I was curious about Tiger's accomplishments thus far versus those of the Golden Bear. A lot of people like to call Tiger the most dominant golfer ever (hell, some have called him the most dominant athlete ever), and I was somewhat skeptical about the statement.

After looking up the stats in major tournaments, here's what I came up with:

                        Tiger Woods       Jack Nicklaus
Age:                       31                    32 (in July of 1972)
Years pro:                 11                    11
Major Tourneys:            49 (6 Am)             47 (4 Am)
Wins:                      12                    11
Top 3:                     19                    23
Top 10:                    26                    33

7/24/2007 11:53:05 PM

haha no names??

are you kidding? youre kidding right?

the guys these days could TEAR UP some of those in Jacks time



yes Tiger isnt quite Jack, YET, but he still has time

7/24/2007 11:55:10 PM

Gary Player won 9 majors
Arnold Palmer won 7
Lee Trevino won 6
Johnny Miller was very tough to beat in the early 70's

With the exception of Woods, none of todays golfers are even close to Player or Palmer. Mickelson and Singh are decent, but they would have trouble stacking up with Trevino or Miller.



[Edited on July 25, 2007 at 12:06 AM. Reason : 2]

7/25/2007 12:03:18 AM

hah, how many video games does Jack have, hmmm? thought so....

7/25/2007 12:03:45 AM

Don't even start this argument. Its going to fail for sure. There is no way you can come to a definate answer at this point.


And one of the often over looked stats for Jack, is that he finished 2nd in majors something like 20times.

[Edited on July 25, 2007 at 12:08 AM. Reason : .]

7/25/2007 12:06:57 AM

What the fuck? I defined this point as July of their 11th season as a pro. It's pretty easy to compare what Woods has done with what Nicklaus did at the same point.

I'm not saying that Nicklaus is a better golfer, I'm saying that he had accomplished more against tougher competition at this point in his career.

Quote :

"And one of the often over looked stats for Jack, is that he finished 2nd in majors something like 20times."

Nicklaus had finished 2nd or tied for 2nd 11 times at this point in his career. Tiger has finished 2nd or tied for 2nd 4 times. You could make a case for either one being more clutch, given Nicklaus's knack for coming from behind and Woods's knack for winning versus coming in 2nd.

Woods's higher margin of victory shows how dominant he is when he is playing well, but Nicklaus's number of top 3 and top 10 finishes speaks for his consistency and the level of competition during his time period.

[Edited on July 25, 2007 at 12:19 AM. Reason : 2]

7/25/2007 12:09:06 AM

Oh Im right there with ya man. I think Jack is the best ever. I hate Tiger with a passion, but I respect him as a player. Some will argue that Tigers 12 majors at this point mean more than Jack with 11, and better finishes where he didn't win. Afterall, wins and majors matter more to some people. Some will say Jack is better at this point because he had one less win, but better finishes. Also its hard to say that Jack won against better competition, there is no question the OVERALL competition now is way better than it was back when Jack was in his prime. Sure Trevino, Player, and Arnie competed strongly with Jack, but today, there is a wider range of people winning majors and other tournaments. But we are talking about careers decades apart. Which could give Jack an edge. It would be fun to see how players today would fare with the equipment that Jack and his players used back in the day. The difference in equipment is by far what makes Golf so hard to compare to the past. No other sport has had the technological developments that golf has had. But I suppose its all relavent since each generation competes with in itself with its own technology, but still, its hard to compare an individual from back then with one from now. I would love nothing more than to go back in time, and take Tiger and todays technology to Jacks time. I mean really, how many of you have actually playes with some old blades and some actual woods. Its an entirely different game.

7/25/2007 12:45:17 AM

^i would like to see the golf coaches of today go back in time and coach up the players, then see how much better they would be with that help as well

7/25/2007 12:56:31 AM

paragraphs ftw.

7/25/2007 12:57:07 AM

the difference is technology

not only in the equipment but also the players swings, and most importantly, the structure of the courses.

courses today are harder than they have ever been as well, and longer...you gotta remember that



just WAYYYYY too many questions

7/25/2007 1:08:02 AM

Golf is the most competitive it has ever been, don't kid yourself.

7/25/2007 2:20:29 AM

Tiger's better strictly for the fact that he's part Black(and yes Im making this comment simply to piss off Royal Flush)...you fucking cunt!

7/25/2007 4:21:04 AM

Quote :

"but Nicklaus gets the nod due to tougher competition."

i def laughed at this statement

the competition is a lot harder now then it was back in Jack's day

7/25/2007 4:36:33 AM

meh i disagree. I'd put the black knight and arnie up against any two golfers (in their prime) with the same equipment, any day of the week.

7/25/2007 6:48:50 AM

Quote :

"Golf is the most competitive it has ever been, don't kid yourself."

