Jack vs Tiger

[Chunkitgood]

The assumption that golfers have gotten better like milers have gotten faster is just that.

 

The outdated and improbable idea of progress permeates our thought processes.

[iBanesto]

10 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

 

ONE OF THE GREAT myths in golf is that Jack didn't practice very much. When he bought a house at Lost Tree in Florida in the mid-'60s, nobody saw him. He'd go out back behind his house and hit balls across those fairways all day long. He also built a putting green on land between his guest house and the tennis courts. He adjusted the speed of that green for whatever tournaments were in front of him. He wore that putting green out.

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/us-open-my-shot-lee-trevino/amp

 

 

 

 

 

I remember listening to a pro or golf journalist (can't remember) said that during a tournament, Nicklaus didn't spent much time practicing on the range. He would hit a few balls until he is happy then just leave.

 

Maybe the myth originated from his "tournament practice".

 

 

Edited December 22, 2022 by iBanesto

[shoot4par]

On 10/2/2022 at 4:42 PM, golf_junkie_85 said:

not just golf but any sports/game the players of today have to be better than the players of yesterday....based off this it's Tiger, and one day someone will be better than him

 

I don't think you're gonna see anything like Tiger for a very long time. Most likely no one will ever come close. Game is becoming too global and scientific to see such dominance from one player. Information, technology, instruction is more accessible. Up and comers find a way to get the support and backing to improve and compete. It'll be more democratic (in some ways.) The fields are too balanced and you're gonna see guys coming out of the woodwork.  The overall quality of play will be so good that HOF careers will be 10-20 victories 1-3 majors. (it won't be much different than it is now.) Only two current players are listed in the top 50 in tour wins other than TW. 

 

Contemporaries/ Successors in PGA Tour Victories: 

DJ - 14 Years on Tour - 26 Victories

Rory - 12 Years on Tour - 22 Victories

 

                           v.

 

Tiger - 24 years on Tour - 82 Victories

 

Even if you double either players total and assume they can be as durable, it's improbable anyone gets close to Tiger and Snead. It's not impossible that someone will come along and enter the conversation but it's extremely unlikely.

 

With regards to the initial question, it's apples and oranges. Tiger is Mozart, Jack is Beethoven. You can make an argument for either and you're never gonna get a satisfactory resolution. The game is different. Courses are different. Technology is different. Competition is different. The resources at these guys disposal are different. What encompasses being a professional golfer is different in a lot of ways.

Edited December 22, 2022 by shoot4par

[bscinstnct]

4 hours ago, iBanesto said:

 

I remember listening to a pro or golf journalist (can't remember) said that during a tournament, Nicklaus didn't spent much time practicing on the range. He would hit a few balls until he is happy then just leave.

 

Maybe the myth originated from his "tournament practice".

 

/cdn-cgi/mirage/404105cadf4a5444e772eafdc4b6c30205455c0e294657c9421d9b92becfdfed/1280/cdn-cgi/mirage/404105cadf4a5444e772eafdc4b6c30205455c0e294657c9421d9b92becfdfed/1280/https://media.gettyimages.com/id/969629830/photo/jack-nicklaus-swing-sequence-on-the-practice-ground-at-1974-british-open-royal-lytham-st-annes.jpg?s=1024x1024&w=gi&k=20&c=hMT3I-NceBQYkkCvEwpoA8hxrf56Vym7v6TjOqFR3qE=

 

/cdn-cgi/mirage/404105cadf4a5444e772eafdc4b6c30205455c0e294657c9421d9b92becfdfed/1280/cdn-cgi/mirage/404105cadf4a5444e772eafdc4b6c30205455c0e294657c9421d9b92becfdfed/1280/https://media1.giphy.com/media/8vkEKXvnXkyCZx8w6b/200.gif

 

“The truth lies somewhere in the middle”

 

I think there’s certainly an element to Jack not practicing obsessively as TW. Then again, you’d think Jack wasn’t leaving things to chance and definitely busted his butt, especially leading up to events. 
 

But the OP is “head to head in their prime”

 

So, look at this…

 

Over two multi year stretches. 3 years from 2000-2002. And 4 years from 2005-2008. 
 

Tiger Woods won 50% of the majors he played. That’s more gaudy than a roomful of Kardashians 🤣

 

 

 

 

 

[mosesgolf]

Tiger lost almost 10yrs of healthy playing time due to injuries.  Tiger would've surpassed Jack's 18 easily including 100+ wins.  What Tiger did in 2019 with a fused back at the Masters, Zozo, and President's Cup is a testament to that.  

