Interesting Jack / Tiger stat

zoots · May 9, 2017

Every tour player I have ever heard or read regarding what they value as the highest achievement a player can have in the game, are major championships.

Jack wins.

jmvargas · May 9, 2017

Every tour player I have ever heard or read regarding what they value as the highest achievement a player can have in the game, are major championships.

Jack wins.

hard to disagree with this.

playa · May 9, 2017

Every tour player I have ever heard or read regarding what they value as the highest achievement a player can have in the game, are major championships.

Jack wins.

So Rich Beem/Ben Curtis/Todd Hamilton win over Westwood/Kenny Perry/Stricker?

Mark_888 · May 9, 2017

Every tour player I have ever heard or read regarding what they value as the highest achievement a player can have in the game, are major championships.

Jack wins.

That has to be tempered by the number of major tournaments they played in. On that score, Jack and Tiger are apparently equal.

However, to say that the highest achievement a player can have are major championships, and therefore (ergo) the one with most major championships is automatically the better player (or had the greater career achievement), is a logical fallacy.

Suppose there is a player who wins one major tournament and no others in their career, and another player wins 20 PGA tour event but no majors? Can you automatically say that the major winner is the better golfer when ranking their lifetime achievements. If you still think the player with one major but no other victories is the greater golfer, then compare him to one who has won 60 (or 120, or 240) PGA tournaments but no majors.

pinehurst · May 9, 2017

Tiger's on course accomplishments in the majors are epic, as are Jacks. When it comes to broadcast ratings and purses, I'd say you have to give the nod to Tiger. He lifted the entire golf industry.

Dave230 · May 9, 2017

How many in this debate think the best players of all time played almost a century ago? Anyone? 19 of the top 37 all time winners on the PGA Tour were born over a century ago. Is it just possible that it was because the fields were very shallow and the same few guys won a lot? Add in the effects of attrition due to the world wars and the difficulty of travel world wide and the wins get distributed to a relative few. Only 4 were born in the last 60 years. Hmm maybe because there is a lot more competition for those wins? The best in the world fighting it out week after week.

Jack didn't play over a century ago though, and there's a 20 year gap between the late 70s and the late 90s, which is the same gap between the late 90s and today now. When Nicklaus won 3 majors in 4 years from 1978 to 1980, was there that big of a difference in the fields between then and say 1997? It might have been easier when Nicklaus first came on Tour but he didn't win any less regularly in the late 70s as the early 60s. Same way Tiger won 4 in 1997 and 5 in 2013. In my opinion, a winner is a winner and despite fields being better than they've ever been on the PGA Tour, stick prime Nicklaus or Woods in today and they're playing like DJ is now all year.

Ferguson · May 9, 2017

Think about all of the great players that never had a chance to be number one in the world when El Tigre was on top. Phil pops into my head.

Duval took it for a few weeks, then became a shell of his former self. Now he has to sit there, on an a visibly uncomfortable chair, and witness Brandel's pontificating.

Speaking of Brandel - did he marry female drummer Meytal Cohen?

widow-maker · May 9, 2017

Every tour player I have ever heard or read regarding what they value as the highest achievement a player can have in the game, are major championships.

Jack wins.

That has to be tempered by the number of major tournaments they played in. On that score, Jack and Tiger are apparently equal.

However, to say that the highest achievement a player can have are major championships, and therefore (ergo) the one with most major championships is automatically the better player (or had the greater career achievement), is a logical fallacy.

Suppose there is a player who wins one major tournament and no others in their career, and another player wins 20 PGA tour event but no majors? Can you automatically say that the major winner is the better golfer when ranking their lifetime achievements. If you still think the player with one major but no other victories is the greater golfer, then compare him to one who has won 60 (or 120, or 240) PGA tournaments but no majors.

Logical or not, both Jack and Tiger stated unequivocally that Major Championships were what they most coveted. Jack set his sights on Walter Hagen and Tiger set his sights on Jack. When you start talking about the very best of all time, the obvious benchmark is Major Championships. Monte had a very nice career and despite not winning any majors he certainly deserves to be in the Golf Hall of Fame. But, he's also never going to be considered for G.O.A.T. status either. It always will come down to Tiger or Jack, and since they themselves determined that Major Championships was the thing they most desired, the rest of us have conformed to their way of thinking. Tiger was on his way to eclipsing Jack until life and injury got in the way. Because of that, he still gets a lot of backing as best ever even though he didn't quite catch Jack. For the Jack backers... he holds the titles that Tiger was chasing and not much more needs to be said. I don't deny either side their right of choice because they both make compelling cases.

