Tiger fact...

["Richard"]

Tiger woods has been the number one golfer in the world for 393 weeks in total...


The other players who have had official World Number 1 status in the 20 year history of the Ranking are BERNHARD LANGER (3 weeks), SEVE BALLESTEROS (61 weeks), GREG NORMAN (331 weeks), NICK FALDO (97 weeks), IAN WOOSNAM (50 weeks), FRED COUPLES (16 weeks), NICK PRICE (44 weeks), TOM LEHMAN (1 week), ERNIE ELS (9 weeks), DAVID DUVAL (15 weeks) and VIJAY SINGH (32 weeks)

Thats almost 8 years! I wonder how long Jack was the number one golfer in the world?

If tiger died tomorrow he would go down as the greatest golfer in the world. I don't care if he didn't catch jack!

[Txxxxxxx]

Tiger woods has been the number one golfer in the world for 393 weeks in total...


The other players who have had official World Number 1 status in the 20 year history of the Ranking are BERNHARD LANGER (3 weeks), SEVE BALLESTEROS (61 weeks), GREG NORMAN (331 weeks), NICK FALDO (97 weeks), IAN WOOSNAM (50 weeks), FRED COUPLES (16 weeks), NICK PRICE (44 weeks), TOM LEHMAN (1 week), ERNIE ELS (9 weeks), DAVID DUVAL (15 weeks) and VIJAY SINGH (32 weeks)

Thats almost 8 years! I wonder how long Jack was the number one golfer in the world?

If tiger died tomorrow he would go down as the greatest golfer in the world. I don't care if he didn't catch jack!

I'd have to disagree with you on that one.Tiger is good, but I don't think he's the best golfer of all time.

Good to see my man Norman is on that list.

["Richard"]

EG, you can't just say something like that and not tell us who you think is better! haha

[3Jack]

World Golf Rankings were only introduced in the early 90s (or late 80s, I'd have to look it up for sure), so it's hard to know how long Jack may have been world number one. I don't think you can fairly make the comparison - you're literally comparing apples and oranges.

There would be one way to find out. Take the World Golf Ranking formula and apply it to Jack's career... this would be a gargantuan task though, as you'd have to weigh his results against those of each of his peers.

[Ginker]

This is slightly off topic but not really.. Did anyone see the article in Golf Digest years ago about some of the feats Tiger has accomplished.. I don't remeber them all but something like can bench press double his weight, ran the 100 meter in 10 seconds... Pretty crazy stuff..

[Golfbum]

JACK = NIGHT
TIGER= DAY
There is no way you can compare those two and there is no point in trying.
Was Jack simply the best in his prime? Of course, his record shows that.
You can not compare total winnings either for obvious reasons.
Is Tiger the best in his prime? Yes, he record shows that.
Is Tiger better than Jack? NO, and until Tiger reaches Jack's total # of Majors I dont think he will be the best.
Is Tiger a better athlete in his prime than Jack was? Hell yes, most tour players these days are in better condition than Jack was. (JD, Lumpy, those are exceptions)
There is no doubt that Tiger is an outstanding athlete, he could be in any other sport if he put his training towards that. I honestly think he could be.
So until we see Tiger retire with more Majors than Jack (let's fact it boys/girls that is how greatnest is measured in Pro Golf) then Jack is #1 ALL TIME.

[spackler]

Jack had a twenty year 'peak from 1960 ish to 1980 ish. With the way the rankings work, it might have taken him a few years at the start to overtake Palmer, and he probably would have held on to the top at the end longer than his actual prime because of his previous results. Gary Player and Watson might have knocked him off the top spot periodically in those 20 years, but he probably would have had the number 1 rank in at least 15 of the 20 years.

Tiger has had a better 10 year career than anyone in history, but 10 years do not a career make when you're trying to take down a player of Jack's caliber. The 18 majors and 2 US Amateurs make him King until someone gets close, and Tiger's barely past half way with his 10 and 3. Will he do it eventually, I think so, but he has to actually do it before we can call him the best ever.

[Andru]

Golfbum is boomer.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. And this is directed at everyone. You're going to like the golfer in the era you grew up in. Your most impressionable years are your youth. Teens and early Twenties. You see things differently then.

