Jack vs Tiger

[pingbling23]

A career is just that, a career.  Not peak stretch of years.  Jack>Tiger.  The majors are what matters the most in professional golf and no one will come close to jacks body of work on the biggest stage.

[Nard_S]

Whose highlight reel would I rather watch?

Easy answer there.

. 

[bscinstnct]

3 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

Whose highlight reel would I rather watch?

Easy answer there.

. 

 

No doubt whatsoever 

 

 

 

🤣 ; )

[jmck]

48 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

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. 

Yeah, that's pretty much where I come down on it too, especially the bolded bit.  It's just that the strength of field argument perpetually drives me nuts.  Were #75-200 in the world better in Tiger's day than Jack's day?  Sure, absolutely.  But those guys don't matter 99% of the time.  It's the top 20 guys you have to look at.  Just ask Koepka, he's said as much many times over.  Were the top 20 guys in Tiger's day better than Jack's day?  Nope, absolutely not, not even close.

 

If you'll indulge me while I go further afield--and let me preface this by swearing I'm not a boomer--the money that Jack and Arnie brought to the game made the next generation soft.  People forever talk about the money Tiger brought to the game, but there was a big influx before that where, thanks to Jack and Arnie, you could make a million bucks by being a top pro.  IMO Tiger was pretty much the last of the old school, cut your throat as soon as look at you type of guys.  And the guys before Tiger were even more so.  Look at someone like Hal Sutton beating Tiger at the Players in 2000.  Jack had 20+ guys as hard-a** as Hal Sutton to deal with every week throughout his whole career.  The closest Tiger had to come to dealing with anyone like that was Vijay in 2004, maybe Duval, Els and Anthony Kim for a few months here and there.  And again, to belabor the point, never Mickelson, the clear 2nd best of Tiger's time.

[bscinstnct]

19 minutes ago, jmck said:

Yeah, that's pretty much where I come down on it too, especially the bolded bit.  It's just that the strength of field argument perpetually drives me nuts.  Were #75-200 in the world better in Tiger's day than Jack's day?  Sure, absolutely.  But those guys don't matter 99% of the time.  It's the top 20 guys you have to look at.  Just ask Koepka, he's said as much many times over.  Were the top 20 guys in Tiger's day better than Jack's day?  Nope, absolutely not, not even close.

 

If you'll indulge me while I go further afield--and let me preface this by swearing I'm not a boomer--the money that Jack and Arnie brought to the game made the next generation soft.  People forever talk about the money Tiger brought to the game, but there was a big influx before that where, thanks to Jack and Arnie, you could make a million bucks by being a top pro.  IMO Tiger was pretty much the last of the old school, cut your throat as soon as look at you type of guys.  And the guys before Tiger were even more so.  Look at someone like Hal Sutton beating Tiger at the Players in 2000.  Jack had 20+ guys as hard-a** as Hal Sutton to deal with every week throughout his whole career.  The closest Tiger had to come to dealing with anyone like that was Vijay in 2004, maybe Duval, Els and Anthony Kim for a few months here and there.  And again, to belabor the point, never Mickelson, the clear 2nd best of Tiger's time.

 

Guys like Rory now say it’s ok to not win. Because, even if you don’t win, your mom still loves you. 

 

All good

 

But with that attitude he’d last about 9 seconds back in jacks day. Back then, you don’t win you live in shame and can’t pay your mortgage!

 

Now we got Bryson win one major and get 150MM!

 

It’s getting to the point where nobody cares if you win as long as you make “inspiring YouTube content” and sport cool joggers 🤣

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dutch1008]

2 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

Guys like Rory now say it’s ok to not win. Because, even if you don’t win, your mom still loves you. 

Is this a serious comment? The dude has 4 majors and 23 tour wins at 33. Because he has a little perspective he's somehow soft? Its a freaking game. Arnold Palmer won nothing of consequence after 34, I guess his generation was weak too. 

 

Also, I fail to remember Jack performing hara-kiri after losing the duel in the sun. Was he not aware of the mandated shame of losing?

[Dutch1008]

55 minutes ago, jmck said:

Look at someone like Hal Sutton beating Tiger at the Players in 2000.  Jack had 20+ guys as hard-a** as Hal Sutton to deal with every week throughout his whole career.  The closest Tiger had to come to dealing with anyone like that was Vijay in 2004, maybe Duval, Els and Anthony Kim for a few months here and there.  And again, to belabor the point, never Mickelson, the clear 2nd best of Tiger's time.