Shilgy · May 9, 2017

How many in this debate think the best players of all time played almost a century ago? Anyone? 19 of the top 37 all time winners on the PGA Tour were born over a century ago. Is it just possible that it was because the fields were very shallow and the same few guys won a lot? Add in the effects of attrition due to the world wars and the difficulty of travel world wide and the wins get distributed to a relative few. Only 4 were born in the last 60 years. Hmm maybe because there is a lot more competition for those wins? The best in the world fighting it out week after week.

Jack didn't play over a century ago though, and there's a 20 year gap between the late 70s and the late 90s, which is the same gap between the late 90s and today now. When Nicklaus won 3 majors in 4 years from 1978 to 1980, was there that big of a difference in the fields between then and say 1997? It might have been easier when Nicklaus first came on Tour but he didn't win any less regularly in the late 70s as the early 60s. Same way Tiger won 4 in 1997 and 5 in 2013. In my opinion, a winner is a winner and despite fields being better than they've ever been on the PGA Tour, stick prime Nicklaus or Woods in today and they're playing like DJ is now all year.

I agree with your assessment that Jack or Tiger would still fare well today. However Jack's amazingly high number of top 3's for instance in majors is at least partly because of the "strength" of the fields. You're right. Jack did not play a century ago. But he did start 65 years ago! And since then the fields have become stronger and stronger and stronger.... I would say there is a pretty large difference in the Open fields-yeah. And by the way Jack was late in his career by 1980. Tiger was just starting his in 1997. See below for the 1962 Open.So lets compare early fields.

http://www.theopen.com/Heritage/PreviousOpens#!/1997/Royal-Troon

http://www.theopen.com/Heritage/PreviousOpens#!/1962/Royal-Troon

Shilgy · May 9, 2017

Every tour player I have ever heard or read regarding what they value as the highest achievement a player can have in the game, are major championships.

Jack wins.

That has to be tempered by the number of major tournaments they played in. On that score, Jack and Tiger are apparently equal.

However, to say that the highest achievement a player can have are major championships, and therefore (ergo) the one with most major championships is automatically the better player (or had the greater career achievement), is a logical fallacy.

Suppose there is a player who wins one major tournament and no others in their career, and another player wins 20 PGA tour event but no majors? Can you automatically say that the major winner is the better golfer when ranking their lifetime achievements. If you still think the player with one major but no other victories is the greater golfer, then compare him to one who has won 60 (or 120, or 240) PGA tournaments but no majors.
Logical or not, both Jack and Tiger stated unequivocally that Major Championships were what they most coveted. Jack set his sights on Walter Hagen and Tiger set his sights on Jack. When you start talking about the very best of all time, the obvious benchmark is Major Championships. Monte had a very nice career and despite not winning any majors he certainly deserves to be in the Golf Hall of Fame. But, he's also never going to be considered for G.O.A.T. status either. It always will come down to Tiger or Jack, and since they themselves determined that Major Championships was the thing they most desired, the rest of us have conformed to their way of thinking. Tiger was on his way to eclipsing Jack until life and injury got in the way. Because of that, he still gets a lot of backing as best ever even though he didn't quite catch Jack. For the Jack backers... he holds the titles that Tiger was chasing and not much more needs to be said. I don't deny either side their right of choice because they both make compelling cases.

Most coveted yes-sole criteria for GOAT no. Jack is the greatest champion golfer/major winner and Tiger is the best player imo.

PS Jack was chasing Jones in those days-not Hagen.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/golf/2013/04/23/jack-nicklaus-missing-majors-us-amateur/2107383/

Mark_888 · May 9, 2017

When you start talking about the very best of all time, the obvious benchmark is Major Championships. Monte had a very nice career and despite not winning any majors he certainly deserves to be in the Golf Hall of Fame.

Monte never won a single PGA tour event. None. Zero. Hall of Fame? We are not talking about Hall of Fame, we are talking about best of all time. There are a lot of people in the Hall of Fame who probably shouldn't be there.

One problem when trying to determine the best player of all time is whether one is talking about the best player, or the best career. If one player is best, but has his career cut short by injury (and other indiscretions) does that make him less of a player when he played? If Jack only played the same number of majors that Tiger has, he would only have tied Tiger for major wins. Tiger has more PGA tour wins that Jack, with fewer number of tournaments played.

