfer, champion and person....there is no debate
   
  http://www.golfchannel.com/news/brandel-chamblee/tiger-vs-jack-head-head-majors/
  

[jffuller]

And he did all that in an era of unprecedented worldwide representation in golf. The talent pool from which the PGA Tour is picked is much, much larger than it was 40 years ago. Jack played at a time when very few non-Americans were playing. It's conceivable that the lack of money may have made for harder competitors, but it's also conceivable that the lack of money may have dissuaded some potential strong players from even trying. I choose to believe (and I acknowledge it is just a belief) that the vastly increased talent pool makes for better players at the top. If you pick the best ten players from a pool of 100 and I pick the best ten players from a pool of 1,000, it's quite likely that my ten players will be better than your ten players. That's true no matter how good your ten players are at beating each other.

 

Great post!

 

For those who only want to use 18 majors as the measuring stick, I get it, and will gladly concede Jack is the greatest major championship golfer of all time (or my title, "Greatest Champion."). For me personally, the whole body of work must be considered, and in that case, Tiger is my "Greatest Player Ever," for the very records you posted. When TW turned 40 over the winter, GC compiled a list of his top 40 numerical records. This stuff absolutely blows my mind. Literally, all i can do is read this and shake my head. I've made no secret that I'm also on the side of believing that the talent pool is much deeper today, which makes this all the more impressive, but as you said Ty, that's open to debate (see last 15 pages lol). Bottom line, wherever he stands on your list, Tiger Woods was a FREAK of a golfer.

 

http://www.golfchann...erical-records/

 

Number 1...126 under par in majors from 1997-2008. Next best? 63 over par, 189 shots worse. Wow.

 

Which begs the question, where was his competition?

 

From the scoring chart before, 3x as many were averaging under par as compared to 1980...so they were there.

[tannyhoban]

And he did all that in an era of unprecedented worldwide representation in golf. The talent pool from which the PGA Tour is picked is much, much larger than it was 40 years ago. Jack played at a time when very few non-Americans were playing. It's conceivable that the lack of money may have made for harder competitors, but it's also conceivable that the lack of money may have dissuaded some potential strong players from even trying. I choose to believe (and I acknowledge it is just a belief) that the vastly increased talent pool makes for better players at the top. If you pick the best ten players from a pool of 100 and I pick the best ten players from a pool of 1,000, it's quite likely that my ten players will be better than your ten players. That's true no matter how good your ten players are at beating each other.

 

Great post!

 

For those who only want to use 18 majors as the measuring stick, I get it, and will gladly concede Jack is the greatest major championship golfer of all time (or my title, "Greatest Champion."). For me personally, the whole body of work must be considered, and in that case, Tiger is my "Greatest Player Ever," for the very records you posted. When TW turned 40 over the winter, GC compiled a list of his top 40 numerical records. This stuff absolutely blows my mind. Literally, all i can do is read this and shake my head. I've made no secret that I'm also on the side of believing that the talent pool is much deeper today, which makes this all the more impressive, but as you said Ty, that's open to debate (see last 15 pages lol). Bottom line, wherever he stands on your list, Tiger Woods was a FREAK of a golfer.

 

http://www.golfchann...erical-records/

 

Number 1...126 under par in majors from 1997-2008. Next best? 63 over par, 189 shots worse. Wow.

 

Which begs the question, where was his competition?

 

From the scoring chart before, 3x as many were averaging under par as compared to 1980...so they were there.

 

Umm yeah, except for the majors.

[Shilgy]

And he did all that in an era of unprecedented worldwide representation in golf. The talent pool from which the PGA Tour is picked is much, much larger than it was 40 years ago. Jack played at a time when very few non-Americans were playing. It's conceivable that the lack of money may have made for harder competitors, but it's also conceivable that the lack of money may have dissuaded some potential strong players from even trying. I choose to believe (and I acknowledge it is just a belief) that the vastly increased talent pool makes for better players at the top. If you pick the best ten players from a pool of 100 and I pick the best ten players from a pool of 1,000, it's quite likely that my ten players will be better than your ten players. That's true no matter how good your ten players are at beating each other.

 

Great post!

 

For those who only want to use 18 majors as the measuring stick, I get it, and will gladly concede Jack is the greatest major championship golfer of all time (or my title, "Greatest Champion."). For me personally, the whole body of work must be considered, and in that case, Tiger is my "Greatest Player Ever," for the very records you posted. When TW turned 40 over the winter, GC compiled a list of his top 40 numerical records. This stuff absolutely blows my mind. Literally, all i can do is read this and shake my head. I've made no secret that I'm also on the side of believing that the talent pool is much deeper today, which makes this all the more impressive, but as you said Ty, that's open to debate (see last 15 pages lol). Bottom line, wherever he stands on your list, Tiger Woods was a FREAK of a golfer.

