Jack vs Tiger

[butterysnaphook]

A lot of the “arguments” I hear from golfers regarding Jack vs Tiger aren’t really arguments. A lot of it comes down to Jack looks like them and Tiger doesn’t so they prefer Jack. I’m white by the way. Let’s not pretend that racism hasn’t helped hold Jack up on a higher pedestal than he deserves. 

Edited December 26, 2022 by butterysnaphook
Spelling

[golferdude54]

2 hours 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  ; )

How is it cherry picking if the stats I picked are literally the most important stats? Season money leaders, scoring average leaders, consecutive cuts made in regular events and majors, amount of PGA Tour wins. 
 

By your logic, wouldn’t Tom Watson at 59 finishing second in 2009 Open or Sam Snead at 62 finishing third in 1974 PGA be considered the GOAT’s over Tiger and Nicklaus?

[butterysnaphook]

1 minute ago, golferdude54 said:

How is it cherry picking if the stats I picked are literally the most important stats? Season money leaders, scoring average leaders, consecutive cuts made in regular events and majors, amount of PGA Tour wins. 
 

By your logic, wouldn’t Tom Watson at 59 finishing second in 2009 Open or Sam Snead at 62 finishing third in 1974 PGA be considered the GOAT’s over Tiger and Nicklaus?

Their arguments are all just that they like Jack more. It isn’t about facts or stats. It’s usually about things that have nothing to do with golf. 

[jmck]

29 minutes ago, golferdude54 said:

How is it cherry picking if the stats I picked are literally the most important stats? Season money leaders, scoring average leaders, consecutive cuts made in regular events and majors, amount of PGA Tour wins. 
 

By your logic, wouldn’t Tom Watson at 59 finishing second in 2009 Open or Sam Snead at 62 finishing third in 1974 PGA be considered the GOAT’s over Tiger and Nicklaus?

“Literally most important”?

 

According to Tiger Woods himself the most important stat is majors won, so, uh, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[bekgolf]

44 minutes ago, butterysnaphook said:

Their arguments are all just that they like Jack more. It isn’t about facts or stats. It’s usually about things that have nothing to do with golf. 

 

I think it's mostly generational.  If someone grew up knowing that Jack was the best golfer they had ever seen it's going to take quite a talent to knock him down one notch.  The fact that Tiger and only Tiger is in the conversation with those from an earlier generation speaks volumes as to how good he is.

 

I grew up in the Jack era but I didn't play or watch golf then.  I didn't take an interest in watching golf until after I started playing in 2005. 

 

Unsurprisingly I would rank Tiger as a tie or as the goat.  This is because I've seen him make those once in a lifetime shots at least once in almost every tournament he's played in. 

 

My understanding is that Jack possessed the same talent, being able to manufacture a shot no other golfer would even dream of taking on.  I've only seen a few of those shots from a Jack highlight reel because coverage wasn't the same back then as it is now.

 

I think Tiger still has a few wins left in him.

[golferdude54]

40 minutes ago, jmck said:

“Literally most important”?

 

According to Tiger Woods himself the most important stat is majors won, so, uh, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Nicklaus himself said in his autobiography that you can rank a player on how great he is based on his scoring average. Tiger won the most Vardon trophies and even if there was no minimum rounds played for those, Tiger would still beat Jack 10 to 8. More PGA Tour wins, more cuts made streak, equal major cut streak, higher margin of victory in major wins, better playoff record, etc. 

 

Is Robert Horry better than Michael Jordan because he won 7 rings over 6? You have to look at the context of careers before making assumptions.

[Cali_Stinger77]

Tiger's the greatest golfer I've ever seen play the game (Phil is number 2, Jack was well over 60 when I started getting into golf). It's a bunch of bs when people say Jack would've dominated with today's equipment, but really there's no way to know. 

[isitour]

Being old, I have been very fortunate to see Jack play in his prime(live) and I saw Tiger (live) in his first trip to the Canadian open.

Majors, Jack clearly is the goat. The total package, I would give the nod to Tiger. 

 

I feel Tiger has been the architect of his own demise  . If the unfortunate incidents had not occurred, Tiger would ,I believe , won more majors. There is still time ,but its not looking promising.