During Tiger's prime years, he won about 35% of starts. In Jack's best years he won about 16% of the time. TIger won 4 consecutive majors, won 7 consecutive PGA starts (second only to Byron Nelson during WWII). Just looking at total career major wins is easy to do, but maybe not the best way to determine who is best.

This will never be resolved, simply because we don't only judge athletes by their accomplishment, we judge them also by whether we like them, relate to them, etc. Same happens when we get evaluated by our boss at work.

nix · May 9, 2017

Tiger > Jack. Not even close. Just like Bonds > Babe Ruth.

The increased competition matters.

cdnglf · May 9, 2017

How many in this debate think the best players of all time played almost a century ago? Anyone? 19 of the top 37 all time winners on the PGA Tour were born over a century ago. Is it just possible that it was because the fields were very shallow and the same few guys won a lot? Add in the effects of attrition due to the world wars and the difficulty of travel world wide and the wins get distributed to a relative few. Only 4 were born in the last 60 years. Hmm maybe because there is a lot more competition for those wins? The best in the world fighting it out week after week.

Jack didn't play over a century ago though, and there's a 20 year gap between the late 70s and the late 90s, which is the same gap between the late 90s and today now. When Nicklaus won 3 majors in 4 years from 1978 to 1980, was there that big of a difference in the fields between then and say 1997? It might have been easier when Nicklaus first came on Tour but he didn't win any less regularly in the late 70s as the early 60s. Same way Tiger won 4 in 1997 and 5 in 2013. In my opinion, a winner is a winner and despite fields being better than they've ever been on the PGA Tour, stick prime Nicklaus or Woods in today and they're playing like DJ is now all year.
I agree with your assessment that Jack or Tiger would still fare well today. However Jack's amazingly high number of top 3's for instance in majors is at least partly because of the "strength" of the fields. You're right. Jack did not play a century ago. But he did start 65 years ago! And since then the fields have become stronger and stronger and stronger.... I would say there is a pretty large difference in the Open fields-yeah. And by the way Jack was late in his career by 1980. Tiger was just starting his in 1997. See below for the 1962 Open.So lets compare early fields.

http://www.theopen.c...997/Royal-Troon

http://www.theopen.c...962/Royal-Troon

Lots of posts about all the guys Jack had to beat, but when you go back and look its interesting to see how often the top players _didn't_ play. Today, you get all the top 50 (or more) at every major, but that just wasn't the case even in the 80s (and much moreseo in the 60s).

Ray Floyd played the Open only a couple of times before 1975. Hale Irwin didn't play it at all until 1974. Stockton only played it twice in total. Even Arnie skipped it quite a bit.

Trevino skipped the Masters several times.

Peter Thompson won 5 Opens, but didn't play every Masters, only played the US Open a few times and never played the PGA.

2-time major winner Tony Jacklin only played the PGA 4 times in his entire career.

Langer didn't play the PGA until 1985; Seve didn't play until 1981 (despite winning the '79 Open and '80 Masters). Sandy Lyle played it only once before 1991.

Faldo only played the US Open once before he was 30.

Not sure when the 5-year mutual exemption policy between the majors came into effect, but it must have been relatively recently - there are numerous examples of a guy winning a major and not playing all of the next three. That almost never happens today.

farmer · May 9, 2017

Tiger > Jack. Not even close. Just like Bonds > Babe Ruth.

The increased competition matters.

Bonds, massive PED use > The Babe, whiskey and cigars. Not even close.

Mark_888 · May 9, 2017

Lots of posts about all the guys Jack had to beat, but when you go back its interesting to see how often the top players _didn't_ play. Today, you get all the top 50 (or more) at every major, but that just wasn't the case even in the 80s (and much moreseo in the 60s).

Ray Floyd played the Open only a couple of times before 1975. Hale Irwin didn't play it at all until 1974. Stockton only played it twice in total. Even Arnie skipped it quite a bit.
Trevino skipped the Masters several times.
Peter Thompson won 5 Opens, but didn't play every Masters, only played the US Open a few times and never played the PGA.
2-time major winner Tony Jacklin only played the PGA 4 times in his entire career.
Langer didn't play the PGA until 1985; Seve didn't play until 1981 (despite winning the '79 Open and '80 Masters). Sandy Lyle played it only once before 1991.
Faldo only played the US Open once before he was 30.