 

http://www.golfchann...erical-records/

 

Number 1...126 under par in majors from 1997-2008. Next best? 63 over par, 189 shots worse. Wow.

 

Which begs the question, where was his competition?

Where was Jack's if all he had to do was tee it up and get a top 3. Works both ways.

[jffuller]

And he did all that in an era of unprecedented worldwide representation in golf. The talent pool from which the PGA Tour is picked is much, much larger than it was 40 years ago. Jack played at a time when very few non-Americans were playing. It's conceivable that the lack of money may have made for harder competitors, but it's also conceivable that the lack of money may have dissuaded some potential strong players from even trying. I choose to believe (and I acknowledge it is just a belief) that the vastly increased talent pool makes for better players at the top. If you pick the best ten players from a pool of 100 and I pick the best ten players from a pool of 1,000, it's quite likely that my ten players will be better than your ten players. That's true no matter how good your ten players are at beating each other.

 

Great post!

 

For those who only want to use 18 majors as the measuring stick, I get it, and will gladly concede Jack is the greatest major championship golfer of all time (or my title, "Greatest Champion."). For me personally, the whole body of work must be considered, and in that case, Tiger is my "Greatest Player Ever," for the very records you posted. When TW turned 40 over the winter, GC compiled a list of his top 40 numerical records. This stuff absolutely blows my mind. Literally, all i can do is read this and shake my head. I've made no secret that I'm also on the side of believing that the talent pool is much deeper today, which makes this all the more impressive, but as you said Ty, that's open to debate (see last 15 pages lol). Bottom line, wherever he stands on your list, Tiger Woods was a FREAK of a golfer.

 

http://www.golfchann...erical-records/

 

Number 1...126 under par in majors from 1997-2008. Next best? 63 over par, 189 shots worse. Wow.

 

if you throw in Jacks whole body of work and compare it to tigers, it makes it worse.....

 

Nicklaus finished second in 19 majors, and Woods has six runner-up results. Nicklaus had 48 top-three finishes at Slams, twice as many as Woods.

 

 