[aenemated]

48 minutes ago, mosesgolf said:

Tiger lost almost 10yrs of healthy playing time due to injuries.

 

The ultimate "what if." 

 

What more could he have done in 2008 following the US Open if he didn't have to bail out for the rest of the season to fix his leg? Or the couple years following the 2009 "incident?" Peak performance years lost to injury and dumb decisions. 2014-2017, he wasn't even a factor due to his back in more prime playing years.

 

If none of that had happened, these "Jack or Tiger" conversations wouldn't even exist. Alas, that ain't how it went down. 

Edited December 22, 2022 by aenemated

[Shilgy]

18 hours ago, jmck said:

I also feel confident that a consensus will finally be reached ... as confident as a golfwrx 4 handicap about to take on the average, run of the mill LPGA tour pro.

 

Here's my yearly contribution, same as last year and the year before.  It's Jack.  Reasonable people will of course argue Tiger had a higher peak, which they'll weight more heavily than Jack's sustained excellence.  BUT.  The problem with that argument is it opens the door to other people who had arguably better peaks than Tiger.  Nelson in '45, Hogan in '53, Travino in '71...and IMO there's a pretty solid argument to be made that Bobby Jones was the most dominant golfer to ever pick up a club. 

 

Bobby Jones's career winning percentage in majors alone was above 30% (and that includes 15 years of garbage time driving that percentage down from 40+).  And he did it playing a ton of match play, which is much harder to dominate than four rounds of stroke play.  Just ask Tiger on that last one--pretty mediocre Ryder/Presidents Cup record, and Peak Tiger™ got waxed at the world match play in 2000 by Darren Clarke.  No one in their right mind would argue Darren Clarke is the GOAT, not even his mother.  And you can add Peter O'Malley and Nick O'Hern (twice!) to that list.  That famous beatdown Tiger put on Stephen Ames?  That was what Bobby Jones did match after match, tournament after tournament, year after year.  To constantly dominate match play like that is unfathomably difficult.  

 

Now, insert here the usual caveats about comparing eras.  Can you compare Tiger Woods to Bobby Jones?  Not really; the game has changed too much.  It hasn't changed as much from Jack to Tiger, but it has still changed considerably.  You've got to make adjustments for modern medicine, wars, race relations, the tabloid press, team events, titanium clubheads, Trackman, Ferguson's thoughts on marital problems, the people who insist that pre-Tiger the tour was filled with nothing but shoe salesmen, what Richard says Pete Snead said, on and on.

 

It's an impossible task, there is no right answer, just opinions, welcome to the off-season everyone.

 

 

Geez, if Jack had a longer “sustained excellence “ it certainly makes me wonder why he’s not above Snead and Tiger on the wins list.

 

Your other peak examples are one year…Tiger’s was a decade.  In the ten seasons starting in 1999 Woods won 58 times….more than all but four others won in their career.  If it was 11 years counting 2009 it would be 64 times….

 

Sounds like sustained excellence to me.

[Shilgy]

18 hours ago, jmck said:

 

Grrr….duplicate

Edited December 22, 2022 by Shilgy

[hollabachgt]

2 hours ago, mosesgolf said:

Tiger lost almost 10yrs of healthy playing time due to injuries.  Tiger would've surpassed Jack's 18 easily including 100+ wins.  What Tiger did in 2019 with a fused back at the Masters, Zozo, and President's Cup is a testament to that.  

 

1 hour ago, aenemated said:

 

The ultimate "what if." 

 

What more could he have done in 2008 following the US Open if he didn't have to bail out for the rest of the season to fix his leg? Or the couple years following the 2009 "incident?" Peak performance years lost to injury and dumb decisions. 2014-2017, he wasn't even a factor due to his back in more prime playing years.

 

If none of that had happened, these "Jack or Tiger" conversations wouldn't even exist. Alas, that ain't how it went down. 

 

There are what ifs and there is what happened. Unfortunately the roller coaster Tiger hopped on in 2008 greatly impacted the potential arc of his career. We can't presume otherwise because we saw what actually happened.

 

But that has little to do with the OP's question.

 

Edited December 22, 2022 by hollabachgt
missed quotation

[aenemated]

31 minutes ago, hollabachgt said:

But that has little to do with the OP's question.