Hal Sutton had 14 wins with 1 major. His steely demeanor didn't make him any more an apex predator than Jim Furyk (17). Ernie Els (19) and Davis Love (21) were about as intense and hard as a sloth yet somehow had more success than noted hard-a** Hal Sutton. 

 

 

[bscinstnct]

20 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

Is this a serious comment? The dude has 4 majors and 23 tour wins at 33. Because he has a little perspective he's somehow soft? Its a freaking game. Arnold Palmer won nothing of consequence after 34, I guess his generation was weak too. 

 

Also, I fail to remember Jack performing hara-kiri after losing the duel in the sun. Was he not aware of the mandated shame of losing?

 

It’s been 8 full years since rory won his last major at 25 years old

 

He was on pace with Tiger and Jack

 

What happened?

[chinaski]

2000 Tiger. No question. No one has ever played better golf. 

[jmck]

24 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

Hal Sutton had 14 wins with 1 major. His steely demeanor didn't make him any more an apex predator than Jim Furyk (17). Ernie Els (19) and Davis Love (21) were about as intense and hard as a sloth yet somehow had more success than noted hard-a** Hal Sutton. 

 

/cdn-cgi/mirage/404105cadf4a5444e772eafdc4b6c30205455c0e294657c9421d9b92becfdfed/1280/cdn-cgi/mirage/404105cadf4a5444e772eafdc4b6c30205455c0e294657c9421d9b92becfdfed/1280/https://media4.giphy.com/media/d5mI2F3MxCTJu/200.gif 

Nice gif, pretty much my spirit animal lol.  But anyway, how many times combined did Furyk, Els and Love go head to head with Tiger and beat him coming down the stretch? One less than Hal Sutton.

[Dutch1008]

Just now, bscinstnct said:

It’s been 8 full years since rory won his last major at 25 years old

 

He was on pace with Tiger and Jack

 

What happened?

You don't have to convince me that he's underperformed his talent level. He absolutely has. He's not the mental monster that Jack or Tiger are. 

 

Regardless, he's won plenty since his last major, he's back to #1, leads the tour in scoring, and can still dominate the field off the tee. Whether or not he can overcome this mental block at the majors will ultimately determine if Rory is one of the greats or stuck in that tier of really good. Beats me if he'll figure it out but I don't think reading a few self help books and talking about finding perspective and balance means the dude lacks the testicular fortitude to compete. 

[TLUBulldogGolf]

3 hours ago, golf_junkie_85 said:

 

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

 

There is no current player who will achieve this imo, and whoever it may be would have to at least approach Tiger's win rates/totals to even be considered. Peak Rory relative to the field doesn't really touch peak Tiger. 

 

4 hours 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. 

 

Yes and Jack had Bruce Crampton 3 times, Doug Sanders multiple times, also Tom Kite, Tony Lema, Dave Ragan (?), a playoff win over Gay Brewer and Tommy Jacobs, Arnold and Player in one but they were 9 behind so it wasn't particularly close 😉, and everyone vomited all over themselves to blow the '86 Masters (not to discount Jack's back 9). The better argument would be who he finished 2nd to. Tiger not coming from behind (until 2019) I can agree is a negative for him, there were several Masters where he made runs that fizzled. And he was flat out beaten by lesser players twice at Hazeltine. But the sheer dominance from 99-07 is hard to overlook. 

Edited December 22, 2022 by TLUBulldogGolf

[bscinstnct]

7 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

You don't have to convince me that he's underperformed his talent level. He absolutely has. He's not the mental monster that Jack or Tiger are. 

 

Regardless, he's won plenty since his last major, he's back to #1, leads the tour in scoring, and can still dominate the field off the tee. Whether or not he can overcome this mental block at the majors will ultimately determine if Rory is one of the greats or stuck in that tier of really good. Beats me if he'll figure it out but I don't think reading a few self help books and talking about finding perspective and balance means the dude lacks the testicular fortitude to compete. 

 

Right on. And that’s in keeping with my post about him being ok with not winning. 
 

The Jacks, TWs, MJs, Brady’s 

 

They ain’t ok with not winning. They loath losing more than they like winning! And they loathe themselves as losers if they don’t win. 
 

Rory’s biggest downfall is not hating himself 🤣

 

For not winning, anyway ; )

[TLUBulldogGolf]

5 hours 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.

