golfrewind.com

I am not comparing Nicklaus to Tiger, but I do contend that most of Tiger's competition does not hold a candle to the players that Nicklaus competed with. I believe the depth of the field has improved, but Vijay, Phil, Ernie, and others seem to wilt under any prssure. The last few weeks are just great examples, but it is rare to see anyone but Tiger finish strongly.

I believe Watson alone tilts the competition more towards Jack. Then, you add Miller for a few years, Trevino, Irwin, Kite, Crenshaw, and Seve at the end, and you realize today's top players don't have the competitive fire that these players had. It is hard to take a numbers comparison in competition, but it is just my subjective point of view.

This is a very wide open topic and this thread will probably go on and on....but it's a good one....and I think you have some valid points. Back in Jacks day, in order to make good money, you had to WIN. Now days, 10th place is good money. Way back when, 10th place got you very little. I think these days there are more players who can win from week to week, but many of them are content with mediocracy b/c the money is still pretty there.
I also think that that many players today feel that Tiger is so good(and he probably is) that they play for 2nd. The drive to WIN, does not seem to be there as much as it was back then......all b/c of the money involved.

Personally i think to many of todays golfers are operating in a comfort zone,they know a few top 10 finishes in a year will give them a good pay day.

I tend to agree with the both of you. "Back in the day," you had to win the big ones to show yourself as a top performer in any sport. The money has gotten so huge that it is no longer a stigma to overcome.
Even a mediocre quarterback is "elite" if he signs a big enough contract (Michael Vick). Being the "best" (insert noun here) to have never won anything doesn't seem to have the same stigma it used to carry. Maybe the hot blond tennis star/model had something to do with it as well, but at least she's pretty. Shame I can't remember her name...
There's only one way to make it a stigma now, and that's for us (the fans) to make it one again. Money talks people, and nothing talks louder than fans that aren't willing to spend the money to watch mediocrity at it's best.
To the PGA Tour: Yes, these guys are good, but we want to see winners, not guys that look like they're perfectly content to cash their 10th place checks.

Yes, I have made this argument before and you are right on. I wouldn't call them chumps maybe....but in recent years there are guys around 80th on the money list who made a million dollars. In Jack's day if you were 80th you were sleeping in your car. Jack himself has said that as a whole, the field is full of better golfers now than when he played. But, the top ten back then would beat the top ten of now.

I don't think we can take an informed opinion from this question without some actual analysis of the statistics (which I have never seen anyone do). People always talk about this question, comparing Jack to Tiger, but never back up their opinion with any facts. I've started to try to do a little research here, but have a hard time finding any good #s from Nicklaus' prime. PGA tour website has statistics like scoring averages back to 1980, but that isn't far enough back ... Jack was 40. Has anyone ever seen some good statistics from before 1980? I wouldn't mind doing some kind of statistical analysis here, but I need the data to do it.

At least one thing I can do is look at major finishes for the top golfers ... wikipedia has that.

Personally I hate to see Vijay mentioned with the other two. Vijay doesn't have god-given putting talent! Yet, he did get it done a few years ago.

Interestingly Vijay had to hack himself out of the jungle to get to where he is today, whereas the other two probably took a more cushy route ... Coincidence?

They'll play the way the play. Some will be hungrier than others. Some will play to win and some will play for a paycheck. Unfortunately it is what it is.

Before 1983, when the all-exempt Tour was adopted, only the top 60 money-winners from the previous year were guaranteed spots in any tournament on the schedule. Everyone else had to play in the Monday-morning qualifiers to gain entry to the weekend’s event. Although the qualifiers back then determined about 50 percent of the tournament spots, it was a dog- eat-dog world, where good players on the way up met good players on the way down, and the journeymen, the dreamers, the hangers-on, and the hopeful—vied for the last few scraps.