 

... right. Hence the last sentence of my comment in reply to someone not the OP. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

[Dpavs]

There is just no real way to answer this kind of question imo. The best basis for comparison, again imo, would be stats from each's best season. We can get that for Tiger but I don't know of a source where we could see the same stats for Jack in his absolute prime.

 

All the stuff about how many wins against the field this one or that one had just doesn't mean much to me if we are trying to compare these two great players in their absolute prime to each other.

Edited December 22, 2022 by Dpavs

[RobS]

2 hours ago, mosesgolf said:

Tiger lost almost 10yrs of healthy playing time due to injuries.  Tiger would've surpassed Jack's 18 easily including 100+ wins.  What Tiger did in 2019 with a fused back at the Masters, Zozo, and President's Cup is a testament to that.  

As they say frequently in team sports, the most important ability is availability.  It is reasonable to assume that Tiger would have accomplished more if he would have taken better care of himself and avoided injury.  Or maybe he wouldn't have accomplished as much if he didn't push himself as hard earlier in his career.  The 'what ifs' do work both ways though.  What if Jack started playing golf as a toddler like Tiger and made golf his sole focus throughout his youth instead of playing multiple sports as he did through high school?  What if Jack didn't live in Ohio but lived in a warm climate where he could play golf year round and not just seasonally?  What is Jack didn't have 5 kids and start a family at age 21?  

We don't know any of those answers for sure, for Tiger or Jack but to answer the original question, I think peak Tiger edges peak Jack by a nose.

Edited December 22, 2022 by RobS

[jmck]

1 hour ago, Shilgy said:

Geez, if Jack had a longer “sustained excellence “ it certainly makes me wonder why he’s not above Snead and Tiger on the wins list.

 

Your other peak examples are one year…Tiger’s was a decade.  In the ten seasons starting in 1999 Woods won 58 times….more than all but four others won in their career.  If it was 11 years counting 2009 it would be 64 times….

 

Sounds like sustained excellence to me.

Just glossing right over that one win season in 2004, eh?   ; )

 

Jack won multiple times on tour for 17 years in a row.  Of those 17, three were two win seasons--everything else was 3+.  Tiger's longest streak of winning multiple times was 5 years in a row.

 

Jack won the Vardon trophy six times in a row.  For Tiger, it's five.

 

Every this comes up, a whole lot of people insist "Tiger did X which will never be done again" while ignoring that Jack did Y which Tiger wasn't able to do.

[RobS]

5 hours ago, shoot4par said:

 

I don't think you're gonna see anything like Tiger for a very long time. Most likely no one will ever come close. Game is becoming too global and scientific to see such dominance from one player. Information, technology, instruction is more accessible. Up and comers find a way to get the support and backing to improve and compete. It'll be more democratic (in some ways.) The fields are too balanced and you're gonna see guys coming out of the woodwork.  The overall quality of play will be so good that HOF careers will be 10-20 victories 1-3 majors. (it won't be much different than it is now.) Only two current players are listed in the top 50 in tour wins other than TW. 

 

Contemporaries/ Successors in PGA Tour Victories: 

DJ - 14 Years on Tour - 26 Victories

Rory - 12 Years on Tour - 22 Victories

 

                           v.

 

Tiger - 24 years on Tour - 82 Victories

 

Even if you double either players total and assume they can be as durable, it's improbable anyone gets close to Tiger and Snead. It's not impossible that someone will come along and enter the conversation but it's extremely unlikely.

 

With regards to the initial question, it's apples and oranges. Tiger is Mozart, Jack is Beethoven. You can make an argument for either and you're never gonna get a satisfactory resolution. The game is different. Courses are different. Technology is different. Competition is different. The resources at these guys disposal are different. What encompasses being a professional golfer is different in a lot of ways.

This is a great assessment.  As sports evolve, the pack grows larger and becomes more tightly grouped together.

[Shilgy]

41 minutes ago, jmck said:

Just glossing right over that one win season in 2004, eh?   ; )

 

Jack won multiple times on tour for 17 years in a row.  Of those 17, three were two win seasons--everything else was 3+.  Tiger's longest streak of winning multiple times was 5 years in a row.

 

Jack won the Vardon trophy six times in a row.  For Tiger, it's five.

 

Every this comes up, a whole lot of people insist "Tiger did X which will never be done again" while ignoring that Jack did Y which Tiger wasn't able to do.