Edited December 26, 2022 by isitour

[JimmyC59]

I grew up in the Arnold/Jack era. I was a huge Nicklaus fan when I was in my teens. Never a Tiger fan, but really disliked Jack's politics in recent years, so I really think my opinion is pretty neutral. Because the overall competition on the PGA Tour is so much better than when Jack was in his prime gives Tiger the edge.

Having said that, the 1986 Masters is one of my favorite sports moments of my entire life

[pingbling23]

15 hours ago, golferdude54 said:

 

Nicklaus himself said in his autobiography that you can rank a player on how great he is based on his scoring average. Tiger won the most Vardon trophies and even if there was no minimum rounds played for those, Tiger would still beat Jack 10 to 8. More PGA Tour wins, more cuts made streak, equal major cut streak, higher margin of victory in major wins, better playoff record, etc. 

 

Is Robert Horry better than Michael Jordan because he won 7 rings over 6? You have to look at the context of careers before making assumptions.

basketball is a team sport and horry, while he hit some big time shots, wasnt the best player or leader on his teams.  golf is an individual sport.  comparing nba championships in a team sport to golf majors in an individual sport doesnt cut it.  head to head in their primes, jack wins some and tiger wins some.  body of work over a career in a sport that weights majors above all else, jack is the goat.

[hollabachgt]

17 hours ago, Cali_Stinger77 said:

Tiger's the greatest golfer I've ever seen play the game (Phil is number 2, Jack was well over 60 when I started getting into golf). It's a bunch of bs when people say Jack would've dominated with today's equipment, but really there's no way to know. 

 

Jack won the long drive contest at the 1963 PGA Championship with a drive of 341 yard. When the long drive contest returned to the PGA Championship from 2014-2019, only 3 times was Jacks 341 matched or beaten. Byeong Hun-An 347 yards, Rory McIlroy 345 yards, Nicolas Colsaerts 341 yards; all in 2016.

 

If Jack swinging persimmon, with a steel shaft, and hitting the horrible MacGregor ball could out pace the pro's of today, why is it a bunch of BS to consider with modern equipment he would have been even better?

[bscinstnct]

12 minutes ago, hollabachgt said:

 

Jack won the long drive contest at the 1963 PGA Championship with a drive of 341 yard. When the long drive contest returned to the PGA Championship from 2014-2019, only 3 times was Jacks 341 matched or beaten. Byeong Hun-An 347 yards, Rory McIlroy 345 yards, Nicolas Colsaerts 341 yards; all in 2016.

 

If Jack swinging persimmon, with a steel shaft, and hitting the horrible MacGregor ball could out pace the pro's of today, why is it a bunch of BS to consider with modern equipment he would have been even better?

 

Jack would still be a distance leader if he played now. 
 

There would just be a lot more guys who can both bomb the ball right with him and also score, than he dealt with in his day. 
 

Jack would be teeing it up with Rory, DJ,  BD, BK etc.
There were 20 guys last year who *averaged 310 yards off the tee. And many are top owgr who can score around the hole as well.  

[mshills]

The absolute, full-stop, I'm right, you're wrong arguments when it comes to Jack and Tiger are amusing if nothing else, because it's an impossible question to answer.

 

They are both incredible players and two of the greatest winners in the history of sport.  It would be really cool to see Jack in his prime playing with early-2000s Tiger equipment.  It would be equally cool to see Tiger in his prime playing Jack's circa 1965 (or 1975) equipment.

 

I personally believe the depth of field Tiger faced was orders of magnitude deeper, but Jack may have faced better individual rivals in Arnie, Trevino, Miller, Watson et. al. than Tiger did.

[mosesgolf]

Is Bill Russell with 11 rings better than MJ or Kareem?

 

Jack has his 18 to Tiger’s 15 but imo Tiger is the greatest golfer who has ever lived.  The guy who played and dominated at the highest level ever for a very long period of time.  
 

Tiger 4 vs 3 in a best of 7 match series winner take all.  

[golferdude54]

4 hours ago, hollabachgt said:

 

Jack won the long drive contest at the 1963 PGA Championship with a drive of 341 yard. When the long drive contest returned to the PGA Championship from 2014-2019, only 3 times was Jacks 341 matched or beaten. Byeong Hun-An 347 yards, Rory McIlroy 345 yards, Nicolas Colsaerts 341 yards; all in 2016.

 

If Jack swinging persimmon, with a steel shaft, and hitting the horrible MacGregor ball could out pace the pro's of today, why is it a bunch of BS to consider with modern equipment he would have been even better?

