golfrewind.com

I have started this thread because in another thread this issue got some discussion.

My 2 cents worth.


----------------------------------------------------

I'm not really a big Tiger fan but he is just so far ahead of the rest of the PGA tour.

I'm almost 50, so I grew up in the Nicklaus era. Jack was so dominant but there is one difference.

Jack had fewer contenders gunning for him week in and week out until he reached about 35 years old.

Pre 35 years of age (for Jack), there were maybe 5, 6 or 7 guys who had a chance against him.

Tiger has to face 20> 25 guys with a chance when he tees it up. So as much as I hate to say this, I think even now in time Tiger is the greatest player ever.

I consider myself fortunate to have seen these 2 greats (and have met Nicklaus) during their peak. (Maybe Tiger has yet to peak).



brianf

I personally think Tiger Woods is better. He's been the youngest player ever to win Grand Slams. When someone mensions Tiger Woods, I think Golf straight away, It's just not the same when Nicklaus is mentioned..

Tiger will go down as the BOAT, but I have to say that today was another example of how meaningless the "Tiger has more contenders" argument is, at least when it comes to the majors. On a soft Medina layout that was there for the taking, the few guys who had a reasonable shot at putting some pressure on him all went backwards. Pathetic... BTW, Jack was facing Gary, Arnie, Billy, Lee, Ray, Johnny M. all well before he was 35 in the majors. It may not make any difference , but the way that Tiger's competition, other then the occassional Bob May or Chris Dimarco (BTW, don't hold your breath looking for either on the World Golf HOF ballot in this lifetime) just lays down on Sundays in the majors is just a sad joke. I don't make a case that Jack is better than Tiger. I think otherwise, actually but Tiger doesn't have to contend with true greats who can stare him down without blinking like Jack did and nothing will ever convince me otherwise....at least until somebody steps up.

wazmankg; I don't think I can agree. The fields are stronger now. We would have to find some stats on the number of different winners per year during the 60, 70 and now.

I would be almost certain there are more different winners now than then.

Mind you the season was shorter back thn so it might not be the proper comparison.


brianf.

I didn't see Jack in his prime, but the records that Tiger has now, tells me Tiger is better.

Well I'm not sure that the season is that much shorter now than it was in the 60's. I seem to remember that they used to start with the clambake at Pebble and play every week into the fall back then. I know that Tiger and Jack play in roughly the same number of tournaments... about 20 per year, focusing on the majors. I checked the years 67-70 awhile back and found that there were many different winners back then as well... some guys even I'd never heard of. I agree that the fields weren't as deep back then, but in the rarified air where Jack and Tiger operate it's all about "who are the couple of guys that are going to try to stay with me this week ?". I don't think it's particularly relevant that the guy who finishes 20th today is a lot better than the guy who finished 20th in 1965. It's impossible to quantify, but having watched both and their competition in their primes, I'm convinced that the elite of that time were better, especially mentally, than the guys Tiger faces today.

I think Jack was the greatest and now Tiger is nearing the Jack's greatness, in terms of major wins. It doesn't matter whether or not who had more competition or who has an advantage of technology, because these are never-ending arguments.

I think both are great, Jack still has the wins but up to age of 30, Tiger is the greast of all time.

Agreed, the fields are stronger now than they were 20 - 30 years ago. The fact that Tiger walked away with a 5 shot win does not reflect negatively on the field, it reflects positively on Tiger. If Tiger wasn't there, we'd all be talking about what a great shootout it was with the world's best talent playing at the top of their game and playing awesome golf. With Tiger there, it looks like there's only one good golfer. In reality, there's a ton of great players and one player that's the best of all time.

Who has the advantage of technology is a non-argument and has no bearing whatsoever on who is the best. Everyone back then was playing with the same technology and everyone now is playing with today's technology. How you determine who is the best is not how far the ball flies, but who wins or places high in the most tournaments. Technology has absolutely nothing to do with Tiger's dominance on tour. Matter of fact, he'd be more dominant if everone was playing with technology from the 70s. He hits the ball the purest and that's what it took to play good golf with unforgiving blades and persimmon clubs of the past.

I think the number of good, solid players who are capable of winning tournaments is greater now than back in Jack's time. However, the true greats with the mental toughness to stare their competitors in the eye and win majors down the stretch in difficult conditions are few and far between. Tiger stands out above everyone else but besides him, Phil, Ernie and Vijay, no one has won more than 2 majors in this generation of players.

With all due respect to Shaun, Mike, Sergio, Luke, Adam , Steve & K.J.


um ...

I don't think so.

Some people would fight to there dying day saying Tiger has to beat or tie Nicklauses 18. I say with the other accomplishmenst he has and unwordly records that his career is as good or better than Nicklauses now. He is the greatest player the game has ever seen. Jack is still the greatest champion in the majors. There is and can be a difference. The competition is tougher and hes that much better. Some say these guys fold like cheap suits. I say Tiger and his game makes them fold. Tiger Woods is the best golfer ever period. Jack is still the greatest champion. I would think that champion title will be taken away in the next ten years.

I guess this is a good thread to update my singature huh?

I agree with everything you said except that nobody makes anyone, except the weak-minded, fold. BTW, tigeroverjack, you need to update your sig line. Oh, I see you beat me to it.

in time ... Jack will be fortunate to be mentioned with Tiger
there will be no comparing the two.
Jack played when harldy anyone was interested in golf. Jack could go home and play tag with his kids and still beat the 10 guys he had to beat each major.
Different deal now
What Tiger is doing is unreal .... like it or not
and if you play golf , especially tournament golf , and cannot appreciate what Tiger is doing .... your blind
----------------------------------------------------

I'm not really a big Tiger fan but he is just so far ahead of the rest of the PGA tour.

I'm almost 50, so I grew up in the Nicklaus era. Jack was so dominant but there is one difference.

Jack had fewer contenders gunning for him week in and week out until he reached about 35 years old.

Pre 35 years of age (for Jack), there were maybe 5, 6 or 7 guys who had a chance against him.

Tiger has to face 20> 25 guys with a chance when he tees it up. So as much as I hate to say this, I think even now in time Tiger is the greatest player ever.

I consider myself fortunate to have seen these 2 greats (and have met Nicklaus) during their peak. (Maybe Tiger has yet to peak).



brianf[/quote]