Hate to be Rude: Tiger Woods vs Jack Nicklaus

[4gungun]

Tiger woods is a loser

[RK831]

How about this one, guys: Tiger in his prime (2000) vs. Byron in his prime (1945).

[Whaleshark1993]

@RK831 Not even close haha. Tiger by miles. Byron won all those events because it was during WORLD WAR 2.

[SnaintonGolf]

Tiger is a better player more players in Tigers eras = more depth to the field and tiger dominated for so many years by so far....

[diggiemac]

@SnaintonGolf Here's some very interesting info for you: Nicklaus' major competitors won some 40 majors between them but Woods' won some 15. That's not the interesting part. The interesting thing is despite the fact people in Nicklaus' day scored higher on average, during the last day of the majors, Nicklaus' main competitors were actually a full stroke lower than Wood's major competitors. If Jack's competitors had averaged a stroke more, me might have won 25 times.

[Whaleshark1993]

Tiger over Nicklaus by a long shot. Golf back then was not nearly as competitive back in the day. Now the talent is much deeper and Tiger was STILL able to dominate more than any other athlete (NOT JUST GOLFER) in history. Tiger hit shots no one else could hit. Tigers stats were overall better in his prime on much tougher courses. Even though the equipment is better now, it is harder to consistently play a higher level of golf.

[hkrobin]

@Whaleshark1993 Tiger is my vote also. However, for the title of most dominant athlete (NOT JUST GOLFER) as you call it, I would have to disagree. Look at Michael Johnson's career. I don't think anyone has ever dominated any field in any sport the way he did. No other competitor really even existed when he was on the blocks for bulk of his career. He wasn't just the best, he was the only one.

[USPSAman]

got to go with jack. more wins and i think it was right when they talk about the improvement of clubs.

[rosieaasful]

@apnwahoowa Tiger has the best second shot I've seen since Watson when he was young . Very talented but not as good as Nicklaus. Nicklaus had to play and win 18 against the likes of Palmer, Player, Tevino, Watson amongst others. Proof positive of nicklaus facing better competition is 2 yrs ago when a 60yr old Watson led the field for 4 days and almost won the British open. And also was on the leaderboard in many pga tour events prior. When Jack was 35 there were no 60 yr olds in the hunt.

[jkc3841]

@rosieaasful When Jack was 35 years old, 62 year old Sam Snead finished 3rd at the PGA Championship. 9th and 4th when he was 61 and 60 years old.

[diggiemac]

@jkc3841 Didn't a 60 year old Tom Watson lose the British Open on the last hole?

[jkc3841]

@diggiemac A 59 year old Tom Watson lost in a playoff to Stewart Cink. I don't understand your comment. I agree a 27 year old Tom Watson would be tearing it up on the PGA Tour right now. He still makes the cut at a US Open in 2010.

[apnwahoowa]

tiger

[lordchimp18]

HATE TO BE RUDE ITS LOOKING LIKE JACK

[watertonrivers]

Jack Nicklaus, was, is, and always will be the greatest of all time!! Just remember what the record says: Jack--18 wins, Tiger--14 wins and it does not look at this point that Tiger will eclipse Jack's record. Also, just consider Jack's 19 second place finishes---UNREAL!!!

[grinchychristmas]

These guys think the current field is deep, but Tiger has never had a rival. There are a bunch of guys that are about the same skill level, and then theres Tiger above them. Jack had Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Tom Watson, Johnny Miller, Lee Trevino. Tiger has only had Phil Mickelson and I wouldn't call that a rivalry.

[Whaleshark1993]

@grinchychristmas I HATE when people use the fact that Jack's era had other people who also won majors. The reason why Phil, Ernie , Retief, are so under appreciated is because Tiger absolutely dominated in a much more talented and competitive era. Els finished runner up to Tiger alone over 15 times and he still has won 3 majors and 20 wins on the PGA tour and 26 on the European tour. Tiger over Nicklaus by a longgg shot

[diggiemac]

@Whaleshark1993 Here's a fact for you: Nicklaus' major competitors won some 40 majors between them but Woods' won some 15. The interesting thing is people in Nicklaus' day scored higher on average but during the last day of the majors, Nicklaus' main competitors were actually a full stroke lower than Wood's major competitors. If Jack's competitors had averaged a stroke more he might have won 25 times. If Wood's main competitors were a full stroke better, he would have lost some.

