The only player that can be class as the best is Jack Nicklaus to win 72 tournaments 18majors with the clubs and balls they used at that time to what tiger used now is like night and day also Jack is and always will be a pure gentleman where tiger is not also any player that spits on a golf course is not
Low vs Struggle: Depends on the event. For me, if they are playing an event like the Waste Management Open, I want to see as many birdies as possible, but if they are playing a US Open, or the Open Championship, I like seeing a real test for the guys where birdies are at a premium.
What everyone seems to fail to mention is that Jack came second 19 times let that sink in he was in a position to win 37 majors. That’s what makes him the greatest surely.
When Jack played - there was literally only a handful of players with a legit chance of winning those majors. The depth of field has grown significantly through the years....so it really isn't a fair comparison.
When Tiger was at his very best in 2000 his closest rivals Els Singh Garcia Mickleson. None of that list at that time had won more than 2 majors other than Tiger. Jack was competing against Palmer Player Trevino Watson Seve Thompson all these men had won 5 or more majors. All are recognised as greats of the game. Only Phil of the current batch could be added to this group with 6. So Jack putting himself in a position to win 37 and to win 18 is staggering with these competitors round him. Tiger is awesome greatest of his generation but went 11 years without a major. Jack was 46 when he won the masters for the last time Tiger was 43.
There are so many variables in this about the eras they played in. Jack has the best majors record, but played in an era where equipment was inferior to today. They had to use all the clubs in the bag where today pro’s seem to have woods and a selection of wedges for most holes. Nicklaus also played in an era where pre qualifying was held for regular tour events, so the pro’s had to win on Wednesday to play the weekend, he also was in the earlier period where 36 holes a day might be played. Regarding high / low score tournaments US PGA set their open up slick tricky greens etc and yet they still get a player having their one top tournament. I love the open for letting nature decide how hard the rough will be and then if the wind blows look out. A lot of the modern pro’s seem stuck when it’s windy and they cannot throw the wedge shot as the approach. One things for sure Tiger is a great, and he is the one who has driven the prize money to the heights it is, and the one who you would put your house on If he went into the final round with a one shot lead to bring it home.
The logic for Majors doesn’t work the same way it doesn’t work in Basketball… Michael Jordan is widely considered the best basketball player ever but he does not have the most championships in NBA history…. There are many other factors that contribute to the argument and that’s why for me, Tiger is the beat golfer to have ever played.
Basketball is a team sport but something else to consider is the playing the field/competition. In golf when Tiger played is it possible that there were 30 players that could have smoked Nicholas? Golf is way more popular than it has ever been. The competition is fierce, the courses are longer, the equipment is far superior. It is possible the Nicholas' road was much easier to mess competition. Unfortunately majors along can't be the only deciding factor. I personally feel Michael Jordan is the best basketball player of all time. He has six championships. Lebron James however has four championships but played in like 10 or 11 championships. He got there more which is actually more impressive. Jordan didn't even get there for 8ish years. You have to consider ALL FACTOR in choosing the greatest.
@@cpat7065 for example lebron has jumped around to different teams trying to win. Also lebron has 4 chips in 19 years Jordan has 6 in 15 4/19 vs 6/15 21 % vs 40% Jordan wins championships at double the rate. Either way it’s tough to translate that to golf. If anything boxing is a better comparison. Because you have a legit contrast in what greatness means. For example whose better mayweather or Pacquiao Mayweather stayed undefeated and rarely struggled with competition. While Pacquiao has some losses but also moved up 8 different classes to become the only ever 8 division champ in history. Floyd has a perfect record but mannys victories were more dominant.
It’s Jack and it’s not that close. Tiger Woods had the greatest run of any golfer who’s ever picked up a club, but Jack Nicklaus put together a career that, from start to finish, was unparalleled. That’s not an indictment of Tiger. The only leaderboard that matters is the one on the 72nd hole. It just says that Tiger’s peers never put pressure on him on a Sunday and he never put pressure on them. He dominated in an era of chokers. Jack dominated in an era of legends. Also look at top 3 finishes its the margin gets wider. Jack hard tougher competition and still has more majors.
Dumb argument to compare an individual sport where individual wings are the yard stick to a team one where you could be a bench player and win the most rings.
Rick great topic. First I would like to give you an example in another sport. Michael Jordan most people would say greatest basketball player that ever lived but Bill Russell with 11 NBA Championships to Michaels 6 doesn’t make Bill a better basketball player arguably it makes him a better champion. So I would say to this point Jack is a better champion but Tiger a better golfer. Also, I would say the only stat that you can use for this debate in my opinion is what was each of their best scoring average for a given year. Take equipment, golf course condition, fitness, take all of that away. When they were playing their best for that year what was their scoring average. And if you look that up I think it will shock you of how amazing Tiger Woods scoring average was his best year to Jacks best year how dominating it is. Keep doing a great job! Hope this swayed you a little bit
It's not the same thing at all. Golf is an individual sport, Bill Russel had a better team (relative to competition) than Jordan. Winning in golf is all individual and winning is the point - that's why a golfer CAN be judged by the amount they won.
Using Majors alone as the benchmark is a huge disservice to a career of work. Yes, they should be heavily weighted but the rest of someones career should be factored in. The thing with Jack is he not only had the most Majors but he also had a long list of Tour wins that backed up those majors. I run into issues with someone like Brooks who has 4 majors but only 4 other Tour wins. Lets look at that. Just pulling a selection of popular names, not complete lists. Others with 4 Majors: Ernie Els Rory McIlroy Raymond Floyd Bobby Jones Others with 3 Majors: Payne Stewart Nick Price Vijay Singh Jordan Spieth Total Non-Major Victories Els: 19 Rory: 20 Stewart: 11 Price: 18 (10 in 2 years) Floyd: 22 I often hear about how great Brooks is and he's very good but great? And in context, just how good? 4 Majors is fantastic and puts him into nice company but for a career, Id put him further down than a lot of these guys who have the same victories and even below guys who have even fewer Majors because they have SO many more Tour wins. You could break this down by looking at Top 5 and cuts made to slice up the field even more because those are stats even by admission of Tour Pros that are impressive (most agree that Tigers consecutive cuts made is nearly as impressive as all of his Majors because its _THAT_ hard to make that many cuts in a row)
@@Jonathan-cz4ky yeah to me it’s no argument. If you weigh everything in tiger is clearly the goat. Like guys it’s ok jack Nicholas is the second greatest player to ever pick up a golf club in the historyof golf. That’s still a crazy achievement. He just isn’t better than tiger. It is what it is
Don’t forget Mickelson. Definitely a late bloomer when it came to winning majors ( He actually ended up winning more majors than I predicted.) 45 wins with 6 majors .
I love to see both. I love seeing them be able to tear up a course that plays "easy" to them most of the time. It's more interesting and fun to watch. Say 3 out of 4. But that one out of four, it's nice to see how tough the game really can be with tough conditions and to see them almost humanized in a way. As for Jack vs Tiger, that's super tough. Jack won 18 and took second 19 times, which is absolutely incredible. However, I do not recall an entire industry having to re-design their golf courses because he was breaking too many scoring records with Jack. Tiger also inspired better athletes to join the game, and has played long enough for them to come after him, making the competition more and more tough. I think it's a case of 1 and 1A, and you could make an argument either way. It's sort of like best quarterback or running back, different eras of the game, different equipment, training, etc. It's seriously difficult to pick. That's my two cents!
This is the best comment I've seen on this thread because it is simply spot on! If you put either one in their prime playing with the same equipment against each other, it's an absolute toss up.
Rick and Guy have talked about the number of majors as being the primary argument multiple times, but they keep leaving out that Jack competed in about twice as many majors as tiger. Tiger has a much higher percentage win rate at major championships, and has arguably been more dominant in those wins as well.
I just love to actually see golf shots! SO fed up with coverage that is all putts with the odd tee shot and then 10 minutes of watching a player and caddy talking whilst there are still loads of other golfers on the course. I suppose its all about ratings and advertising rather than creating coverage for true golf fans.
Jack, along side his 18 major title wins came runner-up 19 times. Which is crazy. Everything was different then. Tiger is a brilliant golfer, no doubt the best golfer of his generation, by so far its almost no point measuring it. I like both players.
Well if you look at the statistic that Tiger's win percentage is MUCH higher than Jack's I'd disagree. At one point it was over 33% lol. Jack played in a ton more events than tiger, gave him more chances to win, and at the end of the day tiger won the amount he won with significantly less events played.
