Is there any real debate about Tiger's standing ? OT

[Matt_Cohn]

The fact that Palmer, Player, Trevino, etc. have so many major wins between them just proves the point that the talent pool was nowhere near as deep in the 60's and 70's. That makes it harder to win majors now, not easier.

[George Pazin]

I think this is indisputable. 

And this is where I disagree. It sure isn't indisputable. There's simply no way to know if Tiger would've trounced Jack's competition every bit as badly as he does his, or even worse, nor is there any way to know if Jack would've dominated today's crop like Tiger has. You can look at it your way, or Matt Cohn's. That's hardly indisputable in my book.

[Jason McNamara]

I'll say this again -- check out the percentage of wins versus total starts -- in all events and in majors. There's no one like Tiger in that regard. I salute the names you mentioned -- but in many of their major wins -- save for Trevino and Watson -- was Jack really playing stellar golf during many of the others when they were gaining major wins? The answer is no he wasn't.

Matt, "save for Trevino and Watson" is a pretty big deal.  The two combined prevented Jack from winning as many as 8 majors (i.e., one of those two guys won and Jack was 2nd or T2.).  Imagine Tiger being barely halfway to Jack's total of 26.

Jack also finished 2nd to Palmer twice and Player once, just for completeness (11 of 18 seconds).

One other thing -- you forgot to remember - Jack had periods of poor golf -- witness the spread between the '67 US Open and the '70 BO.

Well that's overstating a bit, isn't it?  67 Open:  2d, 67 PGA: 3d, 68 Masters: 5th, 68 US Open: 2nd, 68 Open, 2nd.   MC at the 68 PGA, so any real slump was late 68 and 69 only.

Ditto the late period of the 70's after his BO win in '78 and until his magical turn around at the '80 US Open at Baltusrol and later that summer at Oak Hill in the PGA. Tiger has not had a lull of real length -- only his injury has put him on the shelf.

Tiger when retooling his swing had only a single top 5 in the 03 and 04 majors.  I don't see how that's so different from Jack in the late 60's.  And if Tiger doesn't have another lull, more power to him.

One last thing -- the Tiger argument is no different than the Rodger Federer debate.

OK, then.  Roger has equaled Sampras's total of majors, and may exceed it in 36 hours.  Plus he's made the semis or better in every major since Jan 2004.  So I am good with Roger as best ever, but even there you probably need an asterisk for Rod Laver (Grand Slam in 62 as an amateur and 69 as a pro - wow).  Anyway, by that metric Roger is arguably the best ever and Tiger is definitely not (yet!).

Speaking of Roger's streak of high-level performances, I came across this interesting stat:  from 1963 to 1980, Jack was out of the top 5 at the Open only twice, and one of those was a T6.  Given that the course and the weather can affect play more there than at the other majors, that's pretty amazing (15 top 4s in 18 years).

[Eric_Terhorst]

Eric T:

have you analyzed or bother to notice the total amount of starts Tiger has made in overall events and in majors and seen his percentages for victories. It's off the charts -- including for Nicklaus. C'mon, here's guy who is winning at a clip of 25% everytime he tees it up - the rest are as far behind as the competition that took on Secretariat in the Belmont in '73.

Matt, no I haven't dome much analysis.  Earl wouldn't have accepted anything less than 18 majors from Tiger, that's for sure. That's the key criterion--no reason for us to hold him to a lesser standard. 

[Dale Jackson]

Slightly off topic but only slightly.  When did the US Amateur stop being regarded as a major?  In 1986 after Jack won the Masters, the talk was all about him reaching 20 majors (with his 2 US Ams), now nobody counts them for anyone except Bobby Jones.  I know it has been a gradual transition to non-major status over those 23 years but it puzzles me a bit.  I am drawn to Dan Jenkins' idea of not counting them until a player has won a professional major.   Based on that it is Jack 20 and Tiger 17.  Not that I expect anyone, except a few of us who still value amateur golf, to look at things that way!

[Sean_A]

Jim S:

Great comment !

However, my feelings on Augusta changes won't be changing anytime soon.

Cliff:

I've heard the argument many times about the top tier guys that Nicklaus played against and what Tiger faces.

Let's examine that shalll we ...

I'll say this again -- check out the percentage of wins versus total starts -- in all events and in majors. There's no one like Tiger in that regard. I salute the names you mentioned -- but in many of their major wins -- save for Trevino and Watson -- was Jack really playing stellar golf during many of the others when they were gaining major wins? The answer is no he wasn't.

