Jack vs Tiger

[dcfas]

Tiger at peak is the apex of golf. That being said, I still think Jack is number 1.

 

Edited to hedge a bit: Tiger’s not done. I just feel Jack’s longevity and Major wins trumps TW. But, yeah, it’s hard to argue TW played the best golf on the planet.

Edited December 24, 2022 by dcfas

[bscinstnct]

1 hour ago, RHenderson said:

Good question seeing the quality of play in that video? Did you watch it? But Sir I have no answer just stating what I saw vrs the quality of play I see each week today on the PGA 

 

Honest question because it’s been talked about quite a bit. 
 

Do you think the 2019 Masters was a conspiracy? As you said, given that 2008 US Open video, no way Tiger could compete with, much less beat all the current pros all at once. 
 

Look at how the leaders just happen to fold, that’s no coincidence. 
 

And Brooks could have easily closed out and won. Somebody obviously got to him and had a “heart to heart” with him somewhere on the back 9. 

[RHenderson]

@dcfas agree thus far, my only issue with the Greatest of all time is this: Last time I checked time has not stopped or stood still so it's a disservice to the up & coming players of any sport to say GOAT. Maybe it needs to be said the best at his time? or the best to this point, we are nuts if we think these kids wont continue to get better, they always do, so once a bar is set it gives the up & comers a target or goal just as it has since the beginning of time. Tigers greatness was coupled with the stars aligning, equipment gains, teaching gains, knowledge, sports medicine & science so no way is Tiger solely responsible, I also think these comments do a injustice to his team, coaches, caddy etc. I find it hard to give 100% Credit to a single man, especially in Tiger's era, I think theres alot of credit that should be given to the ones that helped get him there especially the way the game has evolved and will continue. Look at Baseball, Soccer, Gymnastics, etc there are so many coaching teams, camps that basically raise, teach, mentor and mold these new athletes and they would just be another player without them. I see this coming to golf in the future given the huge amounts of money available today.

Thanks  

Edited December 24, 2022 by RHenderson

[WristySwing]

Tiger for me, and I will try and argue why, but I respect those who disagree for their reasons.  Tiger literally reset every golf record there ever was except for 4: Jack's Major record, Jack's Master's record, Snead's wins (although there is an argument that Woods has more based on the criteria of some of Snead's wins), and Nelson's 11 in a row (probably never to be done again).  Those are the only 4 records to my knowledge he hasn't beat.  Money list records aside as those are hard to correlate for obvious reasons, Woods has some insane records that are very unlikely to be broken.  He had the World #1 Ranking for close to 3X as long as the next guy (Norman), only player to win the Us Junior, US AM, and US Open (done each of them 3X), he's made 142 consecutive cuts in a row (which is even more mind-boggling when you think he played a drastically reduced schedule compared to your average pro, meaning he basically never missed a cut for 7 years!!), youngest player to win the Masters, youngest player to win the career grand slam, only person to ever hold all 4 major titles at the same time, holds the record for the biggest margin of victory at both The Masters and the US Open with 12 and 15 strokes respectively, he's won 8 events in 3 different seasons, has the record for the lowest scoring average for the past 77 years (😳), and I am sure there are a bunch of other statistics floating out there.

 

Yes, majors are important, however, we have to also take into account that 2 of the 4 have limited fields, respectively.  The Masters is very hard, I'll accept that but it is an invitational and does not always represent the best players at all times when you have players like Ian Woosnam, Ben Crenshaw, and the like who take spots away from other players who might actually have a chance at winning it.  The PGA also has a limited field where something like 25-30 PGA club pros are invited to play, and I think we can almost all unanimously agree that these guys have next to no shot of hoisting the trophy let alone contending come the weekend more often than not.  In my view, majors can define a career, but they do not make a career.  Therefore, in my eyes, Woods has had the better career due to the sum of the parts, where apart from the Majors, Jack does not hold a candle to Woods in a lot of the categories/records I showed above from my very brief overview of their records/careers.

Edited December 24, 2022 by WristySwing

[RHenderson]

4 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Honest question because it’s been talked about quite a bit. 
 

Do you think the 2019 Masters was a conspiracy? As you said, given that 2008 US Open video, no way Tiger could compete with, much less beat all the current pros all at once. 
 

Look at how the leaders just happen to fold, that’s no coincidence. 
 