@@Jonathan-cz4ky All true except that Jack didn't play that much more often than Tiger early in their careers. Coincidentally (or not) they both had their highest career win percentage at age 33. For Tiger that was an injury shortened 2008 and he had by then played in 253 events with 71 wins (28% win rate!). For Jack that was 1973 and he had amassed 52 wins out of 284 (18.8%). After that Jack played way more compared to Tiger like you mentioned, his final win was in his 486th start at the 1986 Masters. Tiger has 368 starts age 45 and for all we know may never play PGA Tour golf again.
@@shukigkato bro you guys are so dramatic. All tiger did was break his leg. Y’all act like he lost a leg a arm and a eye😂. He’s coming back to play. It takes 3 to 6 months to heal from the type of fracture he has, and that’s naturally not including peptides and stem cell treatment like tiger should be taking. Give it another year he will be back.
For me, the GOAT should go off wins, major or not. But if you believe majors are more important because it’s harder and more pressure, then surely holding all 4 current major trophies at the same time would be the hardest accomplishment to achieve, and the only man who has done that - Eldrick Tiger Woods
100% if I have a choice, I want to see them struggle. They’re struggling because it’s extremely difficult and is therefore a great test. Watching driver, wedge putt is boring week after week.
I'm all for growing the rough longer and punishing the players for missing in the wrong spots. What I don't want to see is tricked up greens, or pin placements that are the reason the scores are high.
Tigers the greatest to ever play the game in my opinion - not that its a difficult conclusion to come to. The competition has grown stronger and stronger so records will be tougher to match. But records are one thing and ability is another. Tiger could play shots that no one up till now has been able to come close to. His dedication and influence on the game is staggering also.
I like to see the pros be challenged and maybe I'm old fashioned but I hope Jack keeps the title of greatest of all time. Great champion and role model all in one.
There's many criteria that makes up the greatest golfer, not just major championships. I hate when people do that. For example, Michael Jordan doesn't have the most NBA championships. But in almost all other stats he dominates the competition and is known as the greatest. Roger Federer soon won't have the most tennis majors and he'll still be remembered as the greatest because of obviously how brilliant he was, but also cause of the impact he's had on tennis which nobody can compete with. Maradona to many is the greatest football player ever cause of his talent level, but he doesn't have the most goals, league titles, or international titles. Tiger is the greatest golfer ever, his impact on the sport is so far ahead of every other player in history it's unbelievable. And without injury and controversy, he would have surpassed Jack's major record by some distance and has more international and pga tour wins than Jack. Jack didn't have the same level of competition either in majors, maybe less than 10 players in his whole playing career whereas the overall level of pga tour players was way higher and tiger was way ahead of them while Jack was a small bit better than his peers in comparison.
If you look at the other stats Tour Pros consider huge like wins and cuts made, it becomes clear. Consecutive cuts is considered one of the highest bars to achieve by Pros and most think Tigers number is unreachable. That coupled with 82 wins and he doesn't need 18 majors. The 15 paired with all of that is easily enough to be the GOAT.
Basketball is not an individual sport. Comparison is not valid. In golf, it’s all about majors. No one is holding you back. You’re not on a shitty team. Even Tiger says it’s about majors. In an individual sport, golf, tennis, whatever, it’s the majors. What if’s don’t matter either. Tiger abusing his body is what won the majors. All that grinding. If he hadn’t done that, he may actually have won less.
@@davidbaker2778 its very comparable, you're talking about individuals across all sports and what defines the greatest. And its not the amount of major titles that defines the greatest in all sports. There's different criteria that have to be taken into account. And when all are taken into account, tiger is the greatest. Noone comes close
Competition today is much more difficult than ever. There are more and more great golfers. So winning comes only when you're playing your best. No one can maintain their best mistake free performance level indefinitely. And scoring in golf depends so much on the bounce of the ball. When your control is limited to a three or four yard margin and winning or losing can be measured in fractions of an inch chance plays a major role.
You're not wrong, but I'd counter with 2 points. Jack used some horrendous equipment relative today and was still able to win or come in 2nd in 37 majors. 1st place in 18 majors, 2nd place in 19 others with wooden woods and shit golf balls.
@@timchamberlain5858 the top players all have access to the best equipment if you haven't had a professional fitting as a pro it's no ones fault but you own.
@@timchamberlain5858 I didn't mention equipment. But both the ball and the clubs used in golf have changed exponentially since the game was invented. I've played with the same type of clubs that Jack used since I'm 69. Wooden heads. They aren't that hard to use. Today's equipment is still better. But the biggest difference between then and now is the number of good golfers. The point is the level of competition is so much greater than it was then simply because there are so many more people playing golf.
@@stephenfowler4115 I brought up equipment. I think right now competition* is better but in the late 90s and early 2000s the field was not nearly as strong as you are making it out to be. Tiger's early years he had to contend with a younger Phil, Vijay and Furyk. The likes of Dave Duval or Rich Beems are not exactly striking fear in to the hearts of other golfers if they get paired up with them. For what its worth I grew up playing with wooden woods so I'm acutely aware of how much better tech is nowadays.
I watched an interview from Gary Player and he said back in the day, majors were important, but the amount of wins on tour decided the best... it's only been in the modern era where majors have been so much bigger.
@Shane He didn’t, and that family car bs has zero relevance so not sure why you even brought that random information up lmao. Jacks win percentage is no where near tigers. He played in way more events and tiger still won more pga tour victories lol.
As an American and a fan of baseball too, I would use the example of Ken Griffey Jr. Arguably the best “player” to ever play with the inclusion of hitting, fielding, running etc but his stats are shortened by injuries. If he was healthy, the numbers say he would have more hr than anyone and for me, was one of the most exciting players who won people’s hearts. For me, his numbers are the all times greatest, but he is the best I’ve ever seen play. I think we can say the same with Tiger.
Nicklaus lived an exemplary life, on and off the course, allowing him to play at his full potential year in and out. Tiger’s personal life eclipsed his on course potential. Sadly so. We’ll never know.
If he never got caught cheating , Tiger would’ve broken the major record in my opinion. He would’ve had 21 or 22 right now. Look at all the time he missed for like a 3-4 year span .
I love seeing pros shooting all the lights out. But i also like to see pros land in spots i would normally lie. The creativity they show keeps me engaged. Also side note. "Matt has left the chat"
GOAT ASSESSMENT!! The way to judge it is simple. Give points to the hardest tournaments to win on a scale in their era Tigers era: 5 points to Majors 4 points to Players Ch, Tour Championship, National Opens in Europe like Scottish, Irish, Spanish 3 points to regular tour events on both PGA and Euro Tour 2 points to global wins like Japan etc Jacks era: - 5 points to majors - 4 points to Players, World Golf Championship, World Matchplay, Australian Open ( yes Arnold Gary and Jack said it was the 5th major back then) - & 3 points to regular etc I did that and it came out that Jack just squeezed Tiger 223 points 211 points But we’ll never really know because they never played against each other eye to eye Would probably just come down to the golf course they played. Can’t pick Augusta or pebble or St Andrew’s. Jack probably wins at Muirfield…..Tiger wins at Bay Hill and Firestone….Jack wins at Oakmont and Baltusrol…..etc etc
It's a generational thing, they are the greatest of their generations. Looking at course conditions, equipment and the calibre of the field beaten each time, you would probably have to plump for Jack as the GOAT.
I find that it's much more entertaining when everyone is struggling and there are a small number of players who just seem to have the course dialled in and are streets ahead of the rest
Sometimes it's great when everyone is really sucking lol. One of my favourite majors is the 72 US open and a very very windy Pebble beach where everyone is well over par.