Glossed over what? I gave a ten year peak that was better than most total careers.  That is all.

 

Jack “won” how many Vardon awards?  Would have if he played enough maybe….but not “won”.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vardon_Trophy#Multiple_winners

 

Jack had great longevity numbers….no doubt.  Woods won more times in his career in a shorter span.  

[Neo1]

6 hours ago, shoot4par said:

 

I don't think you're gonna see anything like Tiger for a very long time. Most likely no one will ever come close. Game is becoming too global and scientific to see such dominance from one player. Information, technology, instruction is more accessible. Up and comers find a way to get the support and backing to improve and compete. It'll be more democratic (in some ways.) The fields are too balanced and you're gonna see guys coming out of the woodwork.  The overall quality of play will be so good that HOF careers will be 10-20 victories 1-3 majors. (it won't be much different than it is now.) Only two current players are listed in the top 50 in tour wins other than TW. 

 

Contemporaries/ Successors in PGA Tour Victories: 

DJ - 14 Years on Tour - 26 Victories

Rory - 12 Years on Tour - 22 Victories

 

                           v.

 

Tiger - 24 years on Tour - 82 Victories

 

Even if you double either players total and assume they can be as durable, it's improbable anyone gets close to Tiger and Snead. It's not impossible that someone will come along and enter the conversation but it's extremely unlikely.

 

With regards to the initial question, it's apples and oranges. Tiger is Mozart, Jack is Beethoven. You can make an argument for either and you're never gonna get a satisfactory resolution. The game is different. Courses are different. Technology is different. Competition is different. The resources at these guys disposal are different. What encompasses being a professional golfer is different in a lot of ways.

 

Tiger didn't need to break Jacks record in order to be the GOAT, is the same reason nobody needs to break his...like you said the talent pool is flooded now and winning 10 majors seems near impossible. but there are guys in the future who will be close to if not the same skill wise as Woods in his prime, but of course the results won't be...every sport athletes get better but results don't, that was my whole point.

[jmck]

19 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Glossed over what? I gave a ten year peak that was better than most total careers.  That is all.

 

Jack “won” how many Vardon awards?  Would have if he played enough maybe….but not “won”.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vardon_Trophy#Multiple_winners

 

Jack had great longevity numbers….no doubt.  Woods won more times in his career in a shorter span.  

Eh, yeah, I should've said scoring average rather than Vardon Trophy, you've got me there, but the point stands that Jack lead it 6 times in a row compared to Tiger's 5.

 

Anyhow, here's something totally subjective.  You know why I'd take Jack over Tiger?  Because Tiger never once had to worry about someone with enough balls to drop a 65-65 on him over the weekend to beat his 65-66, a la Watson at Turnberry in 77.

 

Here's the list of everyone who finished second to Tiger in majors . Tom Kite, Sergio Garcia, Els (twice), MA Jimenez, Thomas Bjorn, Bob May, Duval, Goosen, Mickelson (only once, by three shots and it wasn't particularly close), Chris DiMarco (twice), Montgomerie, Shaun Micheel, Woody Austin (a bank teller!), Rocco, DJ, Koepka, Schauffele.

 

Tiger needed extra holes to beat Rocco Mediate, an affable doughboy who knew how to hit exactly one (1) golf shot.  Mickelson, the consensus second best of the generation, took nearly a decade on tour before he could figure out how to win a tournament bigger than the Bob Hope, won all of his majors when Tiger was a non-factor, and when Tiger was winning his majors Mickelson was generally a ghost.  Buch of softies compared to the dudes Nicklaus had to beat, in my very subjective opinion. 

[bekgolf]

2 minutes ago, jmck said:

Tiger needed extra holes to beat Rocco Mediate, an affable doughboy who knew how to hit exactly one (1) golf shot. 

 

Ehhmm, Tiger was playing with a broken leg for the whole tournament and he still played the extra round to win.

 

Instant goat award for that feat.

[jmck]

8 minutes ago, golf_junkie_85 said:

 

Tiger didn't need to break Jacks record in order to be the GOAT, is the same reason nobody needs to break his...like you said the talent pool is flooded now and winning 10 majors seems near impossible. but there are guys in the future who will be close to if not the same skill wise as Woods in his prime, but of course the results won't be...every sport athletes get better but results don't, that was my whole point.