Not sure when the 5-year mutual exemption policy between the majors came into effect, but it must have been relatively recently - there are numerous examples of a guy winning a major and not playing all of the next three. That almost never happens today.

Jack Nicklaus was born in 1940, and he won his first PGA event at age 22 in 1962 (including the US Open). So the main part of his career was much earlier than most of the other golfers sometimes mentioned as his competitors.

During much of Jack's career (especially the first 15 years), there were not many foreign golfers playing the PGA tour. Airline travel was not as easy as it is today, and it was very expensive for overseas trips (airfares were government regulated and very expensive compared to today's prices), and tournament prize money was much smaller than today, so it wasn't always economical for a foreign player to make the trip to the US, even for a major. For the same reason, not all that many US players played in the British Open back then. Gary Player was one of the few foreign players that I remember who regularly played in the US in Jack's early days.

bscinstnct · May 9, 2017

Tiger > Jack. Not even close. Just like Bonds > Babe Ruth.

The increased competition matters.
Bonds, massive PED use > The Babe, whiskey and cigars. Not even close.

Ruth was 6'2, 215lbs (before he bloated up). Guy was a specimen.

He hit more home runs in one season than any *team* in the AL and more than any team in the NL besides one.

You put Babe Ruth on the modern "breakfast of champions" and the guy would freaking destroy everybody.

No joke, Babe Ruth

Mark_888 · May 9, 2017

Ruth was 6'2, 215lbs (before he bloated up). Guy was a specimen.

I read somewhere that an analysis of photos of Babe Ruth determined that he had a large head, and his eyes were very far apart, and therefore had binocular vision that was better than 99.9% of the population.

Dave230 · May 9, 2017

Tiger > Jack. Not even close. Just like Bonds > Babe Ruth.

The increased competition matters.

Bonds, the massive drug cheat?

Jack Nicklaus was born in 1940, and he won his first PGA event at age 22 in 1962 (including the US Open). So the main part of his career was much earlier than most of the other golfers sometimes mentioned as his competitors.

During much of Jack's career (especially the first 15 years), there were not many foreign golfers playing the PGA tour. Airline travel was not as easy as it is today, and it was very expensive for overseas trips (airfares were government regulated and very expensive compared to today's prices), and tournament prize money was much smaller than today, so it wasn't always economical for a foreign player to make the trip to the US, even for a major. For the same reason, not all that many US players played in the British Open back then. Gary Player was one of the few foreign players that I remember who regularly played in the US in Jack's early days.

It gradually increased over the years and there's no doubt there were more foreign players when Tiger first came on Tour, it wasn't like today either, guys like Montgomerie played a few times a year non-majors in the US only. It's only maybe the late 2000s that you've got all the top European guys playing full schedules on both. That's what makes Tiger's World Golf Championship wins so impressive, it had the best from every tour.

whr · May 9, 2017

Debates like this are pointless.

zoots · May 9, 2017

Every tour player I have ever heard or read regarding what they value as the highest achievement a player can have in the game, are major championships.

Jack wins.

That has to be tempered by the number of major tournaments they played in. On that score, Jack and Tiger are apparently equal.

However, to say that the highest achievement a player can have are major championships, and therefore (ergo) the one with most major championships is automatically the better player (or had the greater career achievement), is a logical fallacy.

Suppose there is a player who wins one major tournament and no others in their career, and another player wins 20 PGA tour event but no majors? Can you automatically say that the major winner is the better golfer when ranking their lifetime achievements. If you still think the player with one major but no other victories is the greater golfer, then compare him to one who has won 60 (or 120, or 240) PGA tournaments but no majors.

I am only re-iterating what players that play the game at the highest level have been saying since Old Tom Morris. I would hazard to guess that many, if not all of these players would agree that Tiger had the most dominating decade in the history of golf. But ultimately, by their own standard, a majority would see Jack as GOAT solely on number of majors won, let alone the rest of his accomplishments.

Shilgy · May 9, 2017

Lots of posts about all the guys Jack had to beat, but when you go back its interesting to see how often the top players _didn't_ play. Today, you get all the top 50 (or more) at every major, but that just wasn't the case even in the 80s (and much moreseo in the 60s).