Tiger doesn't have as many majors, but he does have a much higher win percentage than Jack that should count for something. Up until the 1986 Masters when Jack was 46 years old: 486 PGA Tour starts with 73 wins - 15.05% 105 starts in Majors with 18 wins - 17.14% Compare that to Tiger who has played in basically a half schedule since 2008 368 PGA Tour starts with 82 wins - 22.28% 87 starts in Majors with 15 wins - 17.24%
Maybe this dilemma could be solved by looking, who were their runner-ups, in Majors, after all, the competition tells a lot about the value of the win. Both of them had 10 runner-ups with at least one major win. But by numbers, Nicklaus had better players losing to him (32 major wins against 22). Obviously, this could still change, if Phil still wins. :D Runner-ups in majors for Tiger: Phil Mickelson(6), Ernie Els(4), Brooks Koepka(4), Retief Goosen(2), Dustin Johnson(2), Tom Kite(1), Sergio Garcia(1), David Duval(1), Shaun Micheel(1), Miguel Angel Jimenez(0), Thomas Björn(0), Bob May(0), Chris DiMarco(0), Colin Montgomerie(0), Woody Austin(0), Rocco Mediate(0), Xander Schauffele(0). Total 22 majors won by Tiger runner-ups. Runner-ups in majors for Nicklaus: Gary Player(9), Arnold Palmer (7), Raymond Floyd(4), Billy Casper(3), Johnny Miller(2), Ben Crenshaw(2), Greg Norman(2), Tony Lema (1), Gay Brewer(1), Tom Kite(1), Dave Ragan (0), Tommy Jacobs(0), Doug Sanders(0), Dave Thomas(0), Bruce Crampton(0), Bobby Mitchell(0), Tom Weiskopf(0), Simon Owen(0), Isao Aoki(0), Andy Bean(0),. Total 32 majors won by Nicklaus runner-ups.
Guy, think about the Ryder Cup as if it was a football World Cup or Euros - it’s not every season but that only adds to the excitement, build-up, and spectacle!
How impressive is having 82 PGA tour wins guys ? As Rory said, a 4-year win is an exceptional year. 82 means you go 4-win seasons for 20 years, and you’d still come up short
I definitely like a mix of tough/high winning scores near par and the go low courses with birdies galore. Shows that courses don’t have to be cut from the same cloth.
I like to see them play through the bag…unless it’s a par 3. But nothing better than watching Tiger have an okay drive into the rough before the bend, and then come up with a wizard like iron shot, that puts him right back in it, to then take a wedge to with in 5ft of the cup and putt in for birdie on a difficult par 5. It’s a full round of golf in one hole.
The best events are where players can shoot low scores, but also can get punished for their bad scores, where you always feel that someone chasing the leader can go on a birdie run and put pressure on, but also that the leader could drop a shot at any time, eg back 9 at Augusta
Ben Hogan was top 10 in the US Open for 20 years straight. He really won 5 US Opens. The 1942 Hail America didn't count, but it had the same setup,qualifying and gold medal presentation for the winner. Also he only played once at the Open Championship and won. I think Hogan was the best US Open player ever.
Just think if you had to put your life on the line for a 1v1 match in their primes…you have to pick tiger he was just that good. The golden bear you could arguably take over everyone else but tiger he was just special in his prime.
I think Tiger was way ahead of everyone back then obviously. I feel like these day's the edge one player has over another is too close and it's just about who is hitting better on that particular day or week. So imo Tiger doesn't have a chance to win another 4 major's as much as I would like to see it.
He doesn't have the singular focus that he did in his prime....none of these guys are afraid of him - and they're all used to playing in front of massive galleries....a lot of his intimidation factors are neutralized. I think he can play well at the Masters for several more years. He obviously has a great chance to win any time the Open is at St. Andrews....but if I'm betting a lot of money - I don't think he's got much of a chance to get 3 or 4 more Majors.
I think watching the difficult course set-ups and watching the professionals work their way around, even if it isn’t the lowest score is the most entertaining
Tiger woods will always be my favorite golfer. I hope he comes back and puts on a show. I also like watching golf when it's difficult for the pros. It really shows what they are made of, and it better showcases their skills in my opinion.
The reason why a lot of people like the US Open at Oakmont is because it’s such a challenge. I would steer towards a challenge and then once every few months have a tournament that guys shoot silly golf
26 under par is good to watch occasionally, but courses are deliberately set up with wide fairways that run forever. Because of it, they are looking at changing rules to limit distance. Places like Valderrama show that there is an obvious alternative
Would enjoy it if the pros could use only irons for awhile. Take away the big guns and let them play using their talent to shape their shots. I think that it might make the golf a bit harder and more enjoyable. Just a thought…
I give the nod to Jack both because of his major wins and the equipment he used. Tiger was great, but would he have won as consistently hitting wooden woods and playing in fairways with dandelions growing in them? Jack definitely did.
Do you really believe that? You do realize that professionals in any era play the same quality equipment. Tiger would be equally talented compared to the rest with 60’s and 70’s clubs and so would Jack with current stuff. Yes current clubs are superior but the courses are longer as a result. So you can’t use course length and clubs to compare the two. Just compare them on shots they’ve hit and how they do against the competition.
@@Electricalphil FYI Jack rarely hit the ball 330. Watch some old Shell’s Wonderful World of Golf matches. He was a 270-290 guy. He was in fact a lot longer than the other players at the time though. He would be like Rory or DJ today.
@@danwhitehurst9592 are you honestly asking me if I think Tiger had an easier time getting around the golf course with modern equipment relative to Jack with his equipment? Look at how finicky modern pros are about their specs and how dialed in all their clubs are for them.
@@timchamberlain5858 No, I’m not asking you that. If you read my comment you would see the point of it was that when you compare players from different eras mentioning their equipment doesn’t matter because all the professionals play the same stuff. The main difference is the quality of the player versus other players.
Greatness is not solely based on the amount you win. It’s the manor that you do it in. You could say Nicklaus is the ‘best’ by the amount he’s won. But Tigers level of performance and the way he’s done it is unlike anything before and its solely responsible for why the standard is at the level it is today.
To think Tiger was going to come back after his latest horrendous injury is quite naive. By winning the 2019 Masters that was his first major in 11 years so let that sink in. Jack never went more than 5 years without winning a major and then you add in the 19 2nd place finishes, 55 top 5 finishes and 77 top 10 finishes in major championships and what you have still is the greatest golfer that ever lived. And that's not even taking into account Jack's competition was far tougher than Tiger's and when that competition really tightened up for Tiger in the 2010's that resulted in only one major.
The reason this is such a debate is that people define greatness differently. Is it wins, majors, talent, stats? Personally I go with Tiger here. But it’s pretty much a toss up. I look at Tiger 1st in wins 2nd in majors compared with Jack 1st in majors 3rd in wins and those 19 2nd places in majors. But the tipping points are Tiger has the highest winning percentage and has so many shots he’s hit when we say, “ I’ve never seen that before” plus if you take all aspects of the game. Distance, short game, putting, shot shaping and athleticism, Tiger is a no brainer.
Guy summed it up for the USA, Driver and a wedge to 3 feet. I like watching low scores but only when it's one or two for having played amazing golf. The cut is under par
On a one off choice, I'd take the -6 under round. I feel better when I see the pros play to what seems like shots I would have to play. Not getting on in reg. Having to always chip from off the green. Short siding or super long first putts. It makes the pros seem mortal. That said, it certainly is fun every once in a while when they all tear up a course and everyone is racing on who can go the lowest to win. That certainly can be a lot of fun to watch.
Regarding the Ryder Cup and the USA's connection advantage (which maybe temporary by the way), I've always felt that making it Europe was a dumb idea and it would have made much more sense to have the Commonwealth countries as one team versus the USA. A. there'd be a better connection and B. you'd include pretty much every major golfing nation other then Korea and Japan. Current population is 2.3 billion people, so even if India wasn't included you'd still have almost a billion people represented on the Commonwealth side.
I love to see a mixture. I think the 25 under par, would be entertaining as long as there is someone who is chasing or competing. The score battles are the most important to me. Keep the guess of who is going to win going. The struggle and higher scores is super entertaining as well due to what Guy said “it is more relatable”. I am a bad golfer. I have made some good shots that are neat but it happens so rare. These shots that are boarder like lucky (there is a lot of skill involved for sure) it looks almost fake and the ball is on a puppet string to land perfect almost every time. Those shots are incredibly entertaining but when the reactions from the pros face is like, ok that was awesome then how much luck was involved? Some skill for sure but how much luck.
One thing I dont like about watching PGA/European tour, is that the golf courses are so unrelatable... As a scratch handicap, I have no perception of how I would perform, whereas on a course that is in the region of 6900 yards, where the pros could go 20 under for the week is much more comparable. I do think that course design is very outdated, and instead of lengthening courses, they need to have more trouble off the tee at 300-350 instead of 250-300, then course management would be much more of a factor in the Pro game. This seems so out of line with the conversations of equipment being the same, when the courses are not even close to being the same (compared to elite amateur golf).
