Tiger Woods better than Jack Nicklaus ever was

Stay out of Columbus right now. They'll string you up. Your points are accurate, though, so I cannot disagree.

Also, I would not ask for a comp round at a Nicklaus course in Myrtle Beach.

Awww come on now...let’s give this red herring argument a rest OK. Nicklaus is a cranky old geezer having hard time swallowing Tiger's record busting juggernaut; throws rocks and stones. The important thing is the competition, not the cat fighting and hurt feeling and feelings of geriatric inferiority (man that was a stretch, I admit it). OK, kibitzing sells and makes blogs more interesting, but we got spitfire throwing race cards around and using phrases like, "lily white men", and somehow any of us that wonder about Wood’s impact on golf as being anything but savior-like are painted with the racists, bigot brush...Yaaaawn.

Nicklaus was, and is Nicklaus and Tiger is, and will be Tiger. This Maury Povich/Jerry Springer crap...well it’s below the game, yes? What headlines are we hoping for: Nicklaus Vows To Destroy Usurper Woods, Nicklaus Wets Pants As Tiger’s Win-Rate In Majors Exceeds His Own, Woods Plots To Drive Nicklaus Into Cardiac Arrest - Relentless Assault On Record, etc, etc, etc..... Chill out, Yeah, record breaking is part of sport statistics and history, but what the heck Tim, did Jack refuse to sign an autograph for you or something?

The comparison thing is fun, but does it need to get nasty? Well, OK makes for more fun to read, but...well here’s an interesting comparison of sorts that involves Nicklaus. I was watching a CBS special called Jack and The PGA Championship. Jack was showing his 1968 money clip he won from a longest drive contest. SO in 1968, given the club and ball technology of the time and comparing it to the hi-tech gear we all enjoy today, Jack won with a 341 yards 17 inches boomer. Man that’s pretty good for them days. Just for the heck of it, not wanting to embarrass or anything like that, but I’d like to see how far Tiger could cork an drive using 1968-ish equipment. Ahs he ever done that?

Tim, I dont relly remember Nicklaus very well, but let me ask you this; did the powers to be in golf change the game (courses) becuase of Nicklaus as they have done in Tigers case. The way that Tiger wins is so dominating! When tiger is winning by the third day everyone just quits! The amount of money that players are now able to win because of Tiger is stagering. In my opinion if Tiger never wins another major, he will be the best ever!

Chris...

18 was changed at Augusta, the bunkers were added after Jack took the woods out of play on the right by playing to the left...where the legendery Bobb jones said of him the quote of Jack playing a game of which he was unfamiliar...

Jack changed the game too...

JRC--I'm not saying Jack didn't once hit a drive 341 yards, but you may want to look at Hurricanes that may have been in the area that day. Jack's driving distance was in the 270 range, huge for the day, but certainly not 340. My guess is that Tiger or any of the other long hitting pros of today would not be that far off their averages with "dated" technology.

Ford_ Yeah, I was surprised when Jack said 340+ too, but it wasn't his average, it was a driving contest deal and he did say something about the wind, not hurricane force, maybe Gale force, but anyway...I'd still think it would be cool to watch today's players play a round with 60's circa gear and balls...wouldn't you?
I'll see if I can find a stat w/Google for the 340+ yarder.

The 341 is accurate. The money clip Jack carries in his pocket is an award for the long drive in a tourney Jack played in. There is a transcript from a week or so ago floating around the net in which Jack refers to the 341 drive. All PGA tourneys used to award a "long drive of the week" prize.

Jack was the biggest hitter on the tour when he chose to be. He adopted the high-fade drive to accurately place the ball in fairways, and gave up 20+ yards. I watched all players tee off on the first hole at the '96 Masters. Jack crushed one dead on the sweet spot, and was the only player to get his ball over the top of the incline and up on the flat area. He looked stunned after he hit it. So did everyone else.

P.S. I think the notion that players "give in" to Tiger, in the fourth round is a myth. There are a lot of players who can put three good rounds together, but few who can manage four. Some of it is physical conditioning, some is mental toughness. There is no excuse for a multi-million dollar athlete in his 20's or 30's to be walking around the course in sloppy condition - mental or physical. Tiger does his homework - too many others are "phoning it in".