It was also over 100 degrees that whole week, it never got below that during the day, this is a fact that is omitted.
 

Both Nicklaus and Byron Nelson noted in their autobiographies of the heat that week hence why Nicklaus had to hold the Wanamaker trophy with a towel because it was sitting out there in the sun the whole day.

 

Nicklaus had also just got back from the Open where they played the British small ball and that went further than the US ball. That 341 yard drive was probably boosted by the small ball in >100 degree heat and with a tailwind. 

[hollabachgt]

It's possible that Jack could have still had some of the illegal British balls in his bag at the PGA Championship, and it's possible that he could have used one for the long drive competition, and it's possible that the PGA of America would have allowed the use of illegal equipment to stand for the winner of the long drive contest, but all of that sounds rather improbable.

 

If hot and downwind is your argument, even though on the day the long drive contest was held in 1963 the average temp was only 92* and the average wind speed was 13 mph, then what happened in 1964? That year Jack won the long drive with a shot of 357 yards, on a day where the average temp was a pleasant 73*.

 

 

 

[Dutch1008]

1 hour ago, hollabachgt said:

If hot and downwind is your argument, even though on the day the long drive contest was held in 1963 the average temp was only 92* and the average wind speed was 13 mph, then what happened in 1964? That year Jack won the long drive with a shot of 357 yards, on a day where the average temp was a pleasant 73*.

Taking a single shot is kind of pointless. Wind and elevation certainly played a role. DJ has hit  a couple 400 yd drives in Hawaii. Only he didn't. He likely hit the ball 310-320 and the wind and slope of the hole did the rest. Here is what we actually know....

 

From https://www.golfdigest.com/story/why-jack-nicklaus-in-his-prime-would-dominate-modern-day-golf-too

 

"A search for a more scientific answer is hamstrung by a lack of data. There was no ShotLink in the 1960s or ’70s, and the first year the PGA Tour kept driving distance as an official stat was 1980. Luckily for us (and somewhat randomly) IBM did, for whatever reason, decide to measure driving distances for 11 tournaments in 1967, when Nicklaus was 27 and in his physical prime. The results, as uncovered by our Mike Johnson: Nicklaus averaged 276 yards, the longest on the PGA Tour. He was 4.5 percent longer than the average distance of 260.2. Extrapolate that 4.5 percent advantage to the 2018-’19 season, when the average was roughly 293.8 yards, and a player with Nicklaus’ advantage would have averaged 307 yards.

 

But there’s another relevant data point here, and it paints a slightly different picture. Nicklaus was 2.15 percent longer than the rest of the top 10, meaning there was a bit of a gap between he and the next-longest players. If we translate that advantage to last season, he’d have averaged 318.71 yards, which would have led the tour. So if we average those two figures—307 yards and 318.71 yards—we get 312.9 yards. That would have ranked fourth on tour last season, ahead of bombers like Dustin Johnson, Brooks Koepka, Tony Finau, Gary Woodland and so many more."

 

So Jack was a great driver of the ball but his advantage off the tee was no different than Rory. 

[hollabachgt]

Don't disagree that Jack distance off the tee would be comparable with the current world number 1.

[golferdude54]

6 hours ago, Dutch1008 said:

So Jack was a great driver of the ball but his advantage off the tee was no different than Rory. 

I realize I’ve been pro-Tiger so far in this thread, but Nicklaus was much more accurate off the tee than Rory.

 

In 1980, he was 13th in driving accuracy while being 10th in distance off the tee for the season, a stat no one has matched since then. And he was 40 at this point in his career.

Rory’s best year in driving accuracy didn’t even crack the top 75, at 77.  And he finished 9th in distance that season.

Edited December 29, 2022 by golferdude54

[Shilgy]

On 12/28/2022 at 10:50 AM, hollabachgt said:

It's possible that Jack could have still had some of the illegal British balls in his bag at the PGA Championship, and it's possible that he could have used one for the long drive competition, and it's possible that the PGA of America would have allowed the use of illegal equipment to stand for the winner of the long drive contest, but all of that sounds rather improbable.

 

If hot and downwind is your argument, even though on the day the long drive contest was held in 1963 the average temp was only 92* and the average wind speed was 13 mph, then what happened in 1964? That year Jack won the long drive with a shot of 357 yards, on a day where the average temp was a pleasant 73*.