Here's a chart of their majors as professionals, in order and head-to-head: No. Jack's majors Result Tiger's majors Result Better Tally 1 1962 Masters T-15 1997 Masters Won Woods 1-0, Woods 2 1962 U.S. Open Won 1997 U.S. Open T-19 Nicklaus 1-1 3 1962 British T-34 1997 British T-24 Woods 2-1, Woods 4 1962 PGA T-3 1997 PGA T-29 Nicklaus 2-2 5 1963 Masters Won (2) 1998 Masters T-8 Nicklaus 3-2, Nicklaus 6 1963 U.S. Open MC 1998 U.S. Open T-18 Woods 3-3 7 1963 British 3rd 1998 British 3rd Tie 3-3-1 8 1963 PGA Won (3) 1998 PGA T-10 Nicklaus 4-3-1, Nicklaus 9 1964 Masters T-2 1999 Masters T-18 Nicklaus 5-3-1, Nicklaus 10 1964 U.S. Open T-23 1999 U.S. Open T-3 Woods 5-4-1, Nicklaus 11 1964 British 2nd 1999 British T-7 Nicklaus 6-4-1, Nicklaus 12 1964 PGA T-2 1999 PGA Won (2) Woods 6-5-1, Nicklaus 13 1965 Masters Won (4) 2000 Masters 5th Nicklaus 7-5-1, Nicklaus 14 1965 U.S. Open T-31 2000 U.S. Open Won (3) Woods 7-6-1, Nicklaus 15 1965 British T-12 2000 British Won (4) Woods 7-7-1 16 1965 PGA T-2 2000 PGA Won (5) Woods 8-7-1, Woods 17 1966 Masters Won (5) 2001 Masters Won (6) Tie 8-7-2, Woods 18 1966 U.S. Open 3rd 2001 U.S. Open T-12 Nicklaus 8-8-2 19 1966 British Won (6) 2001 British T-25 Nicklaus 9-8-2, Nicklaus 20 1966 PGA T-22 2001 PGA T-29 Nicklaus 10-8-2, Nicklaus 21 1967 Masters MC 2002 Masters Won (7) Woods 10-9-2, Nicklaus 22 1967 U.S. Open Won (7) 2002 U.S. Open Won (8) Tie 10-9-3, Nicklaus 23 1967 British 2nd 2002 British T-28 Nicklaus 11-9-3, Nicklaus 24 1967 PGA T-3 2002 PGA 2nd Woods 11-10-3, Nicklaus 25 1968 Masters T-5 2003 Masters T-15 Nicklaus 12-10-3, Nicklaus 26 1968 U.S. Open 2nd 2003 U.S. Open T-20 Nicklaus 13-10-3, Nicklaus 27 1968 British T-2 2003 British T-4 Nicklaus 14-10-3, Nicklaus 28 1968 PGA MC 2003 PGA T-39 Woods 14-11-3, Nicklaus 29 1969 Masters T-24 2004 Masters T-22 Woods 14-12-3, Nicklaus 30 1969 U.S. Open T-25 2004 U.S. Open T-17 Woods 14-13-3, Nicklaus 31 1969 British T-6 2004 British T-9 Nicklaus 15-13-3, Nicklaus 32 1969 PGA T-11 2004 PGA T-24 Nicklaus 16-13-3, Nicklaus 33 1970 Masters 8th 2005 Masters Won (9) Woods 16-14-3, Nicklaus 34 1970 U.S. Open T-49 2005 U.S. Open 2nd Woods 16-15-3, Nicklaus 35 1970 British Won (8) 2005 British Won (10) Tie 16-15-4, Nicklaus 36 1970 PGA T-6 2005 PGA T-4 Woods 16-16-4 37 1971 PGA Won (9) 2006 Masters T-3 Nicklaus 17-16-4, Nicklaus 38 1971 Masters T-2 2006 U.S. Open MC Nicklaus 18-16-4, Nicklaus 39 1971 U.S. Open 2nd 2006 British Won (11) Woods 18-17-4, Nicklaus 40 1971 British T-5 2006 PGA Won (12) Woods 18-18-4 41 1972 Masters Won (10) 2007 Masters T-2 Nicklaus 19-18-4, Nicklaus 42 1972 U.S. Open Won (11) 2007 U.S. Open T-2 Nicklaus 20-18-4, Nicklaus 43 1972 British 2nd 2007 British T-12 Nicklaus 21-18-4, Nicklaus 44 1972 PGA T-13 2007 PGA Won (13) Woods 21-19-4, Nicklaus 45 1973 Masters T-3 2008 Masters 2nd Woods 21-20-4, Nicklaus 46 1973 U.S. Open T-4 2008 U.S. Open Won (14) Woods 21-21-4 47 1973 British 4th 2009 Masters T-6 Nicklaus 22-21-4, Nicklaus 48 1974 PGA Won (12) 2009 U.S. Open T-6 Nicklaus 23-21-4, Nicklaus 49 1974 Masters T-4 209 British MC Nicklaus 24-21-4, Nicklaus 50 1974 U.S. Open T-10 2009 PGA 2nd Woods 24-22-4, Nicklaus 51 1974 British 3rd 2010 Masters T-4 Nicklaus 25-22-4, Nicklaus 52 1974 PGA 2nd 2010 U.S. Open T-4 Nicklaus 26-22-4, Nicklaus 53 1975 Masters Won (13) 2010 British T-23 Nicklaus 27-22-4, Nicklaus 54 1975 U.S. Open T-7 2010 PGA T-28 Nicklaus 28-22-4, Nicklaus 55 1975 British T-3 2011 Masters T-4 Nicklaus 29-22-4, Nicklaus 56 1975 PGA Won (14) 2011 PGA MC Nicklaus 30-22-4, Nicklaus 57 1976 Masters T-3 2012 Masters T-40 Nicklaus 31-22-4, Nicklaus 58 1976 U.S. Open T-11 2012 U.S. Open T-21 Nicklaus 32-22-4, Nicklaus 59 1976 British T-2 2012 British T-3 Nicklaus 33-22-4, Nicklaus 60 1976 PGA T-4 2012 PGA T-11 Nicklaus 34-22-4, Nicklaus 61 1977 Masters 2nd 2013 Masters T-4 Nicklaus 35-22-4, Nicklaus 62 1977 U.S. Open T-10 2013 U.S. Open T-32 Nicklaus 36-22-4, Nicklaus 63 1977 British 2nd 2013 British T-6 Nicklaus 37-22-4, Nicklaus 64 1977 PGA 3rd 2013 PGA T-40 Nicklaus 38-22-4, Nicklaus

 

I don't think it makes it any worse. Jack's accomplishments are well documented, but I'd imagine he'd trade all the seconds and thirds for one more major. So while that's nice, if regular season wins don't count in the discussion, losses certainly don't. Tiger was 4 shots better per major over the next best player in the field for 12 years (97-08). In a field where 3x the players were averaging under par per round as compared to 1980, never mind the 1960's and 1970's.