And Brooks could have easily closed out and won. Somebody obviously got to him and had a “heart to heart” with him somewhere on the back 9. 

Possibly, just my personal opinion based on ZERO facts, but I do find it odd there are times when a competitor wins an event ( any event ) and his competitors uncharacteristically falter. I grew up in the Hey day of boxing and it was discussed by many that a boxer winning on all cards, By a large margin, last round either was knocked out, took a knee, etc. So did it happed? I have no idea, is it a possibility? sure it is, we are talking about Humans who we all know have done much worse things right   

[Pastit]

18 minutes ago, WristySwing said:

Tiger for me, and I will try and argue why, but I respect those who disagree for their reasons.  Tiger literally reset every golf record there ever was except for 4: Jack's Major record, Jack's Master's record, Snead's wins (although there is an argument that Woods has more based on the criteria of some of Snead's wins), and Nelson's 11 in a row (probably never to be done again).  Those are the only 4 records to my knowledge he hasn't beat.  Money list records aside as those are hard to correlate for obvious reasons, Woods has some insane records that are very unlikely to be broken.  He had the World #1 Ranking for close to 3X as long as the next guy (Norman), only player to win the Us Junior, US AM, and US Open (done each of them 3X), he's made 142 consecutive cuts in a row (which is even more mind-boggling when you think he played a drastically reduced schedule compared to your average pro, meaning he basically never missed a cut for 7 years!!), youngest player to win the Masters, youngest player to win the career grand slam, only person to ever hold all 4 major titles at the same time, holds the record for the biggest margin of victory at both The Masters and the US Open with 12 and 15 strokes respectively, he's won 8 events in 3 different seasons, has the record for the lowest scoring average for the past 77 years (😳), and I am sure there are a bunch of other statistics floating out there.

 

Yes, majors are important, however, we have to also take into account that 2 of the 4 have limited fields, respectively.  The Masters is very hard, I'll accept that but it is an invitational and does not always represent the best players at all times when you have players like Ian Woosnam, Ben Crenshaw, and the like who take spots away from other players who might actually have a chance at winning it.  The PGA also has a limited field where something like 25-30 PGA club pros are invited to play, and I think we can almost all unanimously agree that these guys have next to no short of hoisting the trophy let alone contending come the weekend more often than not.  In my view, majors can define a career, but they do not make a career.  Therefore, in my eyes, Woods has had the better career due to the sum of the parts, where apart from the Majors, Jack does not hold a candle to Woods in a lot of the categories/records I showed above from my very brief overview of their records/careers.

I don’t think either JN or TW can live up the SS’s record especially considering, background, longevity and natural athleticism. 

[CHM 12]

The Match 2023 book it. Let’s settle the debate. 

[straightshot7]

4 hours ago, iBanesto said:

 

Of course Tiger will be fine in any era with any technology.

 

The million dollar question is whether the gap between him and Nicklaus will be as significant as some people suggest.

 

/cdn-cgi/mirage/404105cadf4a5444e772eafdc4b6c30205455c0e294657c9421d9b92becfdfed/1280/cdn-cgi/mirage/404105cadf4a5444e772eafdc4b6c30205455c0e294657c9421d9b92becfdfed/1280/https://media1.giphy.com/media/ndrNCM4RRAiCx8PfDC/200.gif

so you were joking when you just said:

 

• Would Tiger Woods' 'modern' swing work with the technology from the 60's/70's with the lack of forgiveness? I assume he may have to wind it up a little bit to be more precise.

?

[iBanesto]

On 12/25/2022 at 12:19 AM, bscinstnct said:

 

I don’t see anyone claiming TW peak game would kick Jacks peak games butt

 

He might beat Jack 6-6.5 out of 10 head to head. 
 

It’s like Watson and Byron Nelson said seeing Tiger actually play his peak game,

 

”He has no weaknesses”

 

Translation.. You can’t beat him. 
 

Be like 🤣

 

 

 

 

People seem confident Woods has the edge. I'm just suggesting maybe the technology would bring it back to 50:50.

 

I assume the scoring with 60's/70's technology would require some adjustment from Tiger on the poorer quality courses with those really slow greens.

 

But also if Jack used technology of the 2000's who knows if he could have been even better?

 

Fun world of hypothetical scenarios.

