Tiger has never gone 2-3 under for the last nine while near the lead and still lost like Nicklaus did on at least half a dozen occasions. that is an indicator of the competition Nicklaus consistently faced from Trevino, Watson, Player etc...
Not so. He birdied the last four holes against Beem and lost. He shot 66 the last round of the 1998 British Open, and lost to O'Meara's 68.
He had to shoot 31 the final nine just to tie Bob May, who threw three 66's in a row at him. Other players have pushed Tiger repeatedly with great golf at the end. The difference between Tiger and Jack is that Tiger won more of those events.
I'm not sure why losing more (coming in 2nd) is a sign Jack played better competition. In every major Tiger won, he led after 54. For Jack, that was only true around 50% of the time. Does this mean Jack played inferior competition? After all, they couldn't hold on to their leads.
Jack was also gifted several times. Sanders misses the 3 footer at St. Andrews. Crampton blows up the last round in the 1963 PGA, despite leading by 3 after 54. Crampton shoots 76 in both the 1972 Masters and U.S. Open, to help Jack win both events by 3.
In fact, Crampton came in 2nd to Jack in majors more than any other golfer. Some other golfing greats who took second behind Jack:
Dave Ragan, Dave Thomas, Bobby Mitchell, Simon Owen, Andy Bean, Isao Aoki. I don't mean to put them down: anyone who competes in a pro major is a fantastic golfer. But none of these guys won majors. Did Jack face poor competition?
Actually, I don't think the names matter so much. How they actually played is what counts. Seve and Norman choked against Jack in 1986. Bob May played some of the best golf ever against Tiger. Who faced tougher competition in those events? IMO, Tiger by far.
Also remember that Jack had 25 years to put together his majors record. Tiger has had 12.