Cliff, you say where are the other wins from the others. The answer is simple partner -- Tiger has them -- and whatever else is left goes to Lefty and then to the masses. Tiger is the golf equivalent of the golf vacuum machine.

Eric T:

Help me out with one thing -- have you analyzed or bother to notice the total amount of starts Tiger has made in overall events and in majors and seen his percentages for victories. It's off the charts -- including for Nicklaus. C'mon, here's guy who is winning at a clip of 25% everytime he tees it up - the rest are as far behind as the competition that took on Secretariat in the Belmont in '73.

Sean:

Who said anything about $$ ?

Wake up partner -- smell the coffee because it's been brewing for some time. The issue is continuous winning -- check out the average tour wins per year for someone on tour for just 13 years and with 67 total. Ditto the 14 major count. No one comes close to that kind of dominance and consistency.

Am totals don't count unless you take the view of Dan Jenkins who believes they can only count when you have had at least one professional major thrown into the kitty. Under Jenkins rationale Nicklaus has 20 majors -- most analysts, including Jack himself, view the 18 total as the real final number for him.

Sean, try to get a handle around a few items you either ignored or didn't read thoroughly -- check out Tiger's winning percentage in all events and in the majors at this point. It's off the charts.

One other thing -- you mention Jack's competition -- fair enough because I often took that argument into the discussion. No doubt the likes of Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson, Casper and Miller all are top tier players -- but all of them were not in their peak primes during the long career of Nicklaus. Jack also took his lumps against a few of them -- notably Watson and Miller and even Trevino. In my mind, Tiger would have won just as much -- and trumped them with the same vigor and spread that he does now.

Jason:

The fields are deeper now and have much more talent -- you should read what Lou D posted because it is so true. In Jack's day -- the field was limited to roughly 20-25 players and of that you had only a dozen or so with the wherewithal to handle Jack if he was playing close to his best.

One other thing -- you forgot to remember - Jack had periods of poor golf -- witness the spread between the '67 US Open and the '70 BO. Ditto the late period of the 70's after his BO win in '78 and until his magical turn around at the '80 US Open at Baltusrol and later that summer at Oak Hill in the PGA. Tiger has not had a lull of real length -- only his injury has put him on the shelf.

Let me point out one other thing -- the media circus that Tiger has had to handle since the days of junior golf have only intensified to what you see today with the 24/7 news cycle that is today's world. Much of the time Jack could perform without all the commotion and fanfare that Tiger routinely deals with today. The pressure to always go one step beyond what's been done to date is something Tiger has always matched and then pushed even higher and higher.

I am a big fan of the old timers you mentioned who played against Jack. No doubt they were extremely talented but try to realize what I wrote above to Cliff H on this topics.

One last thing -- the Tiger argument is no different than the Rodger Federer debate. Those who hold back with the designation for Tiger are doing so simply to demonstrate a bit of restraint. I don't see the need because candidly despite the fact that Jack was a clutch putter -- can youi ever recall a clutch putt that Tiger needed to make and that he didn't nail it? I can't.

Matt

Winning percentage just adds up to cash.  The bottom line is majors won.  You measure a man by his career and if we compare careers as they stand now, Tiger is with out a shadow of a doubt second best.  Tiger still has some work to do and he is more than capable of completing that work, but he still has to do it.  Unlike you, who apparently believes gimmes are allowed when comparing, I don't. 

If AMs don't count I can't figure B Jones into the debate and any debate about the greatest golfers without mentioning B Jones is a waste of time.   

Ciao

[Brian_Ewen]

What ? ...... better than Young Tom Morris ?

[Jonathan Cummings]

Let me point out one other thing -- the media circus that Tiger has had to handle since the days of junior golf have only intensified to what you see today with the 24/7 news cycle that is today's world. Much of the time Jack could perform without all the commotion and fanfare that Tiger routinely deals with today. The pressure to always go one step beyond what's been done to date is something Tiger has always matched and then pushed even higher and higher.

Matt - hard to measure the impact but what you cite is true.  No golfer in history has had such a media and gallery throngs following.

JC

[Cliff Hamm]

Matt...Do you really believe the top tier competition today is comparable to what Nicklaus faced?  You even said, "whatever else is left goes to Lefty and then to the masses".  I couldn't agree more.  As I stated there is Tiger and Phil and than the rest. The competition at the top is really hurting golf.  I maintain it is the weakest in my 40 years of watching golf. 

