imanhacker
Medal Winner
Tiger/Nicklaus debate!
Did Jack really have the same stiff competition that Tiger has now?
Did Jack really have the same stiff competition that Tiger has now?
Talking cr@p on 5Live?
- Thread starter imanhacker
- Start date
Golfer2112
Assistant Pro
My $0.02:
Jack had less competition in terms of the number of players who could beat him but those who could were of a higher standard than today's Mickelsons and Furyks etc.
Jack had less competition in terms of the number of players who could beat him but those who could were of a higher standard than today's Mickelsons and Furyks etc.
thebelgie24
Assistant Pro
i agree 2112,jack had a handful of great players round him but all of them a high standard
muttleee
Tour Rookie
Today's golfers would look a lot better if Tiger didn't beat them so often! What I mean is that if Tiger wasn't around, the achievements of other golfers would look a lot more inpressive and we would be thinking there were several top class players in competition with each other at the minute. As it is, Tiger beats them so often, they look only average in comparison to him.
Marko77
Q-School Graduate
I agree, however, as much as Tigers beats them I think most of them give up before really taking him on. Woody and Ernie had good cracks yesterday but both made errors that Tiger just doesn't make. Doesn't make them bad players.
Its a different argument/topic but I still believe the problem is there is there is too much easy money available for those finishing in the T25 of tournaments which I think takes away some of the desire or work ethic to really go after Tiger
Back in Jack's day you had to win to gain recognition which is probably why there aren't as many still talked about?
Its a different argument/topic but I still believe the problem is there is there is too much easy money available for those finishing in the T25 of tournaments which I think takes away some of the desire or work ethic to really go after Tiger
Back in Jack's day you had to win to gain recognition which is probably why there aren't as many still talked about?
B
birdieman
Guest
Tiger is better than Jack - there is no debate.
As John Jacobs (best teacher ever) said, Jack won in spite of his swing, not because of it. I think Jack relied more heavily on a strong mental game i.e he course managed superbly and was a great putter. Tigers ability supercedes Jacks in every department. Jack had to beat 10 guys for Majors, TW has to beat 50.
I think Tiger is almost superhuman in what he has achieved in the modern era. At 31 he remains stronger physically and mentally than the rest. With anyone in the top 50 capable of winning each week the amount of Majors he's bagged by 31 is staggering. We are just so used to seeing it that we don't get surprised or thrilled by it so much any more.
I'm not sure money has anything to do with other players being less hungry, these guys on Tour all want to win, they grew up winning all the time to get to where they are now and wouldn't settle for second but most of the time even when they play brilliantly they are overshadowed by TW playing better. When Tiger is on form no-one now or in the past can or could have lived with him.
As John Jacobs (best teacher ever) said, Jack won in spite of his swing, not because of it. I think Jack relied more heavily on a strong mental game i.e he course managed superbly and was a great putter. Tigers ability supercedes Jacks in every department. Jack had to beat 10 guys for Majors, TW has to beat 50.
I think Tiger is almost superhuman in what he has achieved in the modern era. At 31 he remains stronger physically and mentally than the rest. With anyone in the top 50 capable of winning each week the amount of Majors he's bagged by 31 is staggering. We are just so used to seeing it that we don't get surprised or thrilled by it so much any more.
I'm not sure money has anything to do with other players being less hungry, these guys on Tour all want to win, they grew up winning all the time to get to where they are now and wouldn't settle for second but most of the time even when they play brilliantly they are overshadowed by TW playing better. When Tiger is on form no-one now or in the past can or could have lived with him.
shanker
Q-School Graduate
Standards constantly improve in all sports- golf is no different therefore you can bet that Tiger is a better golfer than Jack was. When Jack started winning his majors golf wasn't the international sport that it is now. Look at the number of nations who had potential winners in the field last week. Denmark and Sweden probably only had two courses between them when Jack started. Jack had to beat one great South African player whereas Tiger has to contend with Els, Goosen, Sabbatini and Immelman. Look at the number of top Aussies. Oh! Don't forget the Brits.
an interesting debate...
when we put the question up on the poll after we had run the Jack v Tiger article Jack won with 201 votes to 142
perhaps time for a re-run?
when we put the question up on the poll after we had run the Jack v Tiger article Jack won with 201 votes to 142
perhaps time for a re-run?