I’d have to say I like seeing both low scores in some events and then also a very challenging round where players have to really fight it out on the course.
Personally I prefer to see difficult courses played well, with thought, skill, flair and a variety of shot making used to navigate the course. Much better than bang driver miles, pitching wedges to greens, darts style. Skill full, but no Seve brilliance. Fortunately not all tour players are one, two dimensional and they are the ones worth watching, so exciting,
Bryson not changing the game rick, the technology of equipment is.. I would like to see Bryson have a set of golf clubs from the 70s and use a Dunlop 65 golf ball and see how he would play a round at the masters trying to use his powerful 130 k or more golf swing and see if he could shoot a 66 like the guys back in the day, I say he be lucky to break 80.. It would be a good viewing for fans on the rick shield golf show
It is not about how many majors have been won... it is about how DOMINATE a player is. It's like say that MJ is not the best basketball player ever since he does not have the most championships. Tiger has been the most dominate golfer since joining the tour and with all the records that he holds, IS the best to ever play the game.
Good show, but let me help you out with who is the GOAT. Not only did Jack win 18 majors to Tiger's 15, but Jack had 19 seconds to Tigers 7, and 52 top 10s (other than a win) to Tiger's 27. But the biggest difference is the field that you have to beat. During Jack's era 7 golfers had over 4 major wins to only 3 against Tiger and 10 golfers during Jack's era had over 3 wins to 6 for Tiger. These are legendary golfers during Jack's era that include Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Tom Watson, Seve Ballesteros, Raymond Floyd, Johnny Miller, Fuzzy Zoeller, Billy Casper, Peter Thompson, Julius Boros, Larry Nelson, Hale Irwin, etc. Tiger is great, but Jack is clearly the best when it counts and that's in the majors.
Very interesting discussion about Rory. Boys, genuine question for you... Does it mean that there is an element of "FLUKE" in golf? Or when you win and you get the big money does that change a person? And they fall off the leader board? Fantastic live show guys great to see you again and the kindest regards Ben from N.Z.
I'm not so in to silly hard bunkers, or super slick tiny island greens, but I do really like tight tree lined courses to challenge the pros and get them playing interesting recovery shots. No point in massive open fairways, accuracy and decisions off the tee should really matter, because they do to us mortal folk.
Jack more majors, Tiger more wins, but Tiger was more important to golf. I’m 50 years old. When I started playing golf in the 80’s you bought clubs at Kmart or a sporting goods store and there was only a few choices. If you bought golf shoes you had two to choose from, black saddle or brown. You could get a few different golf balls and there wasn’t “golf clothes” This stayed true into the mid to the ladder part of the 90’s. Tiger came around and made golf so cool and so popular that now we have giant stores that only sell golf related goods, an entire tv network dedicated to golf, dozens of golf club companies, clothing companies, balls, socks etc. We (golf lovers) owe a lot to Tiger. He’s the straw that stirs the drink
I think Tiger's 15 major wins were more impressive than Nicklaus' 18 because they happened at a later date when the competition was bigger. Yet I think Nicklaus was the greatest. Why? Because Nicklaus finished second 19 times, and in the top 3 a staggering 45 times. Tiger will never get even shouting distance of that record. And I don't think he would have even if he played in the Nicklaus Era.
My opinion for what it is worth... Pro golfers in Jack's day looked forward to playing with him and the challenge it provided and the more recent pros seemed to fear playing with Tiger. To me that says it all... or the current pros are weak ? lol
I think the argument is definitely debatable, but the biggest reason the major to major argument doesn't hold water for me is that Jack played in such a different time. Golf is a more global sport now and the competition week to week is insane. Jack played with some huge top level talent, but in a sport where you can't play defense against the other players, having 100 really dangerous players every week makes it so much more difficult to win unless you're completely on. Just my two cents. GOAT arguments are why sports are fun.
It's about who can do the incredible, not who misses the simple. Yeah, it's an evil pleasure to see them fail... but when they succeed, it's beyond comparison. So it has to be difficult courses. Jordan Spieth's Open win in 2017 is some of the most incredible golf i've seen... both he and Kuchar were 1 under for the day.
I like to see them struggle. sometimes not always. For example I love that the US open is traditionally a ‘struggle’ - you know and expect that to be a real battle and it’s great to see. The Open and the Masters are what they are and stand on their own merits. The uspga is a bit meh and needs to create a better narrative / selling point for itself in my view. But yeah you wouldn’t want a struggle every week. Room for all types of course
I prefer to watch the best players on the toughest courses. I don’t like to “watch them struggle”, but rather prefer to see the best of the week figure out the toughest courses.
I can throw in a couple more names as the best golfer. If you go by the era they were in and the equipment they played with, You have to start with Young Tom Morris, playing with what he played with on those conditions. Then I would go to Bobby Jones, even Ben Hogan said when Jones played everyone else was playing for 2nd place. Then Hogan himself, giving up time to serve in the military during WW2 and then having that horrible accident, playing with that equipment. To be honest I am sick of anyone being called The GOAT, that expression needs to go away. Eras change, equipment changes. I would love to see the modern players play with Hogan's clubs and see how they do.
Yeah - true enough...in any sport things change so much over time - it really isn't a fair argument to make that the best player of one era is better or worse than the best player of another era.
I don't know if it's true, but I was told one pro golfer finished 3rd or better in half the pro tournaments they entered????? Anika Sorenstam. I know I miss spelled it! Cheer's. Ps nobody ever mentions Walter Hagen! Great conversation!
I would say Jack N. Different times, different men, BUT most important the improvement in balls, material and technology that Jack did not have avaliable.
Listen to full podcast here: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-rick-shiels-golf-show/id1406443091?i=1000538995792
The only player that can be class as the best is Jack Nicklaus to win 72 tournaments 18majors with the clubs and balls they used at that time to what tiger used now is like night and day also Jack is and always will be a pure gentleman where tiger is not also any player that spits on a golf course is not
Love watching the pros have a hard time. It makes them relatable
Low vs Struggle:
Depends on the event. For me, if they are playing an event like the Waste Management Open, I want to see as many birdies as possible, but if they are playing a US Open, or the Open Championship, I like seeing a real test for the guys where birdies are at a premium.
What everyone seems to fail to mention is that Jack came second 19 times let that sink in he was in a position to win 37 majors. That’s what makes him the greatest surely.
When Jack played - there was literally only a handful of players with a legit chance of winning those majors. The depth of field has grown significantly through the years....so it really isn't a fair comparison.
Was the competition in Jacks era around the same as in 98-2012 or was it maybe even harder or was it easier? Anyone know?
Sergio Garcia would have won a lot of majors in jacks era. But in this era he only has one. Players are just better now.
When Tiger was at his very best in 2000 his closest rivals Els Singh Garcia Mickleson. None of that list at that time had won more than 2 majors other than Tiger.
Jack was competing against Palmer Player Trevino Watson Seve Thompson all these men had won 5 or more majors. All are recognised as greats of the game.
Only Phil of the current batch could be added to this group with 6. So Jack putting himself in a position to win 37 and to win 18 is staggering with these competitors round him.
Tiger is awesome greatest of his generation but went 11 years without a major. Jack was 46 when he won the masters for the last time Tiger was 43.
@@mickbooth347 tiger because he has won a higher percentage of the majors he has played in
I love love watching them struggle. One person winning at -1 is perfect!
I enjoy seeing a close match, for example the cantlay and Bryson match was incredible. I don’t really care whether the score is high or low
Shout out to the great Australian golfer and 5 times Open Champion, Peter Thompson.
Didn't he show up for a year of PGA events and win 9 of them?? .. so good.
There are so many variables in this about the eras they played in.
Jack has the best majors record, but played in an era where equipment was inferior to today. They had to use all the clubs in the bag where today pro’s seem to have woods and a selection of wedges for most holes.
Nicklaus also played in an era where pre qualifying was held for regular tour events, so the pro’s had to win on Wednesday to play the weekend, he also was in the earlier period where 36 holes a day might be played.
Regarding high / low score tournaments US PGA set their open up slick tricky greens etc and yet they still get a player having their one top tournament. I love the open for letting nature decide how hard the rough will be and then if the wind blows look out. A lot of the modern pro’s seem stuck when it’s windy and they cannot throw the wedge shot as the approach.
One things for sure Tiger is a great, and he is the one who has driven the prize money to the heights it is, and the one who you would put your house on If he went into the final round with a one shot lead to bring it home.