Again, I will repeat, as great as Nicklaus was Tiger is that much better.  No argument.  Even with better competition Tiger may have won just about everything  he has.  At the same time, the competition just isn't what it should be when there is only one other golfer that even approaches tier 1.

[PCCraig]

As much as this happens in other sports when people say one player is better than the other from two different eras, many will use stats to state their case. However in the end you have to ask yourself if going toe-to-toe, over 18 holes, for a major Jack vs. Tiger in their primes....Tiger would win 9 out of 10 times. I just think he has a will to win the big tournament like no one since Jordan in the 90's.

I will say however the most impressive Jack stat isn't that he won 18 majors, but that he came in 2nd in majors (I believe) 20 times....unreal to think how many more he could of had.

[Craig Sweet]

From 1960 -1980 the quality of the players that won majors was amazing....look at it this way...if Tiger is not in the hunt on Sunday do you watch?  If on Sunday it's Jack, Player, Watson, Palmer, Trevino..etc. in the hunt do you watch?  I know my interest was much keener back then than today...

[Cliff Hamm]

As much as this happens in other sports when people say one player is better than the other from two different eras, many will use stats to state their case. However in the end you have to ask yourself if going toe-to-toe, over 18 holes, for a major Jack vs. Tiger in their primes....Tiger would win 9 out of 10 times. I just think he has a will to win the big tournament like no one since Jordan in the 90's.

I will say however the most impressive Jack stat isn't that he won 18 majors, but that he came in 2nd in majors (I believe) 20 times....unreal to think how many more he could of had.

No...of course this is objective but don't underestimate what a great golfer Nicklaus was.  He was a great pressure putter and incredible drive, concentration.  Only one golfer might be better in these crucial areas.  Yes, you got it.  Tiger 6 Nicklaus 4.

[astavrides]

.

[Dan Boerger]

Tiger's the best professional golfer I've ever seen play. Jack's the most accomplished professional golfer I've ever seen play.

Pretty soon, Tiger will be both the best and most accomplished professional golfer I've ever seen play.

All in my humble opinion of course.

Also, the strength of field has been discussed at great length and no one will ever convince me Jack or Tiger had it harder. (Too early to look back at Tiger's era!) While it make for great and endless bar room discussion and speculation, at the end of the day it is what it is.

[Jim Nugent]

I believe Jack was the greater talent.  But Tiger is the better golfer.  

As for competition, I suspect it's similar to baseball back in the 1920's and 1930's, compared to today.  Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Lou Gehrig et. al. set records that will probably never be matched.  Does that mean they are the greatest players ever?    

In every sport where we can objectively measure performance, athletes do much better now than they did 40 years ago.  I don't see why that is not true of golf.  Especially since so many more people play the game now.  

Pointing out that Watson, Palmer, Player and the others won a lot more majors than Phil, Els or Vijay does not really mean a thing -- if the reason they won was the competition was less.  We can never know, yet my sense is that Mickelson would have been a huge star if he'd played in the 1960's or 1970's.  

It's also worth noting that it wasn't Player who came in 2nd the most to Jack in majors.  It wasn't Arnie, Trevino or Watson.  

It was Bruce Crampton.  A fine golfer.  But certainly not one of the all-time greats.  

Finally, I don't think the names of your competition matter so much.  It's how they play in the heat of battle.  Seve and Norman choked against Jack in 1986.  Bob May played three of the greatest rounds in majors history against Tiger in 2000.  Who faced better competition?  No question in my mind the answer is Tiger.  

[Lou_Duran]

Bogey,

I did not denigrate Mr. Jones; but nor would I deify him.  By his own admission, he did not enjoy competition at the highest level- physically sickened him at times- which most likely led to his early retirement.  He appears to have been a most admirable man, a fantastic golfer, but not even close in my book as to being the best ever.

The argument that Tiger doesn't have the same quality of top opponents as JN doesn't seem valid to me.  Sure Casper, Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson, Ballesteros, Faldo were great players, but it seems to me that they played against a field that was weaker than today's.  If Tiger was not the highest quality of player that he is, how many more majors might Els, Mickelson, and Singh have?

Anyways, this may all be moot as Tiger doesn't seem to be slowing.

It is a great privilige to have lived during JN's and TW's prime.  JN has been a hero to me since I became interested in the game, and I have seen him from up close.  I admire TW's talent and dedication, but I respect him alot more than I like him.  No doubt in my mind that he is #1.   
 

[Tony_Chapman]

Just some more stats for anyone who cares from both sides.