Ray Floyd played the Open only a couple of times before 1975. Hale Irwin didn't play it at all until 1974. Stockton only played it twice in total. Even Arnie skipped it quite a bit.
Trevino skipped the Masters several times.
Peter Thompson won 5 Opens, but didn't play every Masters, only played the US Open a few times and never played the PGA.
2-time major winner Tony Jacklin only played the PGA 4 times in his entire career.
Langer didn't play the PGA until 1985; Seve didn't play until 1981 (despite winning the '79 Open and '80 Masters). Sandy Lyle played it only once before 1991.
Faldo only played the US Open once before he was 30.

Not sure when the 5-year mutual exemption policy between the majors came into effect, but it must have been relatively recently - there are numerous examples of a guy winning a major and not playing all of the next three. That almost never happens today.

Jack Nicklaus was born in 1940, and he won his first PGA event at age 22 in 1962 (including the US Open). So the main part of his career was much earlier than most of the other golfers sometimes mentioned as his competitors.

During much of Jack's career (especially the first 15 years), there were not many foreign golfers playing the PGA tour. Airline travel was not as easy as it is today, and it was very expensive for overseas trips (airfares were government regulated and very expensive compared to today's prices), and tournament prize money was much smaller than today, so it wasn't always economical for a foreign player to make the trip to the US, even for a major. For the same reason, not all that many US players played in the British Open back then. Gary Player was one of the few foreign players that I remember who regularly played in the US in Jack's early days.

So you agree Jack had less competition.

Shilgy · May 9, 2017

Every tour player I have ever heard or read regarding what they value as the highest achievement a player can have in the game, are major championships.

Jack wins.

That has to be tempered by the number of major tournaments they played in. On that score, Jack and Tiger are apparently equal.

However, to say that the highest achievement a player can have are major championships, and therefore (ergo) the one with most major championships is automatically the better player (or had the greater career achievement), is a logical fallacy.

Suppose there is a player who wins one major tournament and no others in their career, and another player wins 20 PGA tour event but no majors? Can you automatically say that the major winner is the better golfer when ranking their lifetime achievements. If you still think the player with one major but no other victories is the greater golfer, then compare him to one who has won 60 (or 120, or 240) PGA tournaments but no majors.

I am only re-iterating what players that play the game at the highest level have been saying since Old Tom Morris. I would hazard to guess that many, if not all of these players would agree that Tiger had the most dominating decade in the history of golf. But ultimately, by their own standard, a majority would see Jack as GOAT solely on number of majors won, let alone the rest of his accomplishments.

You do realize his decade lasted 17 years, 1997-2013, and he won more events than anyone else in PGA tour history?

Shilgy · May 9, 2017

I was trying to decide if I should post this rambling idea. Gets a bit off topic I suppose. But....decided wth.

An often overlooked cause of the fields being "easier" in the 50's 60's and even 70's is the aftereffects of the two world wars. I realize Russia is not a big player in the golf world but I read the other day that 80% of Russian men born in 1923 did not survive WW2. Still smh over that one. So while not to that level the European and Britsh nations certainly, and even the US, were not churning out as many young players in the years after the two wars as they would later.

Whatever the reason it really is easy to see that there are many more of the top players matching their skills every week and the game has never been stronger. And many of the players could have played other sports and gravitated towards golf instead. Guys like DJ and Rory might have played basketball and soccer(football) instead of golf if born years ago. Look at the videos of the past players. Sure there were some good athletes like Arnie and Jack and many of them did quite well on tour. But there were more guys that found more interest in the bar than the gym in those days as well.

tatertot · May 9, 2017

So the crux of the 18 vs. 14 debate is Tiger faced more competition than Jack.

If that is true (I don't believe it to be so ... but let's assume it is for debate), what is the ratio of value for Tiger's majors vs. Jack's.

Do 1 of Jack's = 1.5 of Tigers? If so, the real score is 21-18 in favor of Tiger.

And if so, competition must be stiffer now than it was in 1997, so what is a major worth today compared to one of Tigers? Would Rory only need to win 11 majors to eclipse Tiger?

And when is the tipping point? At some point, China will open up, and all those Chinese athletes will start pouring into the PGA ... think how much competition there will be then. Two generations from now, the newest superstar may only need to win 7 majors to eclipse Tiger.

zoots · May 9, 2017

Every tour player I have ever heard or read regarding what they value as the highest achievement a player can have in the game, are major championships.

Jack wins.

That has to be tempered by the number of major tournaments they played in. On that score, Jack and Tiger are apparently equal.

However, to say that the highest achievement a player can have are major championships, and therefore (ergo) the one with most major championships is automatically the better player (or had the greater career achievement), is a logical fallacy.