 

2004 was a swing change year.

 

These metrics feel very arbitrary. How many times did Jack win 5+ times in a season?

Edited December 22, 2022 by TLUBulldogGolf

[Dutch1008]

6 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

The Jacks, TWs, MJs, Brady’s 

That's rarified air. There are a lot of really great athletes that aren't sniffing that group. 

[bekgolf]

18 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

 

There is no current player who will achieve this imo, and whoever it may be would have to at least approach Tiger's win rates/totals to even be considered. Peak Rory relative to the field doesn't really touch peak Tiger. 

 

 

Yes and Jack had Bruce Crampton 3 times, Doug Sanders multiple times, also Tom Kite, Tony Lema, Dave Ragan (?), a playoff win over Gay Brewer and Tommy Jacobs, Arnold and Player in one but they were 9 behind so it wasn't particularly close 😉, and everyone vomited all over themselves to blow the '86 Masters (not to discount Jack's back 9). The better argument would be who he finished 2nd to. Tiger not coming from behind (until 2019) I can agree is a negative for him, there were several Masters where he made runs that fizzled. And he was flat out beaten by lesser players twice at Hazeltine. But the sheer dominance from 99-07 is hard to overlook. 

 

The best players melted when facing Tiger on Sunday.  Tiger faced some great players but his game was on another level. 

 

I think the player that fared best and put the most pressure against Tiger and still lost was Chris DiMarco in 2005 with a shout out to Rocco for hanging tough at the 2008 US Open. 

 

Tiger faced tough opponents but he had the fortitude to not lose focus.  His last US Amateur is another example of Tiger not giving up.

 

I think of Jack as a gentleman and a great golfer.  I think current Tiger is a much happier person than pre 2009 Tiger who never smiled during a tournament.

[straightshot7]

Peak Tiger Woods is the closest to a perfect golfer we have ever seen. 

 

Jack could take 2nd. 

[aenemated]

6 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

 

No doubt whatsoever 

 

 

 

🤣 ; )

 

Man, I completely forgot that guy even existed 😂

[polski]

For me it has to be Tiger.

 

Jack was probably just being nice but he did say this about seeing Tiger play:

 

"He plays a game with which I am not familiar"

 

 

[shoot4par]

4 minutes ago, polski said:

 

 

"He plays a game with which I am not familiar"

 

 

 

Think Jones said that about Nicklaus before Nicklaus said it about anyone else. 

[polski]

18 minutes ago, shoot4par said:

 

Think Jones said that about Nicklaus before Nicklaus said it about anyone else. 

 

Yep he did, and I think that Jack said that about Tiger. I could be wrong it was a long time ago. 

[Superbrit]

Tiger

 

Peak Jack still had a small weakness

 

Peak Tiger was as close to a faultless golfer as you can get

 

Would be amazing to watch though

[bscinstnct]

3 hours ago, Superbrit said:

Tiger

 

Peak Jack still had a small weakness

 

Peak Tiger was as close to a faultless golfer as you can get

 

Would be amazing to watch though

 

Ya, if we talking *peak Tiger…

 

“Let me put it this way,” said Watson, an eight-time major winner, “he’s the best player in golf who ever came down the pike. Even Jack Nicklaus would agree with that now.

 

“Whenever he’s in competition, in the lead, most people simply can’t beat him. Whether he’s so much better or has that aura of invincibility we don’t know, but we do know what we can see. My good friend Byron Nelson, who saw Tiger at 16, he said then ‘I see no weaknesses in his golf game.’ I don’t either.”

 

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-dec-14-sp-tiger14-story.html

 

 

Edited December 23, 2022 by bscinstnct

[naval2006]

A couple of considerations and a little anecdote.

 

First, it's very very hard to compare greatest from different eras.  The commonest way, counting wins, is just a simplification for media or measuring purposes.  We take the how many wins measurement as natural but I think there must be something else to it as I learned some years ago.  

 

In the late 90's, when Tiger was taking off, I asked the late Roberto De Vicenzo who the best player ever was for him.  He'd played for decades with guys like Hogan, Nicklaus, Byron Nelson, Seve and the likes.  When I asked him that question I was naturally expecting Nicklaus as a response.  I was thinking in Majors as we usually do.   

 

The Maestro unhesitantly answered: Sam Snead.  I then found out that among top players the ability to play the sport, and not number of wins, is the biggest influence when it comes to who's the best.  You need a lot of victories to be in the elite group, though.