Nicklaus
1. I doubt will ever see anyone who made the cut in a major in six different decaes, again. First at the 1958 US Open and the last at the 2000 Masters.

2. Nicklaus missed three cuts in his first 92 majors as a pro from 1962 to the 1985 Masters. He then missed consecutive cuts in the 85 US and British Opens. We called him washed up and he won the 1986 Masters.

3. In the 1970s, he missed one cut and had 35 top-10s in the 40 Major championships. Wow. He had 21 top-3s.

Tiger
1. Has played in 46 Majors as a pro with 31 top-10s and 23 top-3s. So, he's in the top-3 in half of the Majors he's played as a pro. Not bad, I guess.

2. I think save the Tiger Slam, the greatest run in Major golf is what Tiger is doing right now. Since the death of his father and the missed cut at Winged Foot, he has gone 1st, 1st, T2, T2, T12, 1st, 2, 1st, T6, T6. Of course, there are two DNPs in there so Paddy could win.

I find it interesting the list of guys Nicklaus beat in his majors, for all those who say he played in a "deeper" era. Here goes: Palmer (3 times, the last in 1967), Tony Lema, Dave Ragan, Gary Player (only once), Gay Brewer, Tommy Jacobs, Doug Sanders (twice), Dave Thomas, Billy Casper, Bruce Crampton (four times), Bobby Mitchell, Tom Weiskopf (twice), Johnny Miller, Ben Crenshaw, Ray Floyd, Tom Kite (twice), Simon Owen, Isao Aoki, Andy Bean, Greg Norman.

Thought I'd see some bigger names on that list, I guess.

[Matt_Ward]

Cliff:

The competition is no less than what Lou D mentioned before. Yes, I see things today as even more demanding than years before. The trainings, both teaching and physical dimensions are far more intense and the desire to break through is even more demanding than ever before.

Tiger has risen to the top even with all those elements in play. He not only wins but wins decisively against such a stacked level of players. Nicklaus himself said that in any real big time tournament there were only a dozen or so real competitors for him to pay any attention to.  

Cliff, I have a great amount of respect for the guys at the very top who challenged Nicklaus. They are superstars no doubt but Jack was not that dominating to grab from them a range of majors and other events to the extent you see Tiger doing today.

Sean:

You simply don't get it -- winning percentage isn't about $$ -- it's about the idea that each time the person steps on the tee they are likely to win 25% of the time. That's beyond human for a game like golf.

If you equate amateur competition as some sort of equivalent for pro golf -- even in the 20's then you and I are on two entirely different pages. I salute Jones for what he did and I fully understand the vagaries of what match play golf can be about. However, Jones also played against amateurs who were literally throwing up over themselves the minute they were intoduced at the first tee. In short, Jones had plenty of 5&4 or more lopsided wins in such a format. No doubt one has to pay heed to his wins in the US and British Opens but the amateur connection allowed Jones to gain stature against a level of competition that was far lower than he. In only a few instances was Jones really pushed on the amateur side of things with one of those defeats coming at the hands of Johnny Goodman -- the last Am to win the US Open.

Sean, there's no gimmes involved here. Your "shadow of a doubt" comment is inane -- just see the tape again of his win last year at Torrey -- among a bevy of other highlight reel elements. Watch him this weekend at Congressional. When the man grabs the lead in any event -- the result is more sure than the times for sunrise and sunset.

Dale J:

In rough terms -- most people see the line of World War II as the diving ramp between the Amateur wins of yesteryear versus those that followed the war years. Dan Jenkins tries to play it both ways -- he says amateur wins should be counted provided the player has won a professional major. This is done to eliminate some of the odd circumstances with the likes of John Ball and his 8 British Ams.

Eric:

I don't deny the 18 major benchmark ... but winning is winning. Tiger does it at a level that has never been done -- certainly in the modern game of golf -- given all the focus of media and the need to always raise the bar that much higher.


Jason:

Jack's career is seen through the lens of 24 years -- from the '62 US Open to his last major in '86 at Augusta. Tiger in half that time is already near his major total and overall win mark. It's very conceivable Tiger will eclipse Jack in the same time frame manner that Federer has past Sampras. It's the speed and sheer overall domination that is clear for those with eyes to see. Jack was dominant and no doubt the key man to beat -- but his domination was not as thorough or complete as Tiger's. For anyone in the modern age to have a winning percentage of 25% for all the times he tees it up is beyond worldly.