MacMachattie
Assistant Pro
My view is, if you took today's Tiger Woods and put him up against Jack Nicklaus in his prime Tiger would win. Woods plays the sport of golf better than anyone has ever done before. Much in the same way as Roger Federer plays the sport of tennis better than anyone has before.
Putting all stats and records aside and just looking at pure golfing ability Tiger is unquestionably the greatest ever. It wont be too long before all the records agree with that too.
Putting all stats and records aside and just looking at pure golfing ability Tiger is unquestionably the greatest ever. It wont be too long before all the records agree with that too.
furyk_or_unique
Assistant Pro
In reply to our Scottish friend, what no-one seems to be factoring in here is all the stuff beyond just the golf - the way the two conducted themselves and their overall characters rather than just their golfing skill.
Here Jack wins hands down - a gracious loser despite being fiercely competitive, a non-spitter as far as I'm aware and a non-thrower of clubs ever since his dad told him that if he ever threw one again, it would be the last time he played golf.
Tiger, in my view, is not the perfect role model or golfer because of failings in some of these departments, and as such can never be considered such a great player as Jack.
Here Jack wins hands down - a gracious loser despite being fiercely competitive, a non-spitter as far as I'm aware and a non-thrower of clubs ever since his dad told him that if he ever threw one again, it would be the last time he played golf.
Tiger, in my view, is not the perfect role model or golfer because of failings in some of these departments, and as such can never be considered such a great player as Jack.
shanker
Q-School Graduate
Agree with you, furyk or unique. Jack Nicklaus was a model for any sportsman, whatever his game.
viscount17
Money List Winner
Just how some of these comparisons were made is beyond me.
Yes, todays Tiger could beat Jack in his prime - if they played today - but Tiger is a product of 40+ years experience and development of sports fitness programming and psychology, equipment and course design and maintenance. Tiger using 1960 - 80's equipment and on the those courses (were they as 'manufactured' then - were courses changed because they were too hard or tailored to achieve a result?) - I'm not so sure.
Jack only had to beat 10, Tiger has to beat 50? I don't think so - I'd take odds that at least 30 of the top 50 will never win a major - and probably not any of the other 'big'competitions - and there are more of those now.
Thing is, does it matter? Just enjoy it!
Yes, todays Tiger could beat Jack in his prime - if they played today - but Tiger is a product of 40+ years experience and development of sports fitness programming and psychology, equipment and course design and maintenance. Tiger using 1960 - 80's equipment and on the those courses (were they as 'manufactured' then - were courses changed because they were too hard or tailored to achieve a result?) - I'm not so sure.
Jack only had to beat 10, Tiger has to beat 50? I don't think so - I'd take odds that at least 30 of the top 50 will never win a major - and probably not any of the other 'big'competitions - and there are more of those now.
Thing is, does it matter? Just enjoy it!
ace_in_the_pack
Medal Winner
I dont think as you say ou can compare the era's because the technology has changed and so have the courses and the lifestyles, etc
I personally have seen very little of the Golden Bear compared to Tiger so it is Tiger for me everytime. If and when he breaks the major record i dont think the debate will exist as much.
Also I would imagine Jack hates it when people mention his second and third place finishes as has been mentioned on the TV and radio lately, I imagine that he hated those finishes as Tiger too does and would much rather forget them and remember the wins.
I personally have seen very little of the Golden Bear compared to Tiger so it is Tiger for me everytime. If and when he breaks the major record i dont think the debate will exist as much.
Also I would imagine Jack hates it when people mention his second and third place finishes as has been mentioned on the TV and radio lately, I imagine that he hated those finishes as Tiger too does and would much rather forget them and remember the wins.