[Whaleshark1993]

@diggiemac Thats not a good argument. That just shows that the field back then had no depth to it. It was basically 6-7 guys winning all the majors. Tigers era has so much more depth talent wise. Tiger managed to do what Jack did but against better players period. And your not even stating what the stroke average was. Tiger had an intimidation factor that was larger than Jacks, the only way you get that factor is to be damn good, and unbeatable as a front runner. Tiger = best closer in the game.

[sretsam68]

@Whaleshark1993 During Jack's first 15 yrs on Tour, 30 different major champions - avg. age 31.42. During Tiger's first 15 yrs on Tour, 33 different major champions - avg. age 31.60. Closer than most people think. Golf is bigger today, no doubt, but the ability to win majors hasn't changed much.

[JohnRagoon]

Put Tiger in Jacks Era and you've got one hell of a Caddy!!.

[MrPicanicbasket]

Jack is the best he will always be the best, tiger and other great players fade away.

[golfjf85]

WOnder how this would go down today with the state of TW's game

[BoHoVsGolf]

this video was before the 2008 miracle us open... o yeah and the 2009 thanksgiving incident...

[chaneypga]

If Nicklaus's swing looked like Hogan's and he was in better shape, this would'nt even be a debate.

[Whaleshark1993]

@chaneypga tiger would still win. Tigers head is his greatest asset. Just a mentally tough machine. He would find a way to win, cause that what Tiger Woods does.

[ingerlander]

Jack all the way. Not only a better golfer but as it turns out, a better man.

[154rjr]

jack and Tiger's game are very similar.Tiger has a better short game (not putter) but in all fairness very few pros put a premium on the short game back then. Jack could have developed a short game to rival Tiger's. Jack would beat Tiger for 2 reasons. Jack is a much better driver of the golf ball. Extremely long -straight. Tiger - long & crooked. 2) Tiger cannot come from behind to win. Jack was both a great front runner and could also run you down. Once Jack got in front of Tiger it's over.

[SmallDannyJW]

"Tiger cannot come from behind to win." Tiger came back from 5 shots behind at Arnolds event last year and 4 shots behind in Jacks. Not to mention his US amateur wins where he won despite being well behind on a number of occasions.

[doctorbubble]

For me its Jack, especially with his outstanding record. Top 10 in Majors 73 times, he was 2nd, 19 times in majors with a overall haul of 18 Majors. Not just that, but the way Jack conducts himself on and off the course - Tiger is far too robotic and lacks charisma for my liking - don't get me wrong he still is a fantastic player. Also Jack was not only a greater winner, but also a great loser. Topman!

[1ericamat]

Its interesting how the media hypes Tigers US open win on one leg. Give me a break. Jack came 5th at age 58 in the Masters on 1 leg. His hip was "replaced" 3 months later which is why he missed the Open in '98. What goes around comes around.

[BCKLW]

Tiger has had four Knee surgeries. That would end most golfers carrear. However, because of HGH he is able to continue his march towards Nicklaus' mark. A march that might have ended well short had Tiger not been useing HGH. His dad would hang his head in shame.

[SmallDannyJW]

Theres a big difference between coming 5th and winning. If Jack had won then it would have had the same amount of hype. Just like if Tiger had come 5th nobody would mention it again.

[bluekarma]

He's still the greatest golfer. Until Tiger gets 19, Jack is the best ever. Jack finished in the Top 10 in Majors 73 times! He was 2nd, 19 times in majors. No one will equal jacks records in majors. And someone once asked jack if he had known he would be challenged for majors someday, he said he might of played his career differently to concentrate solely on winning majors. Understand that no one had won more than 10 majors, so Jack had no records to chase. Tiger does. It does make a difference

[whitemoosepro]

Tiger all the way....equipment is nothing....in JN' day the courses were way shorter, everyone was playing the same equipment in both generations. TW courses are longer and TWs competitors are now actual atletes; bigger, stronger, working w/ psychologists, etc.. and they're ALL playin the course. also TW is playing less and wins more often then JN did, with 3 or 4 different swings. Plus TW has done more for golf n the people than JN ever did. JN never helped the people the way TW does right now

[sretsam68]

You'll need to do more homework...