I like them struggling, for me the struggle make the birdies and eagles that much more impressive!
The logic for Majors doesn’t work the same way it doesn’t work in Basketball… Michael Jordan is widely considered the best basketball player ever but he does not have the most championships in NBA history…. There are many other factors that contribute to the argument and that’s why for me, Tiger is the beat golfer to have ever played.
True but that’s a team sport where in golf if you don’t win it’s strictly on you.
Basketball is a team sport but something else to consider is the playing the field/competition. In golf when Tiger played is it possible that there were 30 players that could have smoked Nicholas? Golf is way more popular than it has ever been. The competition is fierce, the courses are longer, the equipment is far superior. It is possible the Nicholas' road was much easier to mess competition. Unfortunately majors along can't be the only deciding factor. I personally feel Michael Jordan is the best basketball player of all time. He has six championships. Lebron James however has four championships but played in like 10 or 11 championships. He got there more which is actually more impressive. Jordan didn't even get there for 8ish years. You have to consider ALL FACTOR in choosing the greatest.
@@cpat7065 for example lebron has jumped around to different teams trying to win. Also lebron has 4 chips in 19 years
Jordan has 6 in 15
4/19 vs 6/15
21 % vs 40%
Jordan wins championships at double the rate.
Either way it’s tough to translate that to golf.
If anything boxing is a better comparison. Because you have a legit contrast in what greatness means.
For example whose better mayweather or Pacquiao
Mayweather stayed undefeated and rarely struggled with competition.
While Pacquiao has some losses but also moved up 8 different classes to become the only ever 8 division champ in history.
Floyd has a perfect record but mannys victories were more dominant.
It’s Jack and it’s not that close. Tiger Woods had the greatest run of any golfer who’s ever picked up a club, but Jack Nicklaus put together a career that, from start to finish, was unparalleled.
That’s not an indictment of Tiger. The only leaderboard that matters is the one on the 72nd hole. It just says that Tiger’s peers never put pressure on him on a Sunday and he never put pressure on them. He dominated in an era of chokers. Jack dominated in an era of legends.
Also look at top 3 finishes its the margin gets wider. Jack hard tougher competition and still has more majors.
Dumb argument to compare an individual sport where individual wings are the yard stick to a team one where you could be a bench player and win the most rings.
Rick great topic. First I would like to give you an example in another sport. Michael Jordan most people would say greatest basketball player that ever lived but Bill Russell with 11 NBA Championships to Michaels 6 doesn’t make Bill a better basketball player arguably it makes him a better champion. So I would say to this point Jack is a better champion but Tiger a better golfer.
Also, I would say the only stat that you can use for this debate in my opinion is what was each of their best scoring average for a given year. Take equipment, golf course condition, fitness, take all of that away. When they were playing their best for that year what was their scoring average. And if you look that up I think it will shock you of how amazing Tiger Woods scoring average was his best year to Jacks best year how dominating it is. Keep doing a great job! Hope this swayed you a little bit
It's not the same thing at all. Golf is an individual sport, Bill Russel had a better team (relative to competition) than Jordan. Winning in golf is all individual and winning is the point - that's why a golfer CAN be judged by the amount they won.
Using Majors alone as the benchmark is a huge disservice to a career of work. Yes, they should be heavily weighted but the rest of someones career should be factored in. The thing with Jack is he not only had the most Majors but he also had a long list of Tour wins that backed up those majors. I run into issues with someone like Brooks who has 4 majors but only 4 other Tour wins. Lets look at that. Just pulling a selection of popular names, not complete lists.
Others with 4 Majors:
Ernie Els
Rory McIlroy
Raymond Floyd
Bobby Jones
Others with 3 Majors:
Payne Stewart
Nick Price
Vijay Singh
Jordan Spieth
Total Non-Major Victories
Els: 19
Rory: 20
Stewart: 11
Price: 18 (10 in 2 years)
Floyd: 22
I often hear about how great Brooks is and he's very good but great? And in context, just how good? 4 Majors is fantastic and puts him into nice company but for a career, Id put him further down than a lot of these guys who have the same victories and even below guys who have even fewer Majors because they have SO many more Tour wins.
You could break this down by looking at Top 5 and cuts made to slice up the field even more because those are stats even by admission of Tour Pros that are impressive (most agree that Tigers consecutive cuts made is nearly as impressive as all of his Majors because its _THAT_ hard to make that many cuts in a row)
Nicklaus', if he didn't win, came second or third countless times too.
@@briananketell519 as did tiger, but tiger also had the higher win percentage too lol
@@Jonathan-cz4ky yeah to me it’s no argument. If you weigh everything in tiger is clearly the goat. Like guys it’s ok jack Nicholas is the second greatest player to ever pick up a golf club in the historyof golf. That’s still a crazy achievement. He just isn’t better than tiger. It is what it is
Don’t forget Mickelson. Definitely a late bloomer when it came to winning majors ( He actually ended up winning more majors than I predicted.) 45 wins with 6 majors .
@@williamgray9692 can you elaborate please?
don't forget the 19 second place finishes for Nicklaus. 37 - 4 majors a year- first or second in every major over 9 years cumulatively.
Shows lack of competition honestly
Shows an ability to give himself a chance.
You think going into a playoff with a clown named Rocco is hard? Try a guy named Travino
@joehodge6467 or palmer, or watson, jacklin, ballesteros, norman. But you know, bob may is pretty tough competition
@@rymo66812 Who else what about the other hundred pkayers. Were they s good s in Tiger's day? No. The averge pro in Tiger's time was better.
Poor Matt I don’t want to know how much his stomach sunk when he realized what happened.
I love to see both. I love seeing them be able to tear up a course that plays "easy" to them most of the time. It's more interesting and fun to watch. Say 3 out of 4. But that one out of four, it's nice to see how tough the game really can be with tough conditions and to see them almost humanized in a way.
As for Jack vs Tiger, that's super tough. Jack won 18 and took second 19 times, which is absolutely incredible. However, I do not recall an entire industry having to re-design their golf courses because he was breaking too many scoring records with Jack. Tiger also inspired better athletes to join the game, and has played long enough for them to come after him, making the competition more and more tough. I think it's a case of 1 and 1A, and you could make an argument either way. It's sort of like best quarterback or running back, different eras of the game, different equipment, training, etc. It's seriously difficult to pick. That's my two cents!
This is the best comment I've seen on this thread because it is simply spot on! If you put either one in their prime playing with the same equipment against each other, it's an absolute toss up.
Rick and Guy have talked about the number of majors as being the primary argument multiple times, but they keep leaving out that Jack competed in about twice as many majors as tiger. Tiger has a much higher percentage win rate at major championships, and has arguably been more dominant in those wins as well.
I just love to actually see golf shots! SO fed up with coverage that is all putts with the odd tee shot and then 10 minutes of watching a player and caddy talking whilst there are still loads of other golfers on the course. I suppose its all about ratings and advertising rather than creating coverage for true golf fans.
Agreed, we could just as well be watching billiards
Jack, along side his 18 major title wins came runner-up 19 times. Which is crazy. Everything was different then. Tiger is a brilliant golfer, no doubt the best golfer of his generation, by so far its almost no point measuring it. I like both players.
Well if you look at the statistic that Tiger's win percentage is MUCH higher than Jack's I'd disagree. At one point it was over 33% lol. Jack played in a ton more events than tiger, gave him more chances to win, and at the end of the day tiger won the amount he won with significantly less events played.
@@Jonathan-cz4ky All true except that Jack didn't play that much more often than Tiger early in their careers. Coincidentally (or not) they both had their highest career win percentage at age 33. For Tiger that was an injury shortened 2008 and he had by then played in 253 events with 71 wins (28% win rate!). For Jack that was 1973 and he had amassed 52 wins out of 284 (18.8%). After that Jack played way more compared to Tiger like you mentioned, his final win was in his 486th start at the 1986 Masters. Tiger has 368 starts age 45 and for all we know may never play PGA Tour golf again.
@@shukigkato bro you guys are so dramatic. All tiger did was break his leg. Y’all act like he lost a leg a arm and a eye😂. He’s coming back to play. It takes 3 to 6 months to heal from the type of fracture he has, and that’s naturally not including peptides and stem cell treatment like tiger should be taking. Give it another year he will be back.
@@williamgray9692 he will be pushing 47 in another year only two players in History have won majors after their 47th Birthdays.