If I was 45 seeing Tiger now. I'd be impressed but he'll never look like Jack. Jack will always be more dominant because you only remember the good stuff. Here's a classic example.

When Tiger won 7 of 11 majors are something stupid lile that. People started saying hey but "Tiger doesn't have any competition". That's nonsense. He was just that good. If you look at his stats in 2000 he was incredible. In relation to the field he was almost top 10 in everything. That's unheard of. Even if they kept stats of Jack. I can guarantee he never had those kinds of numbers.

So when people make an argument for the best golfer of all time. it's difficult to over look Tiger simply because Jack has more Majors. Just as Baby-Boomers like to bring up ORR. Bobby ORR's total scoring numbers and stanley cups don't add up to Gretzky's. but for a time he was just as or maybe even more amazing. Considering he played defense.

It's just a debate. The earth won't be saved because of it. But recognize your internal bias. I recognize mine, and there's only one way to view this. Booby jones, Ben Hogan, Jack, Tiger. were the best of their era you can make a solid case for each. Bob, Jack and Tiger have accomplished something no one else in history has. Bob Jones (Grand Slam), Jack (18), Tiger ( Tiger Slam) I would even throw Gary Player's hat in the ring. He won all those majors and travelled the world. In the 60's!!!!

Transmission Completed this message will self destruct.....................

[Golfpeasant]

Add to that, I believe Tiger will never get as many majors, NOT because he's not as good, but because the competition now is ridiculous. You've got guys in their teens and early twenties coming out who are pure athletes, bombing it 300 plus, and thousands more trying than ever before. This never happened in golf before: it was a leisure/rich mans game, and the prime was mid 30s. Now prime is late twenties.

You'll never be able to compare, and who cares...great golf is great golf. Tired subject.

["Richard"]

Its true, when jack was playing you had guys winning tourneys who first picked up a club when they were 12 or 13. In a few years you will be hard pressed to find a competitive p player on tour who wasn't born with a iron or a putter in their hands. Someone who spends hours a week at the gym. Someone with the personal neturitionist to help with their diet. Golf is a sport taken very seriously now.

I don't see what tiger has to beat jack to be considered the greatest ever? Is he not already there? Sure you can't compare tiger to jack directly since tiger would mop the floor with him but you have to compare tiger to his field and jack to his field... but is that really a fair comparison? Again, why does tiger need to pass jack to be considered the greatest?

[Andru]

Its true, when jack was playing you had guys winning tourneys who first picked up a club when they were 12 or 13. In a few years you will be hard pressed to find a competitive p player on tour who wasn't born with a iron or a putter in their hands. Someone who spends hours a week at the gym. Someone with the personal neturitionist to help with their diet. Golf is a sport taken very seriously now.

I don't see what tiger has to beat jack to be considered the greatest ever? Is he not already there? Sure you can't compare tiger to jack directly since tiger would mop the floor with him but you have to compare tiger to his field and jack to his field... but is that really a fair comparison? Again, why does tiger need to pass jack to be considered the greatest?

For some it's the only true measuing stick. Majors won. And I can't argue against that point. It is something that transends time. The competition is the competition. I also think however you need to take into account the level of competition at these events. In the 60's and I know some will get on my case here. but really, the talent in the fields today are muich much deeper. There's no doubt about it. They're fulltime commited golfers. Not silver spoon brats with a hobby. Tiger will get to 18 and we'll still hear about Jack, as we should. For another day I'll fill you in on the demographics of the Galleries specifically comparing Phil Mickelson and Tiger Woods. Having been to 3 events where both attended it's more than a pattern.

["Richard"]

which events did you go to??!?

[Andru]

which events did you go to??!?

PGA Championships, I'm going to Chicago this year for the event at Medinah. I posted some pictures From New Jersey last year. a while ago.

[Txxxxxxx]

EG, you can't just say something like that and not tell us who you think is better! haha

Well, I'd have to say Jack Nicklaus if I had to pick.

Here are his stats...

PGA Tour Victories- 71

2nd Place finishes- 58

Worldwide Victories- 100

Masters- 6

PGA Championships- 5

US Open - 4

British Open - 3

US Amateur - 2

#1 in lowest scoring 8 times.