[tannyhoban]

And he did all that in an era of unprecedented worldwide representation in golf. The talent pool from which the PGA Tour is picked is much, much larger than it was 40 years ago. Jack played at a time when very few non-Americans were playing. It's conceivable that the lack of money may have made for harder competitors, but it's also conceivable that the lack of money may have dissuaded some potential strong players from even trying. I choose to believe (and I acknowledge it is just a belief) that the vastly increased talent pool makes for better players at the top. If you pick the best ten players from a pool of 100 and I pick the best ten players from a pool of 1,000, it's quite likely that my ten players will be better than your ten players. That's true no matter how good your ten players are at beating each other.

 

Great post!

 

For those who only want to use 18 majors as the measuring stick, I get it, and will gladly concede Jack is the greatest major championship golfer of all time (or my title, "Greatest Champion."). For me personally, the whole body of work must be considered, and in that case, Tiger is my "Greatest Player Ever," for the very records you posted. When TW turned 40 over the winter, GC compiled a list of his top 40 numerical records. This stuff absolutely blows my mind. Literally, all i can do is read this and shake my head. I've made no secret that I'm also on the side of believing that the talent pool is much deeper today, which makes this all the more impressive, but as you said Ty, that's open to debate (see last 15 pages lol). Bottom line, wherever he stands on your list, Tiger Woods was a FREAK of a golfer.

 

http://www.golfchann...erical-records/

 

Number 1...126 under par in majors from 1997-2008. Next best? 63 over par, 189 shots worse. Wow.

 

Which begs the question, where was his competition?

Where was Jack's if all he had to do was tee it up and get a top 3. Works both ways.

 

Ha! Stats are funny things.

[Lodestone]

And he did all that in an era of unprecedented worldwide representation in golf. The talent pool from which the PGA Tour is picked is much, much larger than it was 40 years ago. Jack played at a time when very few non-Americans were playing. It's conceivable that the lack of money may have made for harder competitors, but it's also conceivable that the lack of money may have dissuaded some potential strong players from even trying. I choose to believe (and I acknowledge it is just a belief) that the vastly increased talent pool makes for better players at the top. If you pick the best ten players from a pool of 100 and I pick the best ten players from a pool of 1,000, it's quite likely that my ten players will be better than your ten players. That's true no matter how good your ten players are at beating each other.

 

Great post!

 

For those who only want to use 18 majors as the measuring stick, I get it, and will gladly concede Jack is the greatest major championship golfer of all time (or my title, "Greatest Champion."). For me personally, the whole body of work must be considered, and in that case, Tiger is my "Greatest Player Ever," for the very records you posted. When TW turned 40 over the winter, GC compiled a list of his top 40 numerical records. This stuff absolutely blows my mind. Literally, all i can do is read this and shake my head. I've made no secret that I'm also on the side of believing that the talent pool is much deeper today, which makes this all the more impressive, but as you said Ty, that's open to debate (see last 15 pages lol). Bottom line, wherever he stands on your list, Tiger Woods was a FREAK of a golfer.

 

http://www.golfchann...erical-records/

That's all pretty good and all but is he better than Hagen? He did beat Bobby Jones one day. :)

 

yeah...like 10 & 8 or something.

[tsecor]

And he did all that in an era of unprecedented worldwide representation in golf. The talent pool from which the PGA Tour is picked is much, much larger than it was 40 years ago. Jack played at a time when very few non-Americans were playing. It's conceivable that the lack of money may have made for harder competitors, but it's also conceivable that the lack of money may have dissuaded some potential strong players from even trying. I choose to believe (and I acknowledge it is just a belief) that the vastly increased talent pool makes for better players at the top. If you pick the best ten players from a pool of 100 and I pick the best ten players from a pool of 1,000, it's quite likely that my ten players will be better than your ten players. That's true no matter how good your ten players are at beating each other.

 

Great post!

 

For those who only want to use 18 majors as the measuring stick, I get it, and will gladly concede Jack is the greatest major championship golfer of all time (or my title, "Greatest Champion."). For me personally, the whole body of work must be considered, and in that case, Tiger is my "Greatest Player Ever," for the very records you posted. When TW turned 40 over the winter, GC compiled a list of his top 40 numerical records. This stuff absolutely blows my mind. Literally, all i can do is read this and shake my head. I've made no secret that I'm also on the side of believing that the talent pool is much deeper today, which makes this all the more impressive, but as you said Ty, that's open to debate (see last 15 pages lol). Bottom line, wherever he stands on your list, Tiger Woods was a FREAK of a golfer.

 

http://www.golfchann...erical-records/

 

Number 1...126 under par in majors from 1997-2008. Next best? 63 over par, 189 shots worse. Wow.