@@mickbooth347 like I said peptides and stem cells. They make you heal for injuries like your 20.
For me, the GOAT should go off wins, major or not. But if you believe majors are more important because it’s harder and more pressure, then surely holding all 4 current major trophies at the same time would be the hardest accomplishment to achieve, and the only man who has done that
- Eldrick Tiger Woods
Not to mention tiger played in much less tournaments to get those 15 majors and 82 tour wins
100% if I have a choice, I want to see them struggle. They’re struggling because it’s extremely difficult and is therefore a great test. Watching driver, wedge putt is boring week after week.
I'm all for growing the rough longer and punishing the players for missing in the wrong spots. What I don't want to see is tricked up greens, or pin placements that are the reason the scores are high.
Tigers the greatest to ever play the game in my opinion - not that its a difficult conclusion to come to. The competition has grown stronger and stronger so records will be tougher to match. But records are one thing and ability is another. Tiger could play shots that no one up till now has been able to come close to. His dedication and influence on the game is staggering also.
I like to see the pros be challenged and maybe I'm old fashioned but I hope Jack keeps the title of greatest of all time. Great champion and role model all in one.
There's many criteria that makes up the greatest golfer, not just major championships. I hate when people do that. For example, Michael Jordan doesn't have the most NBA championships. But in almost all other stats he dominates the competition and is known as the greatest. Roger Federer soon won't have the most tennis majors and he'll still be remembered as the greatest because of obviously how brilliant he was, but also cause of the impact he's had on tennis which nobody can compete with. Maradona to many is the greatest football player ever cause of his talent level, but he doesn't have the most goals, league titles, or international titles. Tiger is the greatest golfer ever, his impact on the sport is so far ahead of every other player in history it's unbelievable. And without injury and controversy, he would have surpassed Jack's major record by some distance and has more international and pga tour wins than Jack. Jack didn't have the same level of competition either in majors, maybe less than 10 players in his whole playing career whereas the overall level of pga tour players was way higher and tiger was way ahead of them while Jack was a small bit better than his peers in comparison.
If you look at the other stats Tour Pros consider huge like wins and cuts made, it becomes clear.
Consecutive cuts is considered one of the highest bars to achieve by Pros and most think Tigers number is unreachable. That coupled with 82 wins and he doesn't need 18 majors. The 15 paired with all of that is easily enough to be the GOAT.
@@emigs8712 😂😂😂
Basketball is not an individual sport. Comparison is not valid. In golf, it’s all about majors. No one is holding you back. You’re not on a shitty team. Even Tiger says it’s about majors. In an individual sport, golf, tennis, whatever, it’s the majors. What if’s don’t matter either. Tiger abusing his body is what won the majors. All that grinding. If he hadn’t done that, he may actually have won less.
@@davidbaker2778 its very comparable, you're talking about individuals across all sports and what defines the greatest. And its not the amount of major titles that defines the greatest in all sports. There's different criteria that have to be taken into account. And when all are taken into account, tiger is the greatest. Noone comes close
@@aidangriffiths5075 🤣
Competition today is much more difficult than ever. There are more and more great golfers. So winning comes only when you're playing your best. No one can maintain their best mistake free performance level indefinitely. And scoring in golf depends so much on the bounce of the ball. When your control is limited to a three or four yard margin and winning or losing can be measured in fractions of an inch chance plays a major role.
You're not wrong, but I'd counter with 2 points. Jack used some horrendous equipment relative today and was still able to win or come in 2nd in 37 majors.
1st place in 18 majors, 2nd place in 19 others with wooden woods and shit golf balls.
@@timchamberlain5858 the top players all have access to the best equipment if you haven't had a professional fitting as a pro it's no ones fault but you own.
@@stephenfowler4115 I have no idea what your response has to do with Tiger vs Jack Nicklas' equipment.
@@timchamberlain5858 I didn't mention equipment. But both the ball and the clubs used in golf have changed exponentially since the game was invented. I've played with the same type of clubs that Jack used since I'm 69. Wooden heads. They aren't that hard to use. Today's equipment is still better. But the biggest difference between then and now is the number of good golfers. The point is the level of competition is so much greater than it was then simply because there are so many more people playing golf.
@@stephenfowler4115 I brought up equipment. I think right now competition* is better but in the late 90s and early 2000s the field was not nearly as strong as you are making it out to be. Tiger's early years he had to contend with a younger Phil, Vijay and Furyk. The likes of Dave Duval or Rich Beems are not exactly striking fear in to the hearts of other golfers if they get paired up with them.
For what its worth I grew up playing with wooden woods so I'm acutely aware of how much better tech is nowadays.
I watched an interview from Gary Player and he said back in the day, majors were important, but the amount of wins on tour decided the best... it's only been in the modern era where majors have been so much bigger.
It shows consistency because there is a tournament practically every week so to consistently win and then have majors on top, it’s gotta be tiger.
@Shane this is false, tiger woods win percentage is way higher than jacks
@Shane He didn’t, and that family car bs has zero relevance so not sure why you even brought that random information up lmao. Jacks win percentage is no where near tigers. He played in way more events and tiger still won more pga tour victories lol.
@@Jonathan-cz4ky And Tiger played against a much weaker field.
@@jameslong1644 No, they were great golfers. He was just the most dominant of all time.
As an American and a fan of baseball too, I would use the example of Ken Griffey Jr. Arguably the best “player” to ever play with the inclusion of hitting, fielding, running etc but his stats are shortened by injuries. If he was healthy, the numbers say he would have more hr than anyone and for me, was one of the most exciting players who won people’s hearts. For me, his numbers are the all times greatest, but he is the best I’ve ever seen play. I think we can say the same with Tiger.
Nicklaus lived an exemplary life, on and off the course, allowing him to play at his full potential year in and out.
Tiger’s personal life eclipsed his on course potential. Sadly so. We’ll never know.
If he never got caught cheating , Tiger would’ve broken the major record in my opinion. He would’ve had 21 or 22 right now. Look at all the time he missed for like a 3-4 year span .
I love seeing pros shooting all the lights out. But i also like to see pros land in spots i would normally lie. The creativity they show keeps me engaged.
Also side note. "Matt has left the chat"
GOAT ASSESSMENT!!
The way to judge it is simple. Give points to the hardest tournaments to win on a scale in their era
Tigers era:
5 points to Majors
4 points to Players Ch, Tour Championship, National Opens in Europe like Scottish, Irish, Spanish
3 points to regular tour events on both PGA and Euro Tour
2 points to global wins like Japan etc
Jacks era:
- 5 points to majors
- 4 points to Players, World Golf Championship, World Matchplay, Australian Open ( yes Arnold Gary and Jack said it was the 5th major back then)
- & 3 points to regular etc
I did that and it came out that Jack just squeezed Tiger
223 points
211 points
But we’ll never really know because they never played against each other eye to eye
Would probably just come down to the golf course they played. Can’t pick Augusta or pebble or St Andrew’s. Jack probably wins at Muirfield…..Tiger wins at Bay Hill and Firestone….Jack wins at Oakmont and Baltusrol…..etc etc
It's a generational thing, they are the greatest of their generations. Looking at course conditions, equipment and the calibre of the field beaten each time, you would probably have to plump for Jack as the GOAT.
I find that it's much more entertaining when everyone is struggling and there are a small number of players who just seem to have the course dialled in and are streets ahead of the rest
Sometimes it's great when everyone is really sucking lol. One of my favourite majors is the 72 US open and a very very windy Pebble beach where everyone is well over par.
Tiger doesn't have as many majors, but he does have a much higher win percentage than Jack that should count for something.
Up until the 1986 Masters when Jack was 46 years old:
486 PGA Tour starts with 73 wins - 15.05%
105 starts in Majors with 18 wins - 17.14%
Compare that to Tiger who has played in basically a half schedule since 2008
368 PGA Tour starts with 82 wins - 22.28%
87 starts in Majors with 15 wins - 17.24%
Maybe this dilemma could be solved by looking, who were their runner-ups, in Majors, after all, the competition tells a lot about the value of the win. Both of them had 10 runner-ups with at least one major win. But by numbers, Nicklaus had better players losing to him (32 major wins against 22). Obviously, this could still change, if Phil still wins. :D
Runner-ups in majors for Tiger:
Phil Mickelson(6), Ernie Els(4), Brooks Koepka(4), Retief Goosen(2), Dustin Johnson(2), Tom Kite(1), Sergio Garcia(1), David Duval(1), Shaun Micheel(1), Miguel Angel Jimenez(0), Thomas Björn(0), Bob May(0), Chris DiMarco(0), Colin Montgomerie(0), Woody Austin(0), Rocco Mediate(0), Xander Schauffele(0).