 

 

 

So is your assertion that on demand Jack had almost 100 yards in reserve? He was averaging 270-ish.

[Dutch1008]

21 hours ago, golferdude54 said:

I realize I’ve been pro-Tiger so far in this thread, but Nicklaus was much more accurate off the tee than Rory.

 

In 1980, he was 13th in driving accuracy while being 10th in distance off the tee for the season, a stat no one has matched since then. And he was 40 at this point in his career.

Rory’s best year in driving accuracy didn’t even crack the top 75, at 77.  And he finished 9th in distance that season.

I wouldn't argue otherwise. Regardless, that wasn't the point. The point was that a single data point of Jack driving a ball 357 yds doesn't tell us anything. The best information we have is that in Jack's prime he was about 5% longer than his peers. There are plenty of players today with a similar relative advantage. 

 

That Jack had both a distance advantage and was pretty accurate off the tee, is one of the main reasons why he's an all time great. I mentioned Rory just to put it in a modern context of what a great player can do with a distance advantage. Rory is #1 for a reason and a big part of it is his tee game. Obviously that is not everything or we'd all be on here fawning over Cameron Champ.      

[TLUBulldogGolf]

On 12/27/2022 at 8:50 AM, hollabachgt said:

 

Jack won the long drive contest at the 1963 PGA Championship with a drive of 341 yard. When the long drive contest returned to the PGA Championship from 2014-2019, only 3 times was Jacks 341 matched or beaten. Byeong Hun-An 347 yards, Rory McIlroy 345 yards, Nicolas Colsaerts 341 yards; all in 2016.

 

If Jack swinging persimmon, with a steel shaft, and hitting the horrible MacGregor ball could out pace the pro's of today, why is it a bunch of BS to consider with modern equipment he would have been even better?

I can’t stand this anecdote, ok he hit it 341 so what? What were the conditions? It’s meaningless. Guys were hitting them over 400 at the PGA one day this year and then the weather flipped everything.

 

I’m of the opinion that modern equipment has the effect of leveling the playing field if anything.

[Hawkeye77]

On 12/26/2022 at 1:12 PM, butterysnaphook said:

A lot of the “arguments” I hear from golfers regarding Jack vs Tiger aren’t really arguments. A lot of it comes down to Jack looks like them and Tiger doesn’t so they prefer Jack. I’m white by the way. Let’s not pretend that racism hasn’t helped hold Jack up on a higher pedestal than he deserves. 

The more things change, the more they stay the same.  Disappointing nonsense, glad I've chosen to miss it lately, but stuff like this is useless and pulls me out of hibernation for a few minutes.

 

Neither look anything like me, nor do I read well thought out posts by most on here, who know their golf, or read or hear anything intelligent about either Jack or Tiger introducing such elements.

 

Jack still has 18 majors and a record in many ways that will be unsurpassed. 

 

Tiger sitting at 15 and a record in many ways that will be unsurpassed.  

 

Pick who you want, there is no "right" answer, IMO.

 

I'm a Jack guy but love Tiger Woods' play and accomplishments and his demonstration at the 2019 Masters pulls him almost, almost neck and neck for me with the Golden Bear.  

 

 

[Tiptx1122]

9 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

The more things change, the more they stay the same.  Disappointing nonsense, glad I've chosen to miss it lately, but stuff like this is useless and pulls me out of hibernation for a few minutes.

 

Neither look anything like me, nor do I read well thought out posts by most on here, who know their golf, or read or hear anything intelligent about either Jack or Tiger introducing such elements.

 

Jack still has 18 majors and a record in many ways that will be unsurpassed. 

 

Tiger sitting at 15 and a record in many ways that will be unsurpassed.  

 

Pick who you want, there is no "right" answer, IMO.

 

I'm a Jack guy but love Tiger Woods' play and accomplishments and his demonstration at the 2019 Masters pulls him almost, almost neck and neck for me with the Golden Bear.  

 

 

Thank You and well said, let's move on to something else, CHEVY vs FORD

[bankbank]

Tiger made golf cool and relevant in sports (worldwide)… inflated prize money, LIV golf, younger generation playing golf.. 

 

Jack did much for the game, sure. But nothing near Tiger’s influence. 
 

