golfrewind.com

Jack did all his pro accomplishments while having children and being married

Tiger has a better short game

Tiger has a deeper field

Jack's rivals (Trevino, Palmer, Watson, Player) have better records than Tiger's rivals.

Note: I did not think marriage would be a distraction for Tiger. However, I wonder if kids will be.

I believe it's difficult to compare golfers from different eras. They will probably be matched by the number of majors won during their careers. And I firmly believe that should include US and British Amateur titles. If you've watched the video of Jack's wonderful sixth win at Augusta (1986?), it was hailed as his 19th major. After Tiger won a number of majors, including 3 US Ams, Jack's total dropped to 18 and commentators started referring to "professional measures" as the yardstick. Jack has around 20 2d place finishes in majors, also. I doubt that anyone will ever match his overall record in the majors.

Tiger's AMjors mean more because today Tiger plays against fields including the WORLD'S best players.

In Jack's day, it was the best from USA plus Gary Player . Players like Brian Barnes, who beat Jack twice in a day in the Ryder Cup were never allowed to play in USA majors, only British.

More like impossible. Again, it's an apples to oranges comparison. Different eras. Different time. Different equipment.

I'd like to see today's players play with the equipment from the 50's-the 70's.

IMO, there is no such a thing as a Best Player in History. Same with all other sports. It's all media hyper ****.

Tiger is on pace to eclipse Jack's major totals , depending on the count , either 10 vs. 18 professional majors or 13 vs. 20 career majors . Just in case , after the Players is rightfully deemed a major when it moves to May , the current total jumps to 14 vs. 23 , since Jack had the foresight to win 3 Players championships . Still Tiger has just hit 30 , and his prime years all lie ahead . I don't think 25 professional (Big 4) majors is a stretch to expect from Tiger . I think marriage and children will only enhance his personal life , not take anything away from his golf career .

The US and British Amateurs are no longer considered majors, and haven't been for some time.

If Jack and Tiger want to consider them as such, then they're welcome to do so, but that won't change the numbers.

Their final totals are better than the current totals of Tiger's rivals, but keep in mind that Tiger's rivals are not finished yet. Trevino 6, Palmer 7, Watson 8 and Player 9 vs. Singh 3, Els 3, Mickelson 2, and Goosen 2.

At the time Nicklaus was 30, his rivals had the following number of majors: Palmer 7, Player 5, Trevino 1, and Watson 0.

Nicklaus' rivals were spread out over a long period of time, with Palmer and Player battling Nicklaus in the 60's and early 70s, and Trevino and Watson providing the challenge in the mid 70's to early 80's. There may be players who emerge to challenge Tiger over the next ten years, who can win multiple majors.

It's kind of like the old days when Babe Ruth was hitting his home runs, and Mark McGuire was hitting his.........in a way. Different conditions!!!
Equipment right now is so high tech...it gives Tiger the edge. The courses are so much more plush now than back in the old days.....alot of variables. Needless to say, both are great men.....but Tiger is the ****...the bomb...and he has already won 2 this year, and is nearly at $1 Million for the two. I love Nicklaus...but Tiger has alot more golf left, and we are going to see things out of him that may never be matched in our lifetime!!! can u tell I am a Tiger fan????

Lefty, I'm guessing you're not a barrister.....

Tiger vs. Jack in major tournaments through this point in their professional careers:

Masters:
Tiger's Placement Average: 8.0 (4 wins)
Jack's Placement Average: 15.1 (3wins)

U.S. Open:
Tiger's avg. Placement: 10.3 (2 wins)
Jack's avg. Placement: 24.2 (2 wins)

The Open Championship:
Tiger's avg. Placement: 11.3 (2 wins)
Jack's avg. Placement: 7.0 (2 wins)

PGA Championship:
Tiger's avg. Placement: 15.4 (2 wins)
Jack's avg. Placement: 14.4 (1 win)

I draw the following conclusions from these statistics:

They fared particularly well at the Masters because it's the only major played at the same course every year..... familiarity breeds greatness with Tiger and Jack when it comes to majors.

The other three majors are similar in that they rotate courses. Of those, Jack found The Open MUCH easier to excel in.

Tiger and Jack found their stiffest competition at the PGA Championship, where the fields are more USA centric......

In fact, Jack's placement average through the age of 40 speaks for itself:
The Open: 4.8
Masters: 8.7
U.S. Open: 14.7
PGA Champ: 16.7

If Barnes never played in a US Open then it was because he didn't qualify, not because he was "never allowed." I don't think there were any rules in place to prevent Barnes from becoming a PGA Tour member and gaining access to the majors if he played well enough. Surely the same doors were open to Barnes that were open to Player.

Your "I Detest the PGA Tour" is shining through again.

In those days ,you had to play 99% of your golf in USA. which most overseas players do not want to do. Minor things like family,friends and homelife get in the way. International travel was not as easy. Player did it ,party because he came froma country that was excluded from the rest of the world because of its KKK politics.

In the seventies ,US Open and USPGA entry requirements were based on performance in USA. Masters was the same with some quirky invitations.
That is why is was a USA tournamnet not a world tournament.

How many times did Bobby Locke or Christy O Connor play in US Opens?


No ,its their USA only matters policies that I detest, as I do not think it does justice to USA golf.

2 different eras, hard to compare what would happen if they played against eachother today. All I know is that if Tiger beats Jack's majors, that would seal the deal for me of who the best player ever would be.

When Nelson won 11 in a row and 18 in that year, they said no competition. But did you see the scores he turned in 65,s 66,s . Many course records are still held by players in the 40,s 50,s and sixties.

There is a world of difference between "did not want to do" and "were never allowed to do." Those that wanted to play bad enough, played. Next you'll be blaming the PGA Tour for not expanding to Europe in the 60's and 70's to make it easier for the Euros. Oh wait, you already did that, here....

How many times did they try to qualify?




We blame a US based organization comprised of mostly US members for putting the USA first too.

You need to ask 'what was needed to qualify? and how much of it could be donew in USA?

The answer was you had to be a member of the USPGA and agre to play most or all of your golf in USA. Most golf pro 's outside USA had club jobs that they would lose if they went to USA for months at a time.

The odds were carefully stacked in the favour of the home players, expanding the myth that USA=World.

That's why USA never play international team sports , until the soccer growth over the last ten years