[whitemoosepro]

about what?

[sretsam68]

professional golf

[whitemoosepro]

OKAAYY?? Whats ur take on this subject know it all.

[sretsam68]

Just like all Tiger groupies, you get defensive. Why is that? If he is indeed the greatest ever (no way to know), why do all Tiger fans get that way when even remotely disagreed with? I agree he is phenomenal and without question the best of this era, but I also agree eras can't be compared conclusively.

My "know it all" posts are throughout Youtube on the subject.

[bluekarma]

Not looking good for Tiger. Jack won the Masters at 46! He finished 5th in 1998 at the age of 58! Tiger is chasing records, jack was not. So we may never know how many more Majors Jack might of won had he focused entirely and completely on just winning majors. Would we? And Tiger practices way more than Jack did. Jack was a natural talent and used less superior equipment and putted on greens that were not sculpted like they are now. The single biggest advancement in golf? the lawnmower. Fact.

[whitemoosepro]

Maybe so....but TW isnt 46 yet, in fact hes won more at a younger age than JN. has won more right now 3 or 4 years younger. Seen it on GC recently. The greens are sculpted to be more Difficult and yes the lawnmower is better which means the greens are faster hence more difficult.

[gharlston11]

Bluekarma, Jack MAY be the greatest, but why throw in irrelevant crap to make a point? First of all you have NO idea how much Jack practiced or how much Tiger currently practices unless you're there. Second, even if Tiger practices more, if he's better because of it so what? Why penalize because you practice more. Third, if the lawnmower is the biggest advancement in golf, then others besides Jack would have benefited from it too probably negating any "gains" you think he might have gotten.

[bluekarma]

Jack did nothing for golf? Arnold did more than both of them! And Jack was so far superior in strength and touch than other golfers of his time. Jack was a natural. Tiger greatest talent but Jack most feared competitor. Remember that Jack had no one to compare himself to. Tiger does. it makes a difference.

[liaothecow]

i like how jack skipped like 5 times at 4:44

Jack is the greatest though.IMO

[geesecougar2]

If anything, the equipment angle should give Tiger the nod over Jack.

Today's equipment helps the less talented players bridge the gap; the equipment in Jack's day was unforgiving and did not cover up the field's bad shots.

This makes it harder for Tiger to separate himself from the competition as far as ballstriking.

If everyone today were forced to use blades, persimmon, and balata, Tiger would have 20 majors already.

[sretsam68]

Interesting observation...you just denigrated Tiger's competition greatly.

[sretsam68]

Arron Oberholser = total idiot!

[sretsam68]

Match play - slight advanatge to Tiger.

Stroke play - slight advantage to Jack.

Over the long term of championships, though, I would take Jack.

[StevenGA1011]

of course tiger is the best. u might be pretty good too if when u were a snot nosed cradle rat all u had in it was a mickey mouse, snoopy, and a golf club.

[daveu01]

Jealous much?

[StevenGA1011]

nope dont even care about golf just tellin' the truth. dont u agree with the comment?

[daveu01]

No. Tiger's father was no-nonsense and strict--he did not spoil Tiger an inch and demanded excellence; as did Tiger's mom. Why do you think Tiger is so solid mentally? Do you really think Tiger could achieve what he has if his childhood was as you described?

[StevenGA1011]

see thats where u are reading out of context i'm not saying tiger was a snot nosed cradle rat. i'm saying kids in general could be myself hey if i had a golf club in my cradle when i was a snot nosed cradle rat i might be pretty good too. there ya happy?

[daveu01]

Just because someone is given a golf club at birth does not mean they will be Tiger Woods, and it does not mean they will even be "pretty good." This is easily seen by the thousands of individuals who try to get on the PGA tour, the Nationwide tour, and all other tours, and they fail, regardless of the quality of their equipment and regardless of how early they started playing. That is what makes Tiger special.

[StevenGA1011]

i'm positive that it didn't hurt tiger playing golf at a young age. is he special? yes. would he be any less of a golfer if he had picked up the game at the age of say 16-17? guess we'll never know will we. btw who gives a rats ass u took my comment out of context as i have mentioned already when i was making a generalization. i could care less who is good enough to make the tour or not. ty have a great day!

[daveu01]

If you can't handle being taken to task after (self admittedly) making