 

if you throw in Jacks whole body of work and compare it to tigers, it makes it worse.....

 

Nicklaus finished second in 19 majors, and Woods has six runner-up results. Nicklaus had 48 top-three finishes at Slams, twice as many as Woods.

 

 

Here's a chart of their majors as professionals, in order and head-to-head: No. Jack's majors Result Tiger's majors Result Better Tally 1 1962 Masters T-15 1997 Masters Won Woods 1-0, Woods 2 1962 U.S. Open Won 1997 U.S. Open T-19 Nicklaus 1-1 3 1962 British T-34 1997 British T-24 Woods 2-1, Woods 4 1962 PGA T-3 1997 PGA T-29 Nicklaus 2-2 5 1963 Masters Won (2) 1998 Masters T-8 Nicklaus 3-2, Nicklaus 6 1963 U.S. Open MC 1998 U.S. Open T-18 Woods 3-3 7 1963 British 3rd 1998 British 3rd Tie 3-3-1 8 1963 PGA Won (3) 1998 PGA T-10 Nicklaus 4-3-1, Nicklaus 9 1964 Masters T-2 1999 Masters T-18 Nicklaus 5-3-1, Nicklaus 10 1964 U.S. Open T-23 1999 U.S. Open T-3 Woods 5-4-1, Nicklaus 11 1964 British 2nd 1999 British T-7 Nicklaus 6-4-1, Nicklaus 12 1964 PGA T-2 1999 PGA Won (2) Woods 6-5-1, Nicklaus 13 1965 Masters Won (4) 2000 Masters 5th Nicklaus 7-5-1, Nicklaus 14 1965 U.S. Open T-31 2000 U.S. Open Won (3) Woods 7-6-1, Nicklaus 15 1965 British T-12 2000 British Won (4) Woods 7-7-1 16 1965 PGA T-2 2000 PGA Won (5) Woods 8-7-1, Woods 17 1966 Masters Won (5) 2001 Masters Won (6) Tie 8-7-2, Woods 18 1966 U.S. Open 3rd 2001 U.S. Open T-12 Nicklaus 8-8-2 19 1966 British Won (6) 2001 British T-25 Nicklaus 9-8-2, Nicklaus 20 1966 PGA T-22 2001 PGA T-29 Nicklaus 10-8-2, Nicklaus 21 1967 Masters MC 2002 Masters Won (7) Woods 10-9-2, Nicklaus 22 1967 U.S. Open Won (7) 2002 U.S. Open Won (8) Tie 10-9-3, Nicklaus 23 1967 British 2nd 2002 British T-28 Nicklaus 11-9-3, Nicklaus 24 1967 PGA T-3 2002 PGA 2nd Woods 11-10-3, Nicklaus 25 1968 Masters T-5 2003 Masters T-15 Nicklaus 12-10-3, Nicklaus 26 1968 U.S. Open 2nd 2003 U.S. Open T-20 Nicklaus 13-10-3, Nicklaus 27 1968 British T-2 2003 British T-4 Nicklaus 14-10-3, Nicklaus 28 1968 PGA MC 2003 PGA T-39 Woods 14-11-3, Nicklaus 29 1969 Masters T-24 2004 Masters T-22 Woods 14-12-3, Nicklaus 30 1969 U.S. Open T-25 2004 U.S. Open T-17 Woods 14-13-3, Nicklaus 31 1969 British T-6 2004 British T-9 Nicklaus 15-13-3, Nicklaus 32 1969 PGA T-11 2004 PGA T-24 Nicklaus 16-13-3, Nicklaus 33 1970 Masters 8th 2005 Masters Won (9) Woods 16-14-3, Nicklaus 34 1970 U.S. Open T-49 2005 U.S. Open 2nd Woods 16-15-3, Nicklaus 35 1970 British Won (8) 2005 British Won (10) Tie 16-15-4, Nicklaus 36 1970 PGA T-6 2005 PGA T-4 Woods 16-16-4 37 1971 PGA Won (9) 2006 Masters T-3 Nicklaus 17-16-4, Nicklaus 38 1971 Masters T-2 2006 U.S. Open MC Nicklaus 18-16-4, Nicklaus 39 1971 U.S. Open 2nd 2006 British Won (11) Woods 18-17-4, Nicklaus 40 1971 British T-5 2006 PGA Won (12) Woods 18-18-4 41 1972 Masters Won (10) 2007 Masters T-2 Nicklaus 19-18-4, Nicklaus 42 1972 U.S. Open Won (11) 2007 U.S. Open T-2 Nicklaus 20-18-4, Nicklaus 43 1972 British 2nd 2007 British T-12 Nicklaus 21-18-4, Nicklaus 44 1972 PGA T-13 2007 PGA Won (13) Woods 21-19-4, Nicklaus 45 1973 Masters T-3 2008 Masters 2nd Woods 21-20-4, Nicklaus 46 1973 U.S. Open T-4 2008 U.S. Open Won (14) Woods 21-21-4 47 1973 British 4th 2009 Masters T-6 Nicklaus 22-21-4, Nicklaus 48 1974 PGA Won (12) 2009 U.S. Open T-6 Nicklaus 23-21-4, Nicklaus 49 1974 Masters T-4 209 British MC Nicklaus 24-21-4, Nicklaus 50 1974 U.S. Open T-10 2009 PGA 2nd Woods 24-22-4, Nicklaus 51 1974 British 3rd 2010 Masters T-4 Nicklaus 25-22-4, Nicklaus 52 1974 PGA 2nd 2010 U.S. Open T-4 Nicklaus 26-22-4, Nicklaus 53 1975 Masters Won (13) 2010 British T-23 Nicklaus 27-22-4, Nicklaus 54 1975 U.S. Open T-7 2010 PGA T-28 Nicklaus 28-22-4, Nicklaus 55 1975 British T-3 2011 Masters T-4 Nicklaus 29-22-4, Nicklaus 56 1975 PGA Won (14) 2011 PGA MC Nicklaus 30-22-4, Nicklaus 57 1976 Masters T-3 2012 Masters T-40 Nicklaus 31-22-4, Nicklaus 58 1976 U.S. Open T-11 2012 U.S. Open T-21 Nicklaus 32-22-4, Nicklaus 59 1976 British T-2 2012 British T-3 Nicklaus 33-22-4, Nicklaus 60 1976 PGA T-4 2012 PGA T-11 Nicklaus 34-22-4, Nicklaus 61 1977 Masters 2nd 2013 Masters T-4 Nicklaus 35-22-4, Nicklaus 62 1977 U.S. Open T-10 2013 U.S. Open T-32 Nicklaus 36-22-4, Nicklaus 63 1977 British 2nd 2013 British T-6 Nicklaus 37-22-4, Nicklaus 64 1977 PGA 3rd 2013 PGA T-40 Nicklaus 38-22-4, Nicklaus

