Tiger is better than Jack. Now, can we put that behind us.
This post is simply comparing the competitor's of Jack versus the competitor's of Tiger. It is hard to statistically compare players from different era's. Comparing wins is not fair because of the Tiger factor. I think you can only compare players subjectively due to different environments (equipment, courses, field, etc.).
Look at the 10 players I listed and try to find 10 comparable players in today's game. It just aint there. Adam Scott has won the TPC, but putts poorly. Sergio can hit the ball tee to green with the best of them, but also struggles with the putter and decision making. Look at last year's British Open as an example.
Look at the short game of the 10 players I listed from today's era. Not many of them are known as great putters or short game players and many struggle to perform down the clutch.
When Tiger wins the 13 majors, look at who is in the final pairing with him when he wins the majors. It is rarely a top 10 player from the era. I think Els was at Pebble, but he was 10 shots behind at the start of the day.
Can you remember an exciting Tiger win with a close competitor in the same grouping and that competitor was a 'great' of today? In those 13 majors, has anyone from the top 10 given him a "run". I think of DiMarco and May, but they are not in the top 10. If today's players were truly "great", why can't any one of them shoot in the low to mid 60's on the final round in pursuit of Tiger.
Tiger is "off the charts in golf skills"! (I'll say it again for emphasis
)
I just think today's top players usually have glaring weaknesses in putting or short game or show little "closing" skills (either in the lead or catching up). They may catch up at the Bob Hope, but they rarely catch up at a major.