18 holes in one!

Awarded golfer of the Century by 12 publications and worldwide news organizations.

World Golf Hall of Fame

Best individual male athlete of the 20th Century - Sports Illustrated.

I think his achievements speak for themselves.

Even without Tiger winning as many Majors as Jack has, I still think he's not the golfer Nicklaus was. Think about the technology he has in his hands now compared to what Jack used. I'd be willing to bet if Jack and Tiger were the same age this year, using the new technology, that Jack would be the better golfer for sure, no doubt about it in my mind. Golf isn't about whether you can be a great athlete. Hell, some of the golfers are useless if you gave them a basketball or hockey stick. Golf is about knowing the game inside and out and being able to master it. I don't think Tiger is better than Jack is at that aspect.

As for people liking who they grew up watching....I'm late twenties and I grew up watching and rooting for Greg Norman. If you want to use the ranking system for saying who is the better golfer, Thotho posted those and that would mean Norman is clearly a much better golfer than anyone since his time except Tiger. Do I believe that? To an certain extent perhaps. He may not have won every tournament or as many as Tiger, but not every golfer enters every tournament so it shouldn't matter how many they win. I think overall consistancy should be the measure, and Tiger certainly does NOT have that.

[jeffc]

If Jack is still #1, then who is #2?

BTW, I have no doubts Tiger will break Jack's record for majors, wins, etc.

["Richard"]

Jeff, I'm not sure sure about that anymore. Tiger still needs to get 9 more majors, thats going to be hard the way all these guys are playing, furyk, phil, the young guns, guys like lumpy coming out of no where! He will be hard pressed. Even if he got one major a year.. which I think is being generous. If he plays as long as jack does he might do it but the amount of money this guy has, is a record going to be enough motivation for him to win?

I'm taking him in the US open for sure, last day of the open is fathers day....

[byerxa]

The technology argument is a weird one with Tiger. He kind of resisted the whole VM on a stick driver thing longer than most. He also is critical of lob wedges, etc., because he knows he can get up and down with any club in his hand. The ball, however, is a different story. Jack did some incredible stuff with a complete POS ball.

I am not going to get into the "who is better" argument as it can never be won. But I will say that Tiger's golf in 2000 was the best golf ever played in a year, period. The US Open at Pebble Beach in 2000 was probably the best golf ever - he decimated everyone and everything that weekend. People think the course was not as hard and that everyone else folded, but that was not the case. It was a true US Open course and he simply blew it away. I doubt we will ever see that level of golf again from him.

[dH]

Lets not forget that when you start listing off Jack's alloclades you are talking about his FINISHED Career. How can you compare that to Tiger who is only 30!? Most people produce there best results in there 30's so....

[Txxxxxxx]

Lets not forget that when you start listing off Jack's alloclades you are talking about his FINISHED Career. How can you compare that to Tiger who is only 30!? Most people produce there best results in there 30's so....

You can compare it because we are talking about accomplishments. Most of the time people use how many Majors won or the ranking system to compare golfers. I don't believe this to be totally accurate because like I said, not all golfers play every tournament, nor are all golfers, ESPECIALLY TIGER, consistant with their play.

GREG NORMAN FOR PRESIDENT!!

[marty99]

Greg Norman was always a bridesmaid. Best second place finisher ever though.

["Richard"]

I think jack has the most second place win ever...

[Thimble]

Greg Norman was always a bridesmaid. Best second place finisher ever though.

no, that would be jack...

norman :31

jack: 58

[Txxxxxxx]

no, that would be jack...

norman :31

jack: 58

Yeah, it was Jack. As Thotho pointed out though, Norman is right behind Tiger in weeks at number one.

[Golfbum]

Golfbum is boomer.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. And this is directed at everyone. You're going to like the golfer in the era you grew up in. Your most impressionable years are your youth. Teens and early Twenties. You see things differently then.

If I was 45 seeing Tiger now. I'd be impressed but he'll never look like Jack. Jack will always be more dominant because you only remember the good stuff. Here's a classic example.