Thread ends here......I hate Tiger but he is still better than Jack.

There are 100 golfers who can win now....hell look at this years majors (Johnson, Cabrera, and Harrington).

7/25/2007 7:34:52 AM

Babe Ruth vs. Barry Bonds: a comparison

7/25/2007 8:26:01 AM

technology inflates true talent a lot more than it used to.

I dont know if any of you read the article in USA Today a couple weeks ago about the golfer who played two rounds of golf to test equipment from today against those from the 70s. He played the same course over a weekend first playing with his set of new age tech clubs. The next day, with knowledge of the course, how the greens sloped, the placement for the shots, he used a set of clubs, woods, and putter from the 1970's. His score was 7 strokes higher than with the new technology.

I'm not making a decision of who's better, truth is we'll never know because they won't ever be able to compete against each other in their true primes. But the fact is that technology has made a lot of average golfers good and a lot of good golfers great. More than it ever has before. That is why golf is at its most competitive level today.

7/25/2007 8:40:31 AM

7/25/2007 9:08:53 AM

this thread is dumb.

7/25/2007 10:16:47 AM

Quote :

"Babe Ruth vs. Barry Bonds: a comparison"

Not even in the same ballpark as the Nicklaus-Woods debate.

I would give the edge to Nicklaus because he more consistent with much worse equipment. Tiger has better top-end ability however, but he doesn't have the consistency of Jack.

7/25/2007 10:25:50 AM

the Golden Bear FTW

7/25/2007 10:28:23 AM

The whole technology argument is dumb. It doesnt matter if it makes players shoot lower scores or not. Were talking about competition and everyone is on a level playing field today, just like they were back then. More people compete today, though.

7/25/2007 10:31:44 AM

how is the technology arguement dumb when you are comparing two people that are seperated by 2 generations?

7/25/2007 10:34:21 AM

You seem to forget that they have made the courses much harder and longer while technology has been improved.

7/25/2007 10:46:35 AM

nickle ass all the way

7/25/2007 10:50:21 AM

actually i haven't forgotten and if you read my first post I make no judgement on which two would be the better player.

i'm just saying technology has allowed for someone that may be an average player to become a good to great player. and that is on every field of play, not just golf.

and im not singling technology to just graphite, titanium, etc but technology in fitness and wellness, endurance training and everything.

7/25/2007 10:52:46 AM

Quote :

"how is the technology arguement dumbcan you make a legitimate comparison, period, when you are comparing two people that are seperated by 2 generations?"

to be fair, I think you can, but this debate may be a little beyond fools on a message board.

7/25/2007 11:06:14 AM

Quote :

"haha no names??"

yes, for the most part, no names and choke artists like mickelson

i agree jack is the best but in 10-15 year i'm confident it will be tiger...i figure another year or two of getting adjusted to married life with a kid and he has a resurgence in golf...you know nicklaus had some slump years due to family issues as well

Right now Jack...when its all said and done Tiger

7/25/2007 11:50:29 AM

it is dumb because the people of jacks generation were playing with the same technology he was, and tigers generation is playing with the same technology he is. no one is arguing that tigers scores are less than jacks. so its dumb.

7/25/2007 11:55:45 AM

JACK WAS BEATING OTHER GOLFERS WITHOUT STEROIDS

7/25/2007 12:06:11 PM

pro golf has never tested, so we'll never know if that's true or not.

7/25/2007 12:17:40 PM

Tiger needs a true rival. To some extent he's a victim of his own dominance, kind of like Roy Jones Jr. during his reign.

Although RJJ should be considered one of the greatest boxers ever, Sugar Ray Leonard will undoubtedly be more remembered due to his battles with Haggler, Hearns and Duran.

Likewise, Nicklaus's epic battles with Palmer, Trevino and other hall of fame golfers just add to his legacy, even though he wasn't head-and-shoulders above the competition during that time period. Woods's lack of a rival could be viewed as weak competition or a sign of his dominance, depending on your perspective.

[Edited on July 25, 2007 at 1:13 PM. Reason : 2]

7/25/2007 1:10:45 PM

The entire field at every tournament is his rival. But I know what you are trying to say.

7/25/2007 2:13:12 PM

in golf you play against yourself as much as anyone else. So perhaps he is dominant.

7/25/2007 2:21:30 PM

fucking amazing

8/5/2007 2:08:44 PM

the field has choked

8/5/2007 2:31:10 PM

tiger

8/5/2007 2:32:43 PM

Quote :

"how is the technology arguement dumb when you are comparing two people that are seperated by 2 generations?"

It's very dumb when you are comparing things like number of wins, top 3 finishes, top 10 finishes, major victories, etc. because Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods used the same tech as their competition to get those wins.

8/6/2007 11:45:50 AM