Folks,

The equipment makes a HUGE difference. Why do you think the senior players are hitting the ball farther now than when in their primes twenty-five years ago?

As to this point, Nicklaus was hitting the ball 268 on average in 1980; at the age of sixty-three on the Senior Tour, he was hitting it an average of 271. Case closed.

Tiger is very good but I think Nicklaus had better competition ie. Player, Trevino, Palmer, Watson, Weiskopf, Miller, Floyd, Norman, Ballesteros, etc. He also has a lot of runnerups in majors that shows he was always right there. I'd be crotchety too if I saw the 50 million Tiger has earned compared to the prize money back in the 70's har har.

Tiger has not had a Trevino, Palmer, Player, or Watson to contend with...............none of which would miss three foot puts with the title on the line and fold like Tiger's supposed competitors. Tiger is not even the longest hitter on tour, but Jack was.
I think all of the aforementioned players of Jack's era would have kicked
Tiger's butt at least half the time.
Also, Tiger has NEVER come from behind to win a major. If he's not in the lead, come Sunday, HE FOLDS.
Case closed.
Case

Ed Funk is right. Jack's achievement versus his competition is much more impressive than that of Woods.

Regardless, Hogan was the greatest post-war golfer.

Who knows for certain about comparisons between Woods and Jack or Ben or Sam, etc. One thing is certain - Woods is the best golfer on the planet now.

This nonsense about Nicklaus's peers are better than Tiger's is getting really old and ridiculous.

Tiger's peers are fit, strong, and playing well on their own except when they're competing against Tiger. Do you think that by diminishing Tiger's peers by dragging out Nicklaus's peers as being better will somehow make Nicklaus bigger than he really was. Look, he was good in his time and he has his record.

Tiger Woods won 12 majors at 30 in a dominating manner whether some of the cranky guys like it or not.

Comment from: Steph [Visitor]
This nonsense about Nicklaus's peers are better than Tiger's is getting really old and ridiculous.

BUT....your opinion is not backed up by statistical fact.

Would love to see how Tiger would react to a competitor in a major putting a rubber snake in his golf bag before a play-off, a la Trevino & Jack. I don't know if Tiger's competition is worse than Jack's, but they sure aren't as entertaining (save for Phil and his daring do).

I think Nicklaus has proven over time to be the great. Remember when he was age 58 with a bad hip and he was kicking tail in the top ten at the Masters back in 1998. I'm sure he could have won even more majors had he not been focused on family, had a motorized motor home with luxuries to travel to tournaments and titanium shaft clubs and zircon golf balls. Who is on the player of the year trophy handed out each year. Enough said.

All sports (chess, poker, football, tennis, cricket) have distinct eras where there are
a) Elite few geniuses who play the game and not much thoery/ technology. In this era the quality of the opposition is very high (relative to how much the champ knows) but the breadth is not so high.
b) There is a LOT of technology available to a LOT of people. In this era the breadth of opposition is very large but the quality of the top opposition is somewhat lower.

Jack's top opposition was better and hence if one of them got hot there was a good chance Jack would lose. The breadth of the opposition Tiger faces statistically compensates for this. The probability of Tiger losing whn one of his opponents get hot is lower but then the number of opponents who can get hot is a lot higher than Jack faced.

What counts is how often the champion wins and as of now Jack is ahead. Once Tiger surpasses 18 he gets the throne. The argument about the opponents they had is not (in my opinion) valid.

So you idiots think that Gary Player, all 5'4 of him would have kicked Tiger's butt with his 200 yard 5 wood or the legendary head case that was Johnny Miller and his life long case of the yips would have had a chance. Get a grip, yes the technology has changed, but so have the players. A prime Tiger would destroy all of those guys, including Jack--Ask the Golden Bear himself and he will tell you that "Tiger plays a game I am not familiar with". Enough with this technology crap, you play with Pro V1's and Hot drivers and you still struggle to break 100 on your local muni. Times change people, athletes get better, records fall...I could make a pretty good argument for bob cousy being one of the greatest NBA point guards, but does anyone think for a second that Cousy could match up with Magic Johnson or any of todays physically superior point guards.