 

I don't think it makes it any worse. Jack's accomplishments are well documented, but I'd imagine he'd trade all the seconds and thirds for one more major. So while that's nice, if regular season wins don't count in the discussion, losses certainly don't. Tiger was 4 shots better per major over the next best player in the field for 12 years (97-08). In a field where 3x the players were averaging under par per round as compared to 1980, never mind the 1960's and 1970's.

obviously you didn't read the article

 

38-22-4, Nicklaus is the bottom line.....throw in all his other top 3's, 2's and 10's,.....tiger looks like Ray Floyd next to Jack

[Forged4ever]

And he did all that in an era of unprecedented worldwide representation in golf. The talent pool from which the PGA Tour is picked is much, much larger than it was 40 years ago. Jack played at a time when very few non-Americans were playing. It's conceivable that the lack of money may have made for harder competitors, but it's also conceivable that the lack of money may have dissuaded some potential strong players from even trying. I choose to believe (and I acknowledge it is just a belief) that the vastly increased talent pool makes for better players at the top. If you pick the best ten players from a pool of 100 and I pick the best ten players from a pool of 1,000, it's quite likely that my ten players will be better than your ten players. That's true no matter how good your ten players are at beating each other.

 

Great post!

 

For those who only want to use 18 majors as the measuring stick, I get it, and will gladly concede Jack is the greatest major championship golfer of all time (or my title, "Greatest Champion."). For me personally, the whole body of work must be considered, and in that case, Tiger is my "Greatest Player Ever," for the very records you posted. When TW turned 40 over the winter, GC compiled a list of his top 40 numerical records. This stuff absolutely blows my mind. Literally, all i can do is read this and shake my head. I've made no secret that I'm also on the side of believing that the talent pool is much deeper today, which makes this all the more impressive, but as you said Ty, that's open to debate (see last 15 pages lol). Bottom line, wherever he stands on your list, Tiger Woods was a FREAK of a golfer.

 

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/stats-incredible-tigers-40-greatest-numerical-records/

Bro, I've think we've been on the same page there. I've always said that regarding Jack as a Champion and Tiger as a Player. And for those sitting there licking their chops no, I in no way am saying Tiger isn't a Champion because I consider him the second greatest Champion and I consider Tiger, not Jack as Playing the game at THE highest level that it's ever been Played.

 

Tiger was an incredible force of genes, environment and nature and I don't think that we'll see that again real soon-

 

Now about my 3rd place dwarf toss....