When Tiger won 7 of 11 majors are something stupid lile that. People started saying hey but "Tiger doesn't have any competition". That's nonsense. He was just that good. If you look at his stats in 2000 he was incredible. In relation to the field he was almost top 10 in everything. That's unheard of. Even if they kept stats of Jack. I can guarantee he never had those kinds of numbers.

So when people make an argument for the best golfer of all time. it's difficult to over look Tiger simply because Jack has more Majors. Just as Baby-Boomers like to bring up ORR. Bobby ORR's total scoring numbers and stanley cups don't add up to Gretzky's. but for a time he was just as or maybe even more amazing. Considering he played defense.

It's just a debate. The earth won't be saved because of it. But recognize your internal bias. I recognize mine, and there's only one way to view this. Booby jones, Ben Hogan, Jack, Tiger. were the best of their era you can make a solid case for each. Bob, Jack and Tiger have accomplished something no one else in history has. Bob Jones (Grand Slam), Jack (18), Tiger ( Tiger Slam) I would even throw Gary Player's hat in the ring. He won all those majors and travelled the world. In the 60's!!!!

Transmission Completed this message will self destruct.....................

Andru, it is true that I am a "Boomer" However I did not start playing golf until 1982. So I was not really interested in watching it on TV before that time.
I base my thoughts on records only. I have liked golfers from every year on that I started the game.
Couples, The Shark, Curtis Strange, Monty and Seve and Jose Marie from the European side. List goes on.
You mention Gary Player, An amazing man who accomplished a lot in professional golf. His travel alone is something to be in awe of.
Slammin Sammy, Iron Byron (11 in a row) The Squire, Arnie, The Merry Mex. Gentle Ben, my god there are so many who have been great players in their prime time. Then you can start with the women golfers.
As you said, we are all biased on this matter. We each have our own favourites. But by basing this on facts, Majors won etc IMO Jack is simply the best until Mr Woods passes his records.
Are the fields weaker now than then? Hardly. A lot of guys seem to forget that Jack had a lot of competion back then too. Just as Woods does today. Maybe Woods got a little head start on the rest of them due to his training, but others are catching up now. So I think it is going to be a great 5-10 years of golf to watch. May the best man win!

[mcnorth]

This is slightly off topic but not really.. Did anyone see the article in Golf Digest years ago about some of the feats Tiger has accomplished.. I don't remeber them all but something like can bench press double his weight, ran the 100 meter in 10 seconds... Pretty crazy stuff..

I wonder who would win a fight between Tiger and Chuck Norris?

[3Jack]

now that, was funny.

[Andru]

As for people liking who they grew up watching....I'm late twenties and I grew up watching and rooting for Greg Norman. If you want to use the ranking system for saying who is the better golfer, Thotho posted those and that would mean Norman is clearly a much better golfer than anyone since his time except Tiger. Do I believe that? To an certain extent perhaps. He may not have won every tournament or as many as Tiger, but not every golfer enters every tournament so it shouldn't matter how many they win. I think overall consistancy should be the measure, and Tiger certainly does NOT have that.

Ofcourse you'd say Nicklaus. He is the best right now. I've read this 10 times and I can't believe what you wrote. are You saying Tiger doesn't have consistency? He's missed. 3 cuts in 11 years on tour.

206 PGA Tour Events - 48 Wins ( 23.3%) and 19 2nds

Greg Norman. 320 events - 20 wins. ( 6.25% ) and 31 2nd's and 48 missed cuts.

The numbers speak for themselves.

[fundonny]

I'm 31, watched Tiger since he first came out. Watched the PGA since Payne Stewart started playing.

There is no doubt in my mind, not even a little bit of a doubt, that Jack is the best golfer of all time. I wish I could have seen him hit his 2 iron live in person. Look up golfer in the dictionary and his picture should be there.

[Andru]

Agreed Jack's the man until he's shoved off the podium.

But I'm not certian why you'd want to see jack hit a 2 iron. Tiger and Davis Love hit long irons like no one ever has. High, Straight and Long. Though Davis cuts his ball a hair. FYI. Jack's old 2 iron is what we'd call a 3 iron today.

[fundonny]

But Tiger and Davis' 2 irons were probably more forgiving, no?