Jason, you make the conclusion that if Jack had bagged ALL the majors he lost to Watson and Trevino his overall would have been higher. Well, that's nice to hold all the variables the way you want to and then present some point which doesn't account for the good breaks Jack got from other majors he won. The '72 US Open is one Jack was fortunate to win -- just check out his situation at the 10th hole that last day. I can name others where Jack was fortunate to grab the title because of fortunate circumstances tied to him getting a solid break or others heaving over themselves.

Like I said before -- Tiger has NEVER lost a major when tied or out front going into the final round of a major. That's beyond awesome.

Jason, I salute Nicklaus in being so consistent (and rightly commend the accomplishments of his main competitors during his caeer) but look at it the other way -- when you finished 2nd all the way to 6th in the BO you can make the argument of continual consistency but you can also make the counterpoint that there's a failure to close the deal or get to the top to win outright. One's viewpoint can be either depending upon your stand.

[Tony_Chapman]

My favorite trivia, though I should hold it until next year. Who is the last player to win a major at St. Andrews, not named Tiger?

[Kalen Braley]

The one thing that is always forgotten in the conversation is Tiger's competitors are not finished winning majors themselves.  They have at least another 10-15 years for the "greats" to rack up more majors.  Once the Tiger era is over, then we can talk about how good Tiger's competition was or wasn't...

And I always crack up with the Arnie comparisons, because Arnie won the vast majority of his when Jack wasn't even around.

P.S.  IIRC correctly because I looked it up a few months back Tigers winning % is closer to 30% and Jacks was about 15%..nuff said, no comparison.

[David Stamm]

Another attempt to try and compare players from different eras.


He's the best of his era. Period. He's one of the best of all time. Period.


Trying to compare his accomplishments vs men who have played over the past 150 years, many we never saw ourselves, is silly.

[Doug Ralston]

Who cares who was best? Watch! And enjoy!

"Blessed where they who were alive in such times". Anyone remember whose quote?

Doug

PS: Robert James Fischer was definitely the best ever! Kasparov? Whosat?

Blessed, I say.

[Kirk Gill]

Doug, I completely agree with your sentiments. And also what Anthony said earlier. Jack Nicklaus was a sports hero of my youth. In that area Tiger can never compete, and that has only to do with time and place, and not ability or accomplishment.

I'll admit, though, for curiosity's sake, that I'd love to see Tiger hitting persimmon. I'm sure he'd be great at it, but still, as a golfer who just absolutely rips every shot (and is on occasion wayward off the tee), I wonder how that swing strategy would work with persimmon and  balata. The fact that Tiger doesn't have to deal with that, though, does not to my mind diminish his greatness.

[Peter Ferlicca]

My favorite trivia, though I should hold it until next year. Who is the last player to win a major at St. Andrews, not named Tiger?

I'm pretty sure it was that big guy named John Daly

[Jason McNamara]

Jack's career is seen through the lens of 24 years -- from the '62 US Open to his last major in '86 at Augusta. Tiger in half that time is already near his major total and overall win mark. It's very conceivable Tiger will eclipse Jack in the same time frame manner that Federer has past Sampras.

This is a weak argument, isn't it?  Palmer, Watson, and Trevino won all of their majors in their first 10-12 years on tour.  Player did not, but I think we agree his fitness regimen was unheard of for its time.  Jack had 14 majors in his first 14 years, compared to Tiger's 14 in 12+ years.  Now if Tiger shows Player-esque (or Snead-esque) resiliency for the next several years, then no argument - he absolutely will be best ever.

Jason, you make the conclusion that if Jack had bagged ALL the majors he lost to Watson and Trevino his overall would have been higher. Well, that's nice to hold all the variables the way you want to and then present some point which doesn't account for the good breaks Jack got from other majors he won.

I believe you misinterpret my intent.  You were the one who specifically brought up those two guys as golfers who could outplay Nicklaus at his best.  We agree on that; we just disagree on what it means.  I believe you think it means Jack wasn't quite as good, I think it means Jack had better competitors.  And since I don't think that disagreement can be resolved, I will add one final thought below, and you can finish this as you like.

The '72 US Open is one Jack was fortunate to win -- just check out his situation at the 10th hole that last day. I can name others where Jack was fortunate to grab the title because of fortunate circumstances tied to him getting a solid break or others heaving over themselves.

C'mon, Matt, everybody gets breaks.  (Tiger's wild tee shot in the playoff vs. Bob May?  The hole-out at Augusta?)