 

LMAO, Maddie was really pissed that I entered but I had to shut this little muscle head up, lmao

 

5' nothin, 190lbs. and he's never played a sport in his life!!

 

He starts tellin the girls that he could toss this friggin dwarf further than me, lmao

 

Cost me $25 for the throw and I took $100 from him and gave the friggin dwarf $25, HaHa

 

No one else gave him a dime!!

 

Then they go and outlaw it, lmao

 

Fairways & Greens My Friend,

RP

[drewtaylor21]

Now about my 3rd place dwarf toss....

 

Fairways & Greens My Friend,

RP

 

Please tell me there is documentation of this somewhere.....hahaha

 

Maddie?!

 

:cheesy:

[norge5]

This is like the old "who's the greatest heavyweight fighter of all time" argument.

Unless you are just a Tiger fan, I don't see anyway you can not have Jack at the top of the list. Somebody made a compelling argument for Hagen in 2nd but, other than that, I find it hard to come to any other conclusion. Now if Tiger goes back to being dominant, or at least winning some, then it gets interesting again.

When comparing the competition of the era's, I stand by my assertion that the players of yesteryear were tougher competitor's. Maybe because they weren't making great livings just making the cut or maybe men were just tougher in general back then. I like to think it's the latter.

 

I think we've done this before, but I'd be happy to take a shot at it:

 

The case for Tiger:

 

Won the US Open by a record 15 shots (largest ever major championship win record)

Won the Masters by a record 12 shots (largest margin at the Masters)

Won the Open by 8 shots (largest margin at the Open - I think - tied with Oosthuizen)

Held the scoring record in all four majors

Won 4 majors in a row (only person to ever do that)

Won 5 majors out of 6

Won 6 majors out of 10

Won 7 majors out of 11

Youngest to ever achieve the grand slam

Youngest to ever achieve a second grand slam

Youngest to ever achieve a third grand slam

142 consecutive cuts made (record)

Won 79 tournaments (second only to Sam Snead)

Won 14 Majors (second only to Jack)

Won the Vardon Trophy a record 9 times

Won the PGA Tour Player of the Year a record 11 times

PGA Tour money leader a record 10 times

PGA Tour record for most consecutive rounds at par or better (52)

First and only player to win 8 tournaments in a year at least 3 times

Only player to have won all four majors by at least 5 strokes

10 seasons with at least 5 wins

First and only player to win the US Amateur three consecutive years

First and only player to win the US Junior Amateur three consecutive years

Holds the record for both adjusted scoring average and unadjusted scoring average on the PGA Tour

Won 5 tournaments in a row

Won 6 tournaments in a row (separate occasion)

Won 7 tournaments in a row (separate occasion)

Won 18 WGC events, with on the face of it the best players in the world all in the same place. No one else has won more than 3.

 

And he did all that in an era of unprecedented worldwide representation in golf. The talent pool from which the PGA Tour is picked is much, much larger than it was 40 years ago. Jack played at a time when very few non-Americans were playing. It's conceivable that the lack of money may have made for harder competitors, but it's also conceivable that the lack of money may have dissuaded some potential strong players from even trying. I choose to believe (and I acknowledge it is just a belief) that the vastly increased talent pool makes for better players at the top. If you pick the best ten players from a pool of 100 and I pick the best ten players from a pool of 1,000, it's quite likely that my ten players will be better than your ten players. That's true no matter how good your ten players are at beating each other.

Maybe I need to rethink my position.

[jffuller]

Actually tsecor I did read the article, from beginning to end. Perhaps you didn't read it in it's entirety, or my post for that matter. I brought up 189 shots better from 1997-2008. In the article, third paragraph from the bottom, Chamblee himself states that through 2008 Tiger and Jack are dead even in majors, with Tiger holding a significant lead in winning percentage across all events. The exact timeline I mentioned. Of course Jack is the greater major champion, no one would dispute that. But in the pantheon of golf greats, by any metric, Tiger is the closest to Jack, if he's your number one. So if Jack makes Tiger look like an amateur, as you said, what does that make every other golfer with less than 14? a 15 handicap? Because I don't see anyone closer to 18 majors than Tiger.

[jffuller]

And he did all that in an era of unprecedented worldwide representation in golf. The talent pool from which the PGA Tour is picked is much, much larger than it was 40 years ago. Jack played at a time when very few non-Americans were playing. It's conceivable that the lack of money may have made for harder competitors, but it's also conceivable that the lack of money may have dissuaded some potential strong players from even trying. I choose to believe (and I acknowledge it is just a belief) that the vastly increased talent pool makes for better players at the top. If you pick the best ten players from a pool of 100 and I pick the best ten players from a pool of 1,000, it's quite likely that my ten players will be better than your ten players. That's true no matter how good your ten players are at beating each other.