Total 22 majors won by Tiger runner-ups.
Runner-ups in majors for Nicklaus:
Gary Player(9), Arnold Palmer (7), Raymond Floyd(4), Billy Casper(3), Johnny Miller(2), Ben Crenshaw(2), Greg Norman(2), Tony Lema (1), Gay Brewer(1), Tom Kite(1), Dave Ragan (0), Tommy Jacobs(0), Doug Sanders(0), Dave Thomas(0), Bruce Crampton(0), Bobby Mitchell(0), Tom Weiskopf(0), Simon Owen(0), Isao Aoki(0), Andy Bean(0),.
Total 32 majors won by Nicklaus runner-ups.
Jack played all 40 majors in the 70's. He finished in the top ten 36 times.
Guy, think about the Ryder Cup as if it was a football World Cup or Euros - it’s not every season but that only adds to the excitement, build-up, and spectacle!
How impressive is having 82 PGA tour wins guys ? As Rory said, a 4-year win is an exceptional year. 82 means you go 4-win seasons for 20 years, and you’d still come up short
It’s honestly ridiculously amazing, but nobody cares. All they care about are MaJoRs
Like when Bryson hit the drive at the Arnold Palmer over the lake and put his hands up, was relatable to everyone when they hit that perfect drive.
I definitely like a mix of tough/high winning scores near par and the go low courses with birdies galore. Shows that courses don’t have to be cut from the same cloth.
I like to see them play through the bag…unless it’s a par 3. But nothing better than watching Tiger have an okay drive into the rough before the bend, and then come up with a wizard like iron shot, that puts him right back in it, to then take a wedge to with in 5ft of the cup and putt in for birdie on a difficult par 5. It’s a full round of golf in one hole.
Don’t bother watching any tournament where every man and his dog is well under par.
I want to see where a 66 means something 👍
Yes, exactly and I love to imagine breaking a 100 playing those courses, and I'm a 12. 10 birdies is not relatable obviously to mortals anyway.
The best events are where players can shoot low scores, but also can get punished for their bad scores, where you always feel that someone chasing the leader can go on a birdie run and put pressure on, but also that the leader could drop a shot at any time, eg back 9 at Augusta
Ben Hogan was top 10 in the US Open for 20 years straight. He really won 5 US Opens. The 1942 Hail America didn't count, but it had the same setup,qualifying and gold medal presentation for the winner. Also he only played once at the Open Championship and won. I think Hogan was the best US Open player ever.
Just think if you had to put your life on the line for a 1v1 match in their primes…you have to pick tiger he was just that good. The golden bear you could arguably take over everyone else but tiger he was just special in his prime.
I like seeing the creative or the “impossible” shots. Tiger and Phil are good for this as many other golfers. Something to make you say “oh my!”
I think Tiger was way ahead of everyone back then obviously. I feel like these day's the edge one player has over another is too close and it's just about who is hitting better on that particular day or week. So imo Tiger doesn't have a chance to win another 4 major's as much as I would like to see it.
He doesn't have the singular focus that he did in his prime....none of these guys are afraid of him - and they're all used to playing in front of massive galleries....a lot of his intimidation factors are neutralized. I think he can play well at the Masters for several more years. He obviously has a great chance to win any time the Open is at St. Andrews....but if I'm betting a lot of money - I don't think he's got much of a chance to get 3 or 4 more Majors.
Even Jack said Tiger was the best ever.
I think watching the difficult course set-ups and watching the professionals work their way around, even if it isn’t the lowest score is the most entertaining
Saw this and thought I hadn’t heard this debate on the podcast. Thanks Matt for the extra content! 😂👍🏼
Tiger woods will always be my favorite golfer. I hope he comes back and puts on a show. I also like watching golf when it's difficult for the pros. It really shows what they are made of, and it better showcases their skills in my opinion.
He put out a statement saying he will comeback, but he left it a mystery when exactly. Personally I think he will be back for the masters
What people seem to overlook are Tiger's 15 majors, 18 world championships and his two Fedex Wins And 82 overall.
you the man Rick love from Philly
The reason why a lot of people like the US Open at Oakmont is because it’s such a challenge. I would steer towards a challenge and then once every few months have a tournament that guys shoot silly golf
26 under par is good to watch occasionally, but courses are deliberately set up with wide fairways that run forever. Because of it, they are looking at changing rules to limit distance. Places like Valderrama show that there is an obvious alternative
I love watching them go low. I know I'm terrible, I don't need them to be relatable in that regard!!
Would enjoy it if the pros could use only irons for awhile. Take away the big guns and let them play using their talent to shape their shots. I think that it might make the golf a bit harder and more enjoyable. Just a thought…
oooohhhhhhhh , 3 vs 3 with Bryson and the Good Good lads Grant and Garret vs Kyle B , Rick and Peter. That video would get HUGE numbers !!!!
I give the nod to Jack both because of his major wins and the equipment he used.
Tiger was great, but would he have won as consistently hitting wooden woods and playing in fairways with dandelions growing in them? Jack definitely did.
Jack using balata balls and wooden driver, hitting 330.
Do you really believe that? You do realize that professionals in any era play the same quality equipment. Tiger would be equally talented compared to the rest with 60’s and 70’s clubs and so would Jack with current stuff. Yes current clubs are superior but the courses are longer as a result. So you can’t use course length and clubs to compare the two. Just compare them on shots they’ve hit and how they do against the competition.
@@Electricalphil FYI Jack rarely hit the ball 330. Watch some old Shell’s Wonderful World of Golf matches. He was a 270-290 guy. He was in fact a lot longer than the other players at the time though. He would be like Rory or DJ today.
@@danwhitehurst9592 are you honestly asking me if I think Tiger had an easier time getting around the golf course with modern equipment relative to Jack with his equipment? Look at how finicky modern pros are about their specs and how dialed in all their clubs are for them.
@@timchamberlain5858 No, I’m not asking you that. If you read my comment you would see the point of it was that when you compare players from different eras mentioning their equipment doesn’t matter because all the professionals play the same stuff. The main difference is the quality of the player versus other players.
Much Love to Matt!
Greatness is not solely based on the amount you win. It’s the manor that you do it in. You could say Nicklaus is the ‘best’ by the amount he’s won. But Tigers level of performance and the way he’s done it is unlike anything before and its solely responsible for why the standard is at the level it is today.
To think Tiger was going to come back after his latest horrendous injury is quite naive. By winning the 2019 Masters that was his first major in 11 years so let that sink in. Jack never went more than 5 years without winning a major and then you add in the 19 2nd place finishes, 55 top 5 finishes and 77 top 10 finishes in major championships and what you have still is the greatest golfer that ever lived. And that's not even taking into account Jack's competition was far tougher than Tiger's and when that competition really tightened up for Tiger in the 2010's that resulted in only one major.
The reason this is such a debate is that people define greatness differently. Is it wins, majors, talent, stats?
Personally I go with Tiger here. But it’s pretty much a toss up.
I look at Tiger 1st in wins 2nd in majors compared with Jack 1st in majors 3rd in wins and those 19 2nd places in majors.
But the tipping points are Tiger has the highest winning percentage and has so many shots he’s hit when we say, “ I’ve never seen that before” plus if you take all aspects of the game. Distance, short game, putting, shot shaping and athleticism, Tiger is a no brainer.
I still prefer Lee Trevino, because his swing was so unconventional yet on point. Do a video of the best swings next please.
Love watching them struggle! Seeing them try to figure out a difficult course is way more interesting.
I don't want the pros to struggle, i like seeing them being challenged.
Guy summed it up for the USA, Driver and a wedge to 3 feet. I like watching low scores but only when it's one or two for having played amazing golf. The cut is under par
On a one off choice, I'd take the -6 under round. I feel better when I see the pros play to what seems like shots I would have to play. Not getting on in reg. Having to always chip from off the green. Short siding or super long first putts. It makes the pros seem mortal. That said, it certainly is fun every once in a while when they all tear up a course and everyone is racing on who can go the lowest to win. That certainly can be a lot of fun to watch.