 

 

 

Drago Creed = Nicklaus Woods in some illogical way. 😅

 

Edited December 26, 2022 by iBanesto

[iBanesto]

8 hours ago, straightshot7 said:

so you were joking when you just said:

 

 

• Would Tiger Woods' 'modern' swing work with the technology from the 60's/70's with the lack of forgiveness? I assume he may have to wind it up a little bit to be more precise.

?

 

Well I said he will be fine but that doesn't translate to him clearly being better than Nicklaus with 60's/70's technology and course conditions.

 

The beauty of a hypothetical situation.

 

Edited December 25, 2022 by iBanesto

[Steele47]

On 12/21/2022 at 5:22 AM, Pent08 said:

"Jack is the greatest but Tiger played the best golf"

 

One of these players is the superior player who didn't get to end his career on his own terms.

 

He had his foot on the gas pedal going a gazillion mph.  His foot.  His gas pedal.  His terms.

[iBanesto]

9 minutes ago, Steele47 said:

 

He had his foot on the gas pedal going a gazillion mph.  His foot.  His gas pedal.  His terms.

 

Driving was never his strong suit.

 

 

Edited December 25, 2022 by iBanesto

[golferdude54]

Tiger’s won more money titles and scoring titles than Nicklaus did and he won more majors than him before 30, not to mention he’s won 82 PGA Tour events to Nicklaus’ 73.

 

Tiger also beat Nicklaus’ cut streak, 142 to 105, and tied his major cut streak at 39. 
 

This is like comparing Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell, both are all-time great players but Wilt clearly dominated the game more than Bill Russell, just like Tiger, despite having 9 less rings to show for it.
 

Look no further than the 1997 Masters, when Tiger beat Nicklaus’ 9 shot margin from the 1965 Masters by 3 strokes at 21 years old compared to his 25. 

[mjtoal]

On 12/21/2022 at 12:06 AM, daegyu said:

I think this runs contrary to your opinion. Modern technology usually favors the less skilled. I don't think the advancement in technology would've helped widen the gap between Jack and the field, it would probably have done the opposite. Just like Tiger had a bigger advantage over his peers when he was hitting steel shafted drivers. If all of the PGA tour had to use blades and bulls-eye putters like they did in the 60s/70s, I think Tiger would've fared better than in the era of 460cc drivers and high MOI broomstick putters. 

 

I think 2000 Tiger would've beat any golfer in history. Tiger's absolute peak was better than anyone else's. Jack had a longer period of sustained success and more majors, but best vs best I think Tiger had an additional gear that nobody else had. 

 

It can work in both directions, but one aspect was that Nicklaus played a pretty pro quality golf ball, and famously the USGA Technical Director begged him to switch, but he was loyal to Macgregor. 

[mosesgolf]

23 hours ago, RHenderson said:

Tiger Woods won but, Maybe Collin Montgomery was right? 2022 St Andrews what happened there?, we could go on and on I get it. But as several wise men have said there are only two certains in life and while it was great while it lasted, I'm sure this discussion will continue long after we are gone. I just find it true as my old coach used to say it's not what you did yesterday or last week that metters it's what you do today.  

How about almost losing his right leg in an accident?  
1 bad tournament because he is barely able to walk defines Tiger?

And what did Colin say about Tiger right before the 3rd round of the 97 Masters?  Tiger proved Colin wrong his whole career.  Tiger also pounded Colin for a long time too.  Colin is definitely not the best authority on Tiger.

Edited December 25, 2022 by mosesgolf

[mcputter]

Jack is the GOAT (for their career's). That said, in their prime I think (given time to adjust/adapt), with 1970's equipment I think Tiger would beat Jack 6/10 times, and with 2000's equipment I think Tiger would beat Jack 7/10 times. Tiger's short game is (was) just too good compared to Jack's.

[iBanesto]

9 hours ago, mosesgolf said:

How about almost losing his right leg in an accident?  
1 bad tournament because he is barely able to walk defines Tiger?

And what did Colin say about Tiger right before the 3rd round of the 97 Masters?  Tiger proved Colin wrong his whole career.  Tiger also pounded Colin for a long time too.  Colin is definitely not the best authority on Tiger.

 

 

[iBanesto]

Nicklaus on Tiger:

 

 

 

Faldo on Nicklaus and Tiger:

 

 

[Forged4ever]

Jack

 

Forget all of the other variables, it comes down to one thing and one thing only between these two....

 

That 4-4 1/2" fairway between their ears...