You say that now, but if Rory (or Spieth or someone we've yet to hear of who just turned 12 or whoever) goes on a run and wins 12 majors you can mark my words that the very people who are currently saying Tiger is better than Jack because it's harder to win 15 now than it was to win 18 all those years ago will be the first to post "15 > 12, QED."

[Dutch1008]

8 minutes ago, jmck said:

Eh, yeah, I should've said scoring average rather than Vardon Trophy, you've got me there, but the point stands that Jack lead it 6 times in a row compared to Tiger's 5.

 

Anyhow, here's something totally subjective.  You know why I'd take Jack over Tiger?  Because Tiger never once had to worry about someone with enough balls to drop a 65-65 on him over the weekend to beat his 65-66, a la Watson at Turnberry in 77.

 

Here's the list of everyone who finished second to Tiger in majors . Tom Kite, Sergio Garcia, Els (twice), MA Jimenez, Thomas Bjorn, Bob May, Duval, Goosen, Mickelson (only once, by three shots and it wasn't particularly close), Chris DiMarco (twice), Montgomerie, Shaun Micheel, Woody Austin (a bank teller!), Rocco, DJ, Koepka, Schauffele.

 

Tiger needed extra holes to beat Rocco Mediate, an affable doughboy who knew how to hit exactly one (1) golf shot.  Mickelson, the consensus second best of the generation, took nearly a decade on tour before he could figure out how to win a tournament bigger than the Bob Hope, won all of his majors when Tiger was a non-factor, and when Tiger was winning his majors Mickelson was generally a ghost.  Buch of softies compared to the dudes Nicklaus had to beat, in my very subjective opinion. 

Not sure I agree with the conclusion but someone did try to answer this question...

 

Jack Nicklaus vs. Tiger Woods: Who Faces Tougher Competition?

[jmck]

2 minutes ago, bekgolf said:

 

Ehhmm, Tiger was playing with a broken leg for the whole tournament and he still played the extra round to win.

 

Instant goat award for that feat.

Do I win a prize for knowing someone would post exactly that?  

 

At a younger, easier-to-heal age than 2008 Tiger I broke my leg in three places and was in traction for a eight days, so I know what a properly broken leg feels like, so you'll have to forgive me for not buying into that particular bit of Tiger mythology.  

[Dutch1008]

6 minutes ago, jmck said:

You say that now, but if Rory (or Spieth or someone we've yet to hear of who just turned 12 or whoever) goes on a run and wins 12 majors you can mark my words that the very people who are currently saying Tiger is better than Jack because it's harder to win 15 now than it was to win 18 all those years ago will be the first to post "15 > 12, QED."

Nobody will universally agree on anything. There are Boston nuts who think Russell > Jordan because 11 > 6. 

 

I believe a worthy opinion should rest on more than a single data point. I'm not offended by 18>15 but I certainly don't find it a definitive end of a discussion. 

[Neo1]

12 minutes ago, jmck said:

You say that now, but if Rory (or Spieth or someone we've yet to hear of who just turned 12 or whoever) goes on a run and wins 12 majors you can mark my words that the very people who are currently saying Tiger is better than Jack because it's harder to win 15 now than it was to win 18 all those years ago will be the first to post "15 > 12, QED."

 

nope... I've said many times in other jack vs tiger threads if anyone gets 10 slams and 50 wins from 2020 onwards they're firmly in the GOAT discussion

[bekgolf]

3 minutes ago, jmck said:

Do I win a prize for knowing someone would post exactly that?  

 

At a younger, easier-to-heal age than 2008 Tiger I broke my leg in three places and was in traction for a eight days, so I know what a properly broken leg feels like, so you'll have to forgive me for not buying into that particular bit of Tiger mythology.  

 

You win the Johnny Miller prize for making the call after it happened.

[jmck]

Just now, bekgolf said:

 

You win the Johnny Miller prize for making the call after it happened.

lol, I"LL TAKE IT!!!!

[Dutch1008]

14 minutes ago, jmck said:

You say that now, but if Rory (or Spieth or someone we've yet to hear of who just turned 12 or whoever) goes on a run and wins 12 majors you can mark my words that the very people who are currently saying Tiger is better than Jack because it's harder to win 15 now than it was to win 18 all those years ago will be the first to post "15 > 12, QED."