 

Great post!

 

For those who only want to use 18 majors as the measuring stick, I get it, and will gladly concede Jack is the greatest major championship golfer of all time (or my title, "Greatest Champion."). For me personally, the whole body of work must be considered, and in that case, Tiger is my "Greatest Player Ever," for the very records you posted. When TW turned 40 over the winter, GC compiled a list of his top 40 numerical records. This stuff absolutely blows my mind. Literally, all i can do is read this and shake my head. I've made no secret that I'm also on the side of believing that the talent pool is much deeper today, which makes this all the more impressive, but as you said Ty, that's open to debate (see last 15 pages lol). Bottom line, wherever he stands on your list, Tiger Woods was a FREAK of a golfer.

 

http://www.golfchann...erical-records/

Bro, I've think we've been on the same page there. I've always said that regarding Jack as a Champion and Tiger as a Player. And for those sitting there licking their chops no, I in no way am saying Tiger isn't a Champion because I consider him the second greatest Champion and I consider Tiger, not Jack as Playing the game at THE highest level that it's ever been Played.

 

Tiger was an incredible force of genes, environment and nature and I don't think that we'll see that again real soon-

 

Now about my 3rd place dwarf toss....

 

LMAO, Maddie was really pissed that I entered but I had to shut this little muscle head up, lmao

 

5' nothin, 190lbs. and he's never played a sport in his life!!

 

He starts tellin the girls that he could toss this friggin dwarf further than me, lmao

 

Cost me $25 for the throw and I took $100 from him and gave the friggin dwarf $25, HaHa

 

No one else gave him a dime!!

 

Then they go and outlaw it, lmao

 

Fairways & Greens My Friend,

RP

 

You win the thread good sir!

[bscinstnct]

PGA Tour victories.

 

Tiger Woods 79

 

Jack Nicklaus 73

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lodestone]

PGA Tour victories.

 

Tiger Woods 79

 

Jack Nicklaus 73

 

 

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

I agree with many of the arguments made, citing Tiger's dominance, but the 79-73 argument only works if you are willing to maintain that 6 regular wins exceeds in value 4 majors.

Are you willing to maintain that position?

[tsecor]

 

ti-ger!!

 

 

the best

[bscinstnct]

PGA Tour victories.

 

Tiger Woods 79

 

Jack Nicklaus 73

 

 

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

I agree with many of the arguments made, citing Tiger's dominance, but the 79-73 argument only works if you are willing to maintain that 6 regular wins exceeds in value 4 majors.

Are you willing to maintain that position?

 

Why you busting my chops for?

 

All I did was post a stat and the OMG cat.

 

 

; )

[tsecor]

 

top shots

[Shilgy]

PGA Tour victories.

 

Tiger Woods 79

 

Jack Nicklaus 73

 

 

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

I agree with many of the arguments made, citing Tiger's dominance, but the 79-73 argument only works if you are willing to maintain that 6 regular wins exceeds in value 4 majors.

Are you willing to maintain that position?

Just another career stat. Of course that counts Jack's team wins with Palmer.

[tsecor]

 

here is how jack does it

[bscinstnct]

 

here is how jack does it

 

Psst. Take out the "s".

 

Then instead of a link, you can post this.

 

Good night ; )

 

 

 

[Lodestone]

PGA Tour victories.

 

Tiger Woods 79

 

Jack Nicklaus 73

 

 

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

I agree with many of the arguments made, citing Tiger's dominance, but the 79-73 argument only works if you are willing to maintain that 6 regular wins exceeds in value 4 majors.

Are you willing to maintain that position?

 

Why you busting my chops for?

 

All I did was post a stat and the OMG cat.

 

 

; )

 

A cat with a stat...(Dr. Seuss) :taunt:

[bscinstnct]

PGA Tour victories.

 

Tiger Woods 79

 

Jack Nicklaus 73

 

 

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

I agree with many of the arguments made, citing Tiger's dominance, but the 79-73 argument only works if you are willing to maintain that 6 regular wins exceeds in value 4 majors.

Are you willing to maintain that position?

 

Why you busting my chops for?

 

All I did was post a stat and the OMG cat.

 

 

; )

 

A cat with a stat...(Dr. Seuss) :taunt:

 

The sun didnt shine

So we sat around and wrote

About whether twas Tiger or Jack

Who is indeed the GOAT

 

 

[Lodestone]

we yelled,

we screamed,

we had all kinds of scraps,

some guy named Richard

Typed,

ALL IN CAPS!!!!!