 

So based on golf ability, Tiger is generally above Jack.  On the green, however, they are tied.    

[KNOWMOREDOUBLES]

22 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.  

The injury argument never held any weight with me. You need to be able to manage your body away from the course also. 

[GregNormans1Iron]

For me it's Jack by a long chalk. The only person Tiger ever had to beat was himself as he played with a bunch of guys who won 1/2 majors and were terrified off him. 

Jack played with lots of guys with multiple majors and he didn't have the same aura of invincibility. He saw off the Palmers, Watsons, Trevinos, Players, Floyd's, Ballesteros and lots more-18 times. 

For me beating proven winners is a lot harder than beating perennial bottlers. 

[bscinstnct]

40 minutes ago, GregNormans1Iron said:

For me it's Jack by a long chalk. The only person Tiger ever had to beat was himself as he played with a bunch of guys who won 1/2 majors and were terrified off him. 

Jack played with lots of guys with multiple majors and he didn't have the same aura of invincibility. He saw off the Palmers, Watsons, Trevinos, Players, Floyd's, Ballesteros and lots more-18 times. 

For me beating proven winners is a lot harder than beating perennial bottlers. 

 

Jack won 17 of 18 Majors from 1963 and later.

 

Palmer won 6 of his 7 majors in 1962 or earlier.

 

So clearly Jack wasn’t facing off agains prime Arnie for most of Jacks majors.

 

Tom Watson won 7 of his 8 majors from 1977 and later. So from 1962-1976 (14 years of Jacks prime) when Jack won 14 of his 18, he wasn’t facing off against Watson during the bull of his major winning years. 
 

Seve won all his 5 majors from 1979 and later. And 3 of 5 from 83 and later. 

 

So, it’s not like Jack was competing with all these guys all during his/their prime major winning years. Something to keep in mind. 

[mosesgolf]

1 hour ago, GregNormans1Iron said:

For me it's Jack by a long chalk. The only person Tiger ever had to beat was himself as he played with a bunch of guys who won 1/2 majors and were terrified off him. 

Jack played with lots of guys with multiple majors and he didn't have the same aura of invincibility. He saw off the Palmers, Watsons, Trevinos, Players, Floyd's, Ballesteros and lots more-18 times. 

For me beating proven winners is a lot harder than beating perennial bottlers. 

Jack lost more than he won vs Trevino and Watson.  Seve won 5 majors from 1980 to 1988 and Jack got 5.   Tom Watson 1975-1983 won 8 majors to Jack’s 5 and when Jack went against Tom head to head down to the wire Tom Watson always got the better of Jack. Jack came in 2nd 5 times in Tom Watson’s 8 majors.  In 4 of the 6 majors Trevino won Jack came in 2nd.  Gary Player won 7 of his 9 majors in Jack’s era.   

Lee Trevino and Tom Watson were better than Jack in their prime years when they got their majors.  They best Jack more often when it counted.   There was no one in Tiger’s era that ever bested him more than once because Tiger was always so much better than his peers.  During Tiger’s reign at number one his World rankings points were so high no one could sniff anywhere near.   Kudos to VJ Singh 2004 but other than that Tiger was on another planet during his reign.  
 

 

 

Edited December 23, 2022 by mosesgolf

[GregNormans1Iron]

3 minutes ago, mosesgolf said:

Jack lost more than he won vs Trevino and Watson.  Seve won 5 majors from 1980 to 1988 and Jack got 5.   Tom Watson 1975-1983 won 8 majors to Jack’s 5.   In 4 of the 6 majors Trevino won Jack came in 2nd.  Gary Player won 7 of his 9 majors in Jack’s era.   

@mosesgolfthanks for that definitely proves the point I was trying to make. Jack had to win his majors against guys who knew how to win these events and weren't afraid of him not guys who would bottle it at the mere mention of his name or the fact that he entered the tournament. 

 

[mosesgolf]

5 minutes ago, GregNormans1Iron said:

@mosesgolfthanks for that definitely proves the point I was trying to make. Jack had to win his majors against guys who knew how to win these events and weren't afraid of him not guys who would bottle it at the mere mention of his name or the fact that he entered the tournament. 

 

No it was Tiger was so much better than everybody else that no one could ever really challenge Tiger. Phil Mickelson, Ernie Els, VJ Singh, David Duval did ok.  Tiger just left a trail of destruction along the way.