golfrewind.com

(W) Palmer vs Mickelson
(W) Watson vs Els
(W) Player Vs Love
(W) Ballesteros vs Goosen
Trevino Vs Price (W)
(W) Irwin vs Garcia
(W) Crenshaw vs Furyk
Kite vs Singh (W)
Miller vs Duval (T)
Weiskopf vs Scott (W)

Just my humble opinion, but some of the W's are huge differences.

I believe if you look at how Tiger's competitors perform when Tiger is not in the running or when there is a common man leading a major or big event, you will see that Tiger's competitors do not fare too well. Tiger has no influence on how poorly today's top players cannot close the deal.

I've been hacking it around for 60 years as an amateur and still have a 2 handicap. In that time I've played with and competed against a number of folks who have gone on to fame in the amateur and professional ranks. Today's pro plays a different game than 30 years ago. A good case could be made that Nicklaus was the first "post modern" player. That said, and although it is difficult to compare champions from different eras, Tiger at his best seems better than Jack. Would Nicklaus have been a better competitor with today's equipment and training program? Undoubtably! If you want further evidence on the progress of play, just look at the Nationwide circuit. Most of those players would have been successful on the PGA Tour in 1965.

Very nice post Billy.

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.

I think you wax nostalgic. Its an interesting debate, but one that cannot be settled as these players in two different era's can never play each other in their prime.

Here's how I would rank these guys.

Player
Watson
Palmer
Seve
trevino
Mickelson
Miller
Els
Price
Kite
Singh
Irwin
Kite
Furyk
Weiskopf
Scott
Duval
Love III
Garcia


You could substitute Strange for Furyk and throw Langer in there somwhere

I may have some minor changes to your list, but your list proves my whole point. Jack faced tougher competition than Tiger from my subjective point of you (and now I can add you).

I think Miller was great, but only for a short period of time, and his putting did him in. Irwin had a far greater career than where you have him, and may be the all time senior player.

it took awhile for me to be a accept that tiger is better than jack but the one statistic that matters is winning. tiger has won something like 25% of the tournaments that he has entered jack is around 8.5%!!! that 3 times more!!! granted tiger gears his schedule to courses that he likes and when he does start to get toward the end of his prime that % may drop some but the fact remains that we should sit back and watch tiger smash every record their is. and enjoy it. he is the babe, gretzky, jordan, jim brown, lance armstrong,pele, and jack nicklaus to the 3rd power.

I would agree Woods is the best ever, but the facts are readily accessible.

In his first 12 seasons (1962-73), Jack won 51 tournaments in 262 PGA Tour starts, and 12 majors. His win percentage was 19.47%.

Tiger has won 63 times in 218 starts, and 13 majors. His win percentage was 28.89%.

Resurrecting an old thread.

Forget Nicklaus. Forget Tiger. They are not chumps.

Look at how poorly today's "Top" players have played in the US Open, British Open, and now the PGA. Where is Ernie Els, where's Phil, where's Retief, where Vijay. I would give Padraig kudos for winning the British Open, but Norman had the lead with 9 holes to go and was playing poorly and has definitely seen his better days.

I think many of today's so-called top players have a significant flaw in their game, that prevents them from putting on a dominant performance. If these guys were so good, I would have expected to see them dominate or improve their "record" while the Big Tiger was away.

Tiger goes away AND PADDY wins TWO Majors.

Paddy, Garcia and Curtis slugged out The PGA with no whinging about how difficult the course was. It was tough but they went out there to win.
Others were whinging about it on Wednesday and went home early, now that tells me something.
Nicklaus, Watson, Player, Trevino, Seve etc all played the course they were confronted by and didn't complain about a not perfect set up.
Tiger just gets on with it, as do a few others, and I do mean a FEW OTHERS.