GOAT 2012 v 2025

[Highfade]

In my mind, comparing players of the past with players of the current is just impossible as conditions and equipment used is so different.
Having said that, the one player who I think should carry the mantle is Nicklaus, not only for what he won, but over the time frame and more importantly what he has contributed to the game then and after. After that I would put Palmer.
Woods for me hasn't contributed anything to the game since his playing demise other than shag half of Florida.

I think a reasonable comparator of levels across eras is the scoring averages.
Hogan & Snead were scoring sub 69.50 over a full season in the late 1940s with inferior equipment and less manicured courses but with a clear requirement to offset that with lengthening of courses in modern day.
This scoring at the top wasn’t matched until in 1990s.

Good scoring will stand the test of time sometimes even over wins.

Very difficult to definitively resolve.

 

[Orikoru]

Whenever comparing two sportsmen from different eras, there's an argument to say you should automatically side with the more recent one. As money and accessibility goes up, so does participation across the board, therefore fields are stronger the more recent you go. For this reason I'll always pick Tiger over Jack. And if anyone comes close to matching Tiger's achievements in the future, they'll likely be better than he was - but I don't believe anyone will do that.

 

[IanM]

Bobby Jones messes up all the measurement criteria as he woke up one morning and decided to focus on the Law!

Young Tom also didn't live long enough to have a full career too.

The world of golf was unrecognisable in both their eras to the modern world.

 

[fenwayrich]

Earlier this year I bought a book called 'The Golf 100 - A Spirited Ranking Of The Greatest Players Of All Time' by Michael Arkush. It ascribes points for various accomplishments such as Major victories (including, before 1962, The British and US Amateur Championships), non major wins, and perceived 'contribution to the game'. Quite frankly I think that it's a load of tosh. Bernhard Langer sits in 94th spot, below Tony Jacklin in 92nd, and inferior to such golfing luminaries (albeit good players) as Johnny Farrell (66th), Henry Picard (60th), Lawson Little (52nd) and Leo Diegel (40th). Francis Ouimet sits in 20th, doubtless because of his US Open victory in 1913. The list does include women, with Mickey Wright ranked 6th overall, just ahead of Sam Snead.

 

[Slime]

Whenever comparing two sportsmen from different ears, there's an argument to say you should automatically side with the more recent one. As money and accessibility goes up, so does participation across the board, therefore fields are stronger the more recent you go. For this reason I'll always pick Tiger over Jack. And if anyone comes close to matching Tiger's achievements in the future, they'll likely be better than he was - but I don't believe anyone will do that.

 

[Slime]

As long as Jack is number 1, Hogan is in the top 5 and Player doesn't appear, I'm happy.

 

[irip]

As long as Jack is number 1, Hogan is in the top 5 and Player doesn't appear, I'm happy.

Don’t ask Gary Player his opinion then, he would have himself 1st, 2nd and 3rd.

 

[kp17]

Whenever comparing two sportsmen from different ears, there's an argument to say you should automatically side with the more recent one. As money and accessibility goes up, so does participation across the board, therefore fields are stronger the more recent you go. For this reason I'll always pick Tiger over Jack. And if anyone comes close to matching Tiger's achievements in the future, they'll likely be better than he was - but I don't believe anyone will do that.

Put Tiger into the courses and fields of the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s he’d have dominated more than Nicklaus, no question

 

[rulie]

Put Tiger into the courses and fields of the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s he’d have dominated more than Nicklaus, no question

That's very hypothetical. Put Jack into the previous era and he'd dominate there also.

 

[Lucifer MorningStar]

Put Tiger into the courses and fields of the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s he’d have dominated more than Nicklaus, no question

Interesting point you could argue put a young Nicklaus in the early Tiger era and Woods wins less. Put prime Tiger in this era does he outperform what Schefler is doing which is very similar to what Woods did early on.

Such comparisons just don’t work at all it’s just speculation, you could argue Nicklaus era was harder as there were so many great players winning multiple majors Tiger never really had that competition and he certainly didn’t get as many runners up in majors as Jack so arguably he had even more chances and greater consistency.

I’m a massive Tiger fan but we can’t let opinion get in the way of facts on this.

 

[Hobbit]

Put Tiger into the courses and fields of the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s he’d have dominated more than Nicklaus, no question

As much as it galls me to say it, I agree. Both exceptional golfers, both with enormous mental strength & focus. Tiger was an athlete. Nichlaus was a bit on the chubby side.

Tiger would probably have beaten Nichlaus’s record if he hadn’t wrecked himself in the gym, training with Seal Team 6.

 

[evemccc]

As much as it galls me to say it, I agree. Both exceptional golfers, both with enormous mental strength & focus. Tiger was an athlete. Nichlaus was a bit on the chubby side.

Tiger would probably have beaten Nichlaus’s record if he hadn’t wrecked himself in the gym, training with Seal Team 6.

Surely part of being ‘great’ is also all peripheral things outside of just talent and application, that will impact your career’s success and longevity.

Taking the right decisions, saying no to the wrong things and in being wise with how to spend your time - and who to spend it with - can obviously impact how successful you can be

I don’t think Tiger helped his case, with some of his decisions…such as by his juvenile playing at being a Navy Seal

 

[Hobbit]

Surely part of being ‘great’ is also all peripheral things outside of just talent and application, that will impact your career’s success and longevity.

Taking the right decisions, saying no to the wrong things and in being wise with how to spend your time - and who to spend it with - can obviously impact how successful you can be

I don’t think Tiger helped his case, with some of his decisions…such as by his juvenile playing at being a Navy Seal

I agree. Tiger shot himself in the foot, or was it the knee… as my last sentence in the post you quoted, he “would probably have beaten Nichlaus’s record if he hadn’t wrecked himself…”

As good as his record is, he had a flaw and that flaw stopped him achieving more.