 

Jack wrote the book📕 on the mental game, and I absolutely adore Tiger's competitiveness and mental game, though there is only one Jack.

 

Nuff said

 

Fairways Greens & Fair Skies 4ever My Friends⛳️

RP 

Edited December 26, 2022 by Forged4ever

[butterysnaphook]

2 hours ago, Forged4ever said:

Jack

 

Forget all of the other variables, it comes down to one thing and one thing only between these two....

 

That 4-4 1/2" fairway between their ears...

 

Jack wrote the book📕 on the mental game, and I absolutely adore Tiger's competitiveness and mental game, though there is only one Jack.

 

Nuff said

 

Fairways Greens & Fair Skies 4ever My Friends⛳️

RP 

There is no “nuff said” about anything. That’s just your opinion. My opinion is that Jack wouldn’t even make the tour if he was around these days, does that automatically make me correct? No. But with that said, Jacks swing wasn’t technically sound and he couldn’t chip at all. Never putted on greens over an 8 on the stimp meter either. Oh and also there were only 4-5 people at each tournament who were any good. Most guys in the field back then were hacks and that’s objectively true by todays standards. Tiger ONLY played the biggest events with the best in the world. Jack had 1-2 guys to worry about at most tournaments. 

[iBanesto]

Some interesting stats as of November 2018.

 

 

"Tiger, this part of the club is called the heel." - J.W. Nicklaus.

 

Edited December 26, 2022 by iBanesto

[cdnglf]

48 minutes ago, iBanesto said:

Some interesting stats as of November 2018.

 

 

"Tiger, this part of the club is called the heel." - J.W. Nicklaus.

 

 

Wins in Tournaments with all the top 50 players in the world

 

Jack: 1, maybe?

Tiger: at least 20

[iBanesto]

25 minutes ago, cdnglf said:

 

Wins in Tournaments with all the top 50 players in the world

 

Jack: 1, maybe?

Tiger: at least 20

 

Did Nicklaus' tournaments even have 50 players in the field?

 

[cardia10]

8 hours ago, iBanesto said:

 

Did Nicklaus' tournaments even have 50 players in the field?

 

Throw some of Snead's wins in with 12 players, 8 of which were Am's and I don't think his win count is even close to realistic. 

[dropkicked]

Tiger 15 for 87

Jack 18 for 164

 

[bscinstnct]

5 minutes ago, dropkicked said:

Tiger 15 for 87

Jack 18 for 164

 

 

Jack was about 

 

17 for 87 ; )

 

At the point in his career when he had played 87 majors in 1983. 
 

Jack played in tons of majors from age 50-65 but not fair to factor those in his career winning percentage vs TWs until TW is done playing majors. 

 

 

[dropkicked]

36 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Jack was about 

 

17 for 87 ; )

 

At the point in his career when he had played 87 majors in 1983. 
 

Jack played in tons of majors from age 50-65 but not fair to factor those in his career winning percentage vs TWs until TW is done playing majors. 

 

 

[jmck]

On 12/24/2022 at 9:59 PM, golferdude54 said:

Tiger’s won more money titles and scoring titles than Nicklaus did and he won more majors than him before 30, not to mention he’s won 82 PGA Tour events to Nicklaus’ 73.

 

Tiger also beat Nicklaus’ cut streak, 142 to 105, and tied his major cut streak at 39. 
 

This is like comparing Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell, both are all-time great players but Wilt clearly dominated the game more than Bill Russell, just like Tiger, despite having 9 less rings to show for it.
 

Look no further than the 1997 Masters, when Tiger beat Nicklaus’ 9 shot margin from the 1965 Masters by 3 strokes at 21 years old compared to his 25. 

So much fun to cherry pick this and that, ain’t it?

 

Look no further than the 1998 Masters, where a 58 year old Jack beat 22 year old Tiger by two shots to finish T6  ; )

[hollabachgt]

26 minutes ago, jmck said:

So much fun to cherry pick this and that, ain’t it?

 

Look no further than the 1998 Masters, where a 58 year old Jack beat 22 year old Tiger by two shots to finish T6  ; )

 Wasn’t Tiger no. 1 in the world going into the 1998 Masters?

[J_Tizzle]

16 hours ago, iBanesto said:

 

 

 

How deflated all these guys sound in 97 when being interviewed about him.  It's pretty remarkable that they were all at the top of the game, and then just realized that they had just seen a transcendent performance that was just the start of the magic for years to come.