In 1983, the Tour changed the rules and said that the top 125 money-winners could gain entry into any tournament they wished (except invitationals, such as The Masters). Once a player made it into the elite group, eligibility became easy sledding. Without having to worry about where one might be able to play, these 125 all-exempt golfers could instead cherry pick the tournaments and courses they liked most, expecting to earn enough in those events to keep within that 125-player limit by the end of the year. They could take time off, and if they had a bad week or so, they could sign up to play in some of the fall tournaments to catch up before year’s end. The all-exempt system has generated a generation of fat cats.

99 PGA Tour members earned more than $1MM last year.

FWIW, though, the status of the tour's rank and file does not in any way diminish Woods achievements. You could argue there are a lot more players today who week in and week out who can win a tournament than at any time in the tour's history. In other words, Tiger actually has MORE competition, not less, than Jack.

We see less consistency from those rivals, but the same could be said trying to compare a 10 team NFL with today's league, or MLB when it had 16 teams instead of twice that number.

Fact remains Hagen dominated the pros and Jones everybody he played against in their era. Nelson, Hogan, Snead, Palmer....they were the best amongst their peers. That is exactly what Tiger is, only his level of dominance is more prononounced than what our memory recalls. But I don't know that he is any more dominant than Bobby or Byron, nor do I feel his competition is any less.

Did a little checking on Wikipedia on Tiger and Jack's major records.

Tiger did very well from 1998 to 2007, from ages 23-32. His record:

Major victories: 12
Second place: 4
3-5th place: 6
6-10th place: 4
11th or worse: 14

Jack's record for the same age range (1962-1971):

Victories: 9
Second: 9
3-5th: 6
6-10th: 3
11th or worse: 13

Actually very similar. Jack finished in the top 2 twice more than Tiger. Tiger won 3 times more. Statistically equivalent really.

But the next 10 yrs, although Jack won 1 less major, it can be argued he was even better from age 33 to age 42:

Jack from 1972 to 1982, age 33-42:

wins: 8
second: 7
3-5th: 12
6-10th: 7
11th or worse: 6

That's right ... in 27/40 majors from age 33-42, Nicklaus finished in the top 5, and in only 6 out of those 40 tourneys finished outside the top 10. Tiger will have to do very well indeed the next 10 years to play as well as Jack at the same age.

But even more impressive than this ... look at Nicklaus from the 1970 Open Championship to the 1978 Open Championship ... a little over 8 years and 33 majors:

Wins: 8
Second: 7
Third: 5
Fourth: 4
5-10th: 7
11th: 1
13th: 1

That's right ... in 33 straight majors, only 2 finishes outside the top 10, and 24 top 4s. And he never finished worse than 13th. That is absolutely amazing.

So Tiger may be barking at Jack's heals for the record of total majors won, but it remains to be seen whether he can show the dominance Jack had in his 30s. There is still time yet before we can really make an accurate comparison of these 2 incredible golfers.

I am not comparing Jack and Tiger. Both are the greatest in their era's. My post was simply that Jack's competitors were not as deep, but the players he played against had finishing skills that many of today's players lack. I don't think you can crunch numbers to compare different era's.

For example, winning the Pebble Beach touney in 2008 may have been easier to win than Pebble in 1972, because many of the top pro's were not even entered. Stats tend to think all things being equal, and that is hardly the case in the real world. Technically, you can't even compare Augusta wins with all the course changes.

I dont know whats more amazing, how many times jack won a major, or how many times he finished second. I agree with the above posts about the money. In this era you can win a big tourney and get a sponsor and be set for life. 50 years ago you had to play good to earn a living, i love the comment about being 80th on the money list and youre sleeping in your car, priceless!!

I just want to say ... I've thought Tiger was a lot better than Nicklaus ...

But when I look at the stats of Nicklaus' records in the majors, Tiger has not yet done anything to prove he is better than Jack. In overall tourney wins, Tiger is way better, but Jack was sick good in majors, and just because Tiger has won a few more doesn't mean he is better.

I tried to avoid the Tiger vs Jack, but it was inevitable. I apologize to all.

all I keep saying is the courses now are alot longer, more bunckers, narrower fairways, all around alot tougher !!