Suppose there is a player who wins one major tournament and no others in their career, and another player wins 20 PGA tour event but no majors? Can you automatically say that the major winner is the better golfer when ranking their lifetime achievements. If you still think the player with one major but no other victories is the greater golfer, then compare him to one who has won 60 (or 120, or 240) PGA tournaments but no majors.

I am only re-iterating what players that play the game at the highest level have been saying since Old Tom Morris. I would hazard to guess that many, if not all of these players would agree that Tiger had the most dominating decade in the history of golf. But ultimately, by their own standard, a majority would see Jack as GOAT solely on number of majors won, let alone the rest of his accomplishments.
You do realize his decade lasted 17 years, 1997-2013, and he won more events than anyone else in PGA tour history?

Again, most see it as a decade as that is when he won the bulk of his majors. It's not what I think, it's what the players themselves say time and time again. Its all about the majors, no denying it. That's why Old Tom Morris is still referenced, because he won 4 Opens, not because he won x tournaments.

I just heard Speith say in his presser that Rory is the best right now out of himself, DJ and Day because he has the most majors.

bscinstnct · May 9, 2017

So the crux of the 18 vs. 14 debate is Tiger faced more competition than Jack.

If that is true (I don't believe it to be so ... but let's assume it is for debate), what is the ratio of value for Tiger's majors vs. Jack's.

Do 1 of Jack's = 1.5 of Tigers? If so, the real score is 21-18 in favor of Tiger.

And if so, competition must be stiffer now than it was in 1997, so what is a major worth today compared to one of Tigers? Would Rory only need to win 11 majors to eclipse Tiger?

And when is the tipping point? At some point, China will open up, and all those Chinese athletes will start pouring into the PGA ... think how much competition there will be then. Two generations from now, the newest superstar may only need to win 7 majors to eclipse Tiger.

You always get an outlier every generation or so like TW/Jack who, even thought competition has strengthened, have that extra souped up gene that puts them a head above the rest. Not just golf, but other sports. Michael Phelps, for example.

TW had the most perfect game we have ever seen thus far. But the "next" Tiger will be even better and beat TWs number and maybe even Jacks.

Maybe like a DJ but faster/more determined to develop and even more power/short game skills.

Finbarr Saunders · May 9, 2017

I cant remember Jack cheating at golf, tiger on the other hand has been caught a few times

Shilgy · May 9, 2017

So the crux of the 18 vs. 14 debate is Tiger faced more competition than Jack.

If that is true (I don't believe it to be so ... but let's assume it is for debate), what is the ratio of value for Tiger's majors vs. Jack's.

Do 1 of Jack's = 1.5 of Tigers? If so, the real score is 21-18 in favor of Tiger.

And if so, competition must be stiffer now than it was in 1997, so what is a major worth today compared to one of Tigers? Would Rory only need to win 11 majors to eclipse Tiger?

And when is the tipping point? At some point, China will open up, and all those Chinese athletes will start pouring into the PGA ... think how much competition there will be then. Two generations from now, the newest superstar may only need to win 7 majors to eclipse Tiger.

For me it is not the math you are applying. Sure, if majors are ALL that matters why have the debate? 18>14. End of story. Right? Personally I believe the total victories play a part as well. As well as the eye test watching both men play.

Quick-who is the best pitcher in baseball? Most wins? Most K's? Best hitter? Home runs or batting average? No one seems to have an issue calling Jordan the best basketball player but he does not have the most titles nor did he score the most points.

Funny how it's just the Tiger/Jack that gets this stat applied. No one argues that Faldo is above Nelson on the list. Heck, many will even flip it one they get the 18>14 and try to say that Hogan and Nelson>Tiger.

Mark_888 · May 9, 2017

So you agree Jack had less competition.

Absolutely Jack had less competition. What amazes me is that Jack has claimed multiple times that he had more competition than Tiger, which is ridiculous.

I cant remember Jack cheating at golf, tiger on the other hand has been caught a few times

Please tell us when Tiger "cheated."

bscinstnct · May 9, 2017

So you agree Jack had less competition.

Absolutely Jack had less competition. What amazes me is that Jack has claimed multiple times that he had more competition than Tiger, which is ridiculous.

I cant remember Jack cheating at golf, tiger on the other hand has been caught a few times

Please tell us when Tiger "cheated."

He cheated finbar out of 20 years of enjoying golf on tv ; )