18 vs 15 majors… different era. Using this logic is like saying John Henry Taylor is a better golfer than Rory because he won 5 vs 4 majors… come on

[Rapidcat]

[bladehunter]

On 1/1/2023 at 7:21 PM, Tiptx1122 said:

Thank You and well said, let's move on to something else, CHEVY vs FORD

Old Chevy. New ford.  Chevy interiors after 1972 are apparently designed by the same guy that designs dodge truck interiors.  He also designs bean bag chairs.  

[TiScape]

3 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Old Chevy. New ford.  Chevy interiors after 1972 are apparently designed by the same guy that designs dodge truck interiors.  He also designs bean bag chairs.  

If we’re talking muscle car era… Hands down Chevy. Don’t care too much about either when it comes to their modern offerings.
As for Tiger or Jack. It’s Tiger for me just bcs I saw all his monumental moments live on tv and even some in person. There is no disputing Jack’s resume, but I didn’t experience any of it while it was happening. So for me it just doesn’t have the same impact. 

[Awsi Dooger]

On 12/26/2022 at 7:54 PM, JimmyC59 said:

I grew up in the Arnold/Jack era. I was a huge Nicklaus fan when I was in my teens. Never a Tiger fan, but really disliked Jack's politics in recent years, so I really think my opinion is pretty neutral.

That's where I am, word for word. I rooted intensely for Jack during his prime but now I'd love to go back and reverse many of those outcomes, specifically the 1975 Masters. For 15 years or so I hoped Tiger wouldn't catch Jack's major record, then I shifted 180 and have spent the past decade rooting for him to do it.

 

I've followed both of them countless times. Jack always had the same game, the towering powerful high cut in an era where the vast majority of pros were hitting jet trail rise and plop. Tiger can hit the same 2 yard cut 50 straight times on the range then walk 50 yards to the first tee and look totally lost. Jack never had any doubts on the tee. That's what separates his driving from Rory or anyone else. He'd blast it down the middle then stand alongside Angelo blankly scanning the gallery while the other guys hit. He never gave you the impression he was making eye contact, like Palmer did. There was no need for swing practice or forced drills. Totally content. The next tee he'd do it again.

 

No matter where he hit it, it was always more difficult for Tiger to make a bogey than for Jack to make bogey. Jack could take 5 based on one poor approach. Tiger requires multiple bad shots to record a blemish.

 

On the putting green nobody will ever convince me that Jack wasn't superior. I've followed Tiger numerous times in which I knew he had no chance on midrange putts. Don't even bother. It's going to be another overly mechanical miss followed by a hand gesture proclaiming foul. Jack always succeeded or burned the edge. Putting is more difficult to evaluate than other aspects because the greens these days are so consistently superior. Jack never showed emotion on the tee but one of his familiar rants was, "How slow that is," after missing a putt. He'd stand up from his crouch and deliver that frustrated line while peering briefly out over the horizon. I'm convinced Jack would have been even better during an era with consistently faster greens. IMO, that avenue is undervalued and in fact never mentioned in reference to then vs. now.

 

Very even overall. I know that sounds like a pro Jack summary but I'm convinced the absolute greats of any sporting realm would be extremely tight to each other if competing parallel. The easiest call in all of sports would be that Secretariat fans and the media in general would be stunned at his lack of dominance, or inability to come out on top in the first place, in a series of races against fellow elites. 

 

Tiger will win threads like this in this era, given the demographic participating. But I would caution that it is rapidly fleeting. The '85 Bears will lose luster just like the '62 Packers are seldom mentioned anymore, as generations pass. Fans who grew up with Tiger but are too young to have seen Jack are carrying the debate now. Eventually nobody saw either one of them and 18 to 15 is the bottom line trump card. For one thing, those two numbers aren't particularly close. 

[Ferguson]

On 12/26/2022 at 4:25 PM, Cali_Stinger77 said:

Tiger's the greatest golfer I've ever seen play the game (Phil is number 2, Jack was well over 60 when I started getting into golf). It's a bunch of bs when people say Jack would've dominated with today's equipment, but really there's no way to know. 

 

Two things:

1. You are wrong about Jack 

2. You are wrong about Phil

 

1. Jack was not just a golfer, he excelled at many sports.  He had a winning attitude and incredible focus.  He would have succeeded in any sport in any era.  

 

2. It's been discussed on several occasions here at WRX.  Most agree Phil is a top 20 player of all-time, parked somewhere between 15-20.