Further, if Rory (or whomever) was to win 8-10 events, sweep the majors, and win a couple of those majors in an absolute romp (8-10 strokes)? Than yes, that person, be it Rory or Rahm or whomever, would and should be considered as the best golfer of all time. Maybe not the best career, but absolutely would have a defendable seat at the table as the best peak ever. 

[jmck]

3 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

Nobody will universally agree on anything. There are Boston nuts who think Russell > Jordan because 11 > 6. 

 

I believe a worthy opinion should rest on more than a single data point. I'm not offended by 18>15 but I certainly don't find it a definitive end of a discussion. 

Oh I agree completely.  Here's the catch in this discussion though.  Tiger himself has said that's how he measures himself against other golfers.  Not by height, but my majors won.  Not tournaments won, or winning percentage, or Vardon trophies, or Saudi money for all you LIV fans out there, but majors.  That's the goal he set for himself--to win more majors than Jack.  I'm way too lazy to go digging for the quote, but IIRC there was an interview a few years back and when asked Tiger specifically said he doesn't consider himself the GOAT, specifically because he hasn't won 18+ majors.  Now maybe he's just being polite there, but maybe Jack and Tom Watson are likewise just being polite in that one quote Basic loves to post every December, lol.

[Steepest22]

1 hour ago, jmck said:

Eh, yeah, I should've said scoring average rather than Vardon Trophy, you've got me there, but the point stands that Jack lead it 6 times in a row compared to Tiger's 5.

 

Anyhow, here's something totally subjective.  You know why I'd take Jack over Tiger?  Because Tiger never once had to worry about someone with enough balls to drop a 65-65 on him over the weekend to beat his 65-66, a la Watson at Turnberry in 77.

 

Here's the list of everyone who finished second to Tiger in majors . Tom Kite, Sergio Garcia, Els (twice), MA Jimenez, Thomas Bjorn, Bob May, Duval, Goosen, Mickelson (only once, by three shots and it wasn't particularly close), Chris DiMarco (twice), Montgomerie, Shaun Micheel, Woody Austin (a bank teller!), Rocco, DJ, Koepka, Schauffele.

 

Tiger needed extra holes to beat Rocco Mediate, an affable doughboy who knew how to hit exactly one (1) golf shot.  Mickelson, the consensus second best of the generation, took nearly a decade on tour before he could figure out how to win a tournament bigger than the Bob Hope, won all of his majors when Tiger was a non-factor, and when Tiger was winning his majors Mickelson was generally a ghost.  Buch of softies compared to the dudes Nicklaus had to beat, in my very subjective opinion. 

Phil’s first three majors were in 04, 05, and 06 - Tiger was very much a factor.

[bscinstnct]

1 hour ago, jmck said:

You say that now, but if Rory (or Spieth or someone we've yet to hear of who just turned 12 or whoever) goes on a run and wins 12 majors you can mark my words that the very people who are currently saying Tiger is better than Jack because it's harder to win 15 now than it was to win 18 all those years ago will be the first to post "15 > 12, QED."

 

We see how brutal it is to sustain any regular pace of winning majors. Guys just can’t keep the peak intensity in skills and mental strength to do it.

 

Nobody can even win more than 4! 
 

But, in the TW vs Jack debate 

 

Im in the camp that Jack is the goat, he put up the numbers. Maybe the overall fields weren’t as good but there were a group of serious guys, hof guys, with top skills he had to contend with week in and week out. 
 

But, I say TW played a higher level of golf than Jack overall and sustained it for a very impressive period of time. 
 

I mean, even Jacks competitors say so, Trevino and Watson. And they have no incentive to say “Tigers better/the best”. If anything, saying jacks better would make them look better. 

Edited December 22, 2022 by bscinstnct

[jmck]

26 minutes ago, Steepest22 said:

Phil’s first three majors were in 04, 05, and 06 - Tiger was very much a factor.

 

In the '04 Masters, Tiger finished T22, 11 shots behind Mickelson.

In the '05 PGA, Tiger shot a 68 to Phil's 72 in the final round to go from six back to two back but never really threatened.

In the '06 Masters, Tiger started Sunday two back and finished Sunday three back, again never really threatening.

 

When did Mickelson ever take it to Tiger head to head?  Only one I can remember is at Pebble, long after Peak Tiger.  2nd best of his generation--and, like I said earlier, totally lacking the balls to drop 65-65 over the weekend to beat Tiger, playing together for 36 holes, head to head.

Edited December 22, 2022 by jmck