I have had the honor of meeting Arnold Palmer and he was a true gentleman and a legend in every sense of the word, but he was just a little guy with an ugly swing--Ask anybody who knows and he wouldn't even rank in the top 5 golfers of all time, maybe not even the top 10. His impact on the game was huge and undeniable, but on his best day he doesn't touch Tiger. This is nothing but sour grapes and revisionist history--History will show that Ernie Els, Vijay Singh and Phil Mickelson were among the best to ever play this game and were better then Miller, Weiskopf and Floyd and when all is said and done they will probably be on par with Watson, Player and Trevino. The fields are deeper then they have ever been, the courses are longer, the greens faster, and the players bigger and stronger yet so many want to hold on the notion that today's players are soft and that Tiger's accomplishments should come with a disclaimer.

I doubt Ernie, Vijay, and Phil will ever be confused with Player, Watson, Trevino, Hogan, or the other greats. I doubt Jack would say in his prime that Tiger would kick his golf socks off the greens.

I think that an important distinction isn't being made here. It's not so much that Watson, Trevino and Player were better than Els, Singh and Mickelson; it's that they knew how to WIN. They were clutch competitors who would rise to the occasion. THAT is the difference.

It's a wonder how tiny little Corey Pavin could be one of the best players in the world in the 1990s and beat all of those greats Els, Singh & Mickelson, including a US Open.

To further illuminate what Judge Smails said above, this year on the PGA Tour short-hitting, 50 year-old Fred Funk is averaging over 271 off the tee. That's longer than Nicklaus in 1980 when he won 2 majors and was POY for the last time.

The Seniors are playing courses averaging over 7000 yards now, for God's sake. You don't think the equipment makes a huge difference?

We can argue for years about whether Ali could whip Louis, Wilt could stop Shak, Jones could beat Pavin, etc. One thing is certain - Woods is the world's best golfer today. And guess what... he's getting better. He's thinking his way around the courses ala Jack. He's smoothed his swing out ala Sam. His physical conditioning is equal to Player's at Gary's fittest.

Ten more years of Tiger on the prowl... get used to it.

Shanks,

Anyone who doesn't understand the profound difference the equipment has made can't be much of a golfer.

One more thing about the equipment. I remember when the "250 yard drive" was an impressive poke. That was thought to be good distance, distance that could only be bested by the longest hitters. Now 250 yards isn't even all that impressive on the women's tour.

Why they build longer and longer courses is beyond me. If, on particular par 4 hole, the intent is to have a 140+ yard appoach shot to the green... no problem. Grow the rough all the way across the fairway at 140 yards. If the big bombers want to hit their drives 300+, let 'em play their second shot from the new deep rough (formerly the fairway).

Ghet,

I'd say it's because the determination has been made that people want to see the big drives, and this is true. If you think about it, you'll realize that it would take the shine off the PGA Tour if the longer hitters were using lay-up clubs on most of the holes.

PGA is already playing 7000+ yard courses. I'm talking about the thousands of beautiful old courses throughout the country that have been rendered obsolete by 400cc spring loaded drivers and juiced-up golf balls. Growing a band of rough across the fairway is a cost-free solution. Golf should be something other than a long-driving contest aided by quasi-legal gizmos. A thirty-yard wide band of rough across the fairways might save a few stately old courses.

Ghet,

Modern equipment doesn't lead to the obsolescence of the courses in question because, by and large, only PGA players hit the ball far enough to render such courses obsolete, and they don't play on them. The average golfer lacks the prodigious length to be a factor in this, even with state of the art equipment. I mean, I don't know about you, but I don't see too many juggernautish golfers launching 300 yard drives at my local muni.

YO.
Tiger Woods by far did more for golf than Nicklaus.
Nicklaus records (esp.at The Masters)
are falling to Tiger very nicely.

No Golfer, not even Nicklaus has done for Golf what Tiger Woods has so far
accomplished in his still young career. Tiger: seven...repeat seven
straight PGA tour victories, after
on series of 6 straight previously.
Nicklaus is not even a close third
to Byron Nelson and Tiger Woods.
The 1997 Masters at Augusta was a defining moment in Golf records.
The youngest player age 21 ,won by
record 18 under par and by the largest margin of 12 strokes. Take it or lump it. It's in the record books.