Regarding the Ryder Cup and the USA's connection advantage (which maybe temporary by the way), I've always felt that making it Europe was a dumb idea and it would have made much more sense to have the Commonwealth countries as one team versus the USA. A. there'd be a better connection and B. you'd include pretty much every major golfing nation other then Korea and Japan. Current population is 2.3 billion people, so even if India wasn't included you'd still have almost a billion people represented on the Commonwealth side.
Must do a live 150 Open podcast Rick?
I love to see a mixture. I think the 25 under par, would be entertaining as long as there is someone who is chasing or competing. The score battles are the most important to me. Keep the guess of who is going to win going. The struggle and higher scores is super entertaining as well due to what Guy said “it is more relatable”. I am a bad golfer. I have made some good shots that are neat but it happens so rare. These shots that are boarder like lucky (there is a lot of skill involved for sure) it looks almost fake and the ball is on a puppet string to land perfect almost every time. Those shots are incredibly entertaining but when the reactions from the pros face is like, ok that was awesome then how much luck was involved? Some skill for sure but how much luck.
Hogan. Would have won 20+ if not for a war, a near death car accident and the ability to play the Open as easy as it is now.
One thing I dont like about watching PGA/European tour, is that the golf courses are so unrelatable... As a scratch handicap, I have no perception of how I would perform, whereas on a course that is in the region of 6900 yards, where the pros could go 20 under for the week is much more comparable. I do think that course design is very outdated, and instead of lengthening courses, they need to have more trouble off the tee at 300-350 instead of 250-300, then course management would be much more of a factor in the Pro game.
This seems so out of line with the conversations of equipment being the same, when the courses are not even close to being the same (compared to elite amateur golf).
Matt, we have all seen Rick chip so don't let them give you grief for making a mistake! :)
I’d have to say I like seeing both low scores in some events and then also a very challenging round where players have to really fight it out on the course.
I enjoy a mix but it's definitely more relatable when pros struggle. "see I'm not THAT bad, even the pros still struggle at times"
Personally I prefer to see difficult courses played well, with thought, skill, flair and a variety of shot making used to navigate the course. Much better than bang driver miles, pitching wedges to greens, darts style. Skill full, but no Seve brilliance. Fortunately not all tour players are one, two dimensional and they are the ones worth watching, so exciting,
I love to see golfers struggle and still shoot good enough scores. Makes it more relatable.
Matt is the everyman - I am Matt, and Matt is me.
Got excited when this one dropped . Thanks Guy
Bryson not changing the game rick, the technology of equipment is..
I would like to see Bryson have a set of golf clubs from the 70s and use a Dunlop 65 golf ball and see how he would play a round at the masters trying to use his powerful 130 k or more golf swing and see if he could shoot a 66 like the guys back in the day, I say he be lucky to break 80..
It would be a good viewing for fans on the rick shield golf show
It is not about how many majors have been won... it is about how DOMINATE a player is. It's like say that MJ is not the best basketball player ever since he does not have the most championships. Tiger has been the most dominate golfer since joining the tour and with all the records that he holds, IS the best to ever play the game.
Nah
Good show, but let me help you out with who is the GOAT. Not only did Jack win 18 majors to Tiger's 15, but Jack had 19 seconds to Tigers 7, and 52 top 10s (other than a win) to Tiger's 27. But the biggest difference is the field that you have to beat. During Jack's era 7 golfers had over 4 major wins to only 3 against Tiger and 10 golfers during Jack's era had over 3 wins to 6 for Tiger. These are legendary golfers during Jack's era that include Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Tom Watson, Seve Ballesteros, Raymond Floyd, Johnny Miller, Fuzzy Zoeller, Billy Casper, Peter Thompson, Julius Boros, Larry Nelson, Hale Irwin, etc. Tiger is great, but Jack is clearly the best when it counts and that's in the majors.
I love that Guy has his “Winner” on the table next to him.
Rafa
Very interesting discussion about Rory. Boys, genuine question for you... Does it mean that there is an element of "FLUKE" in golf? Or when you win and you get the big money does that change a person? And they fall off the leader board? Fantastic live show guys great to see you again and the kindest regards Ben from N.Z.
I'm not so in to silly hard bunkers, or super slick tiny island greens, but I do really like tight tree lined courses to challenge the pros and get them playing interesting recovery shots. No point in massive open fairways, accuracy and decisions off the tee should really matter, because they do to us mortal folk.
Jack more majors, Tiger more wins, but Tiger was more important to golf. I’m 50 years old. When I started playing golf in the 80’s you bought clubs at Kmart or a sporting goods store and there was only a few choices. If you bought golf shoes you had two to choose from, black saddle or brown. You could get a few different golf balls and there wasn’t “golf clothes” This stayed true into the mid to the ladder part of the 90’s. Tiger came around and made golf so cool and so popular that now we have giant stores that only sell golf related goods, an entire tv network dedicated to golf, dozens of golf club companies, clothing companies, balls, socks etc. We (golf lovers) owe a lot to Tiger. He’s the straw that stirs the drink
Man Jack was hitting 350 with the driver back in the day ,I wonder if he was hitting cubs from today in his prime wow
I think Tiger's 15 major wins were more impressive than Nicklaus' 18 because they happened at a later date when the competition was bigger. Yet I think Nicklaus was the greatest. Why? Because Nicklaus finished second 19 times, and in the top 3 a staggering 45 times. Tiger will never get even shouting distance of that record. And I don't think he would have even if he played in the Nicklaus Era.
My opinion for what it is worth... Pro golfers in Jack's day looked forward to playing with him and the challenge it provided and the more recent pros seemed to fear playing with Tiger. To me that says it all... or the current pros are weak ? lol
I think the argument is definitely debatable, but the biggest reason the major to major argument doesn't hold water for me is that Jack played in such a different time. Golf is a more global sport now and the competition week to week is insane. Jack played with some huge top level talent, but in a sport where you can't play defense against the other players, having 100 really dangerous players every week makes it so much more difficult to win unless you're completely on. Just my two cents. GOAT arguments are why sports are fun.
No way is there 100 contenders to the majors these days . Brooks Koepka said majors are different because you only have to beat 10 guys .
No way is there 100 contenders to the majors these days . Brooks Koepka said majors are different because you only have to beat 10 guys .
We support u Matt.
I like to see a challenge for the pro and if they smash it then fair play. A great round consists of great shot.
It's about who can do the incredible, not who misses the simple. Yeah, it's an evil pleasure to see them fail... but when they succeed, it's beyond comparison.
So it has to be difficult courses. Jordan Spieth's Open win in 2017 is some of the most incredible golf i've seen... both he and Kuchar were 1 under for the day.
I like to see them struggle. sometimes not always. For example I love that the US open is traditionally a ‘struggle’ - you know and expect that to be a real battle and it’s great to see. The Open and the Masters are what they are and stand on their own merits. The uspga is a bit meh and needs to create a better narrative / selling point for itself in my view. But yeah you wouldn’t want a struggle every week. Room for all types of course
I prefer to watch the best players on the toughest courses. I don’t like to “watch them struggle”, but rather prefer to see the best of the week figure out the toughest courses.
Both… just to appreciate both. The best is a tough last 3 holes to force them to make the highlight reel shot for the win
I can throw in a couple more names as the best golfer. If you go by the era they were in and the equipment they played with, You have to start with Young Tom Morris, playing with what he played with on those conditions. Then I would go to Bobby Jones, even Ben Hogan said when Jones played everyone else was playing for 2nd place. Then Hogan himself, giving up time to serve in the military during WW2 and then having that horrible accident, playing with that equipment. To be honest I am sick of anyone being called The GOAT, that expression needs to go away. Eras change, equipment changes. I would love to see the modern players play with Hogan's clubs and see how they do.
I couldn't agree with you more
Yeah - true enough...in any sport things change so much over time - it really isn't a fair argument to make that the best player of one era is better or worse than the best player of another era.
I don't know if it's true, but I was told one pro golfer finished 3rd or better in half the pro tournaments they entered????? Anika Sorenstam. I know I miss spelled it! Cheer's. Ps nobody ever mentions Walter Hagen! Great conversation!
BTW, Jack said he considers the U.S. Amateur to be a Major for that level, so it's 20-18...
You also need to take into account the level of the competition they were up against. I'd argue the standard has improved.
I would say Jack N.
Different times, different men, BUT most important the improvement in balls, material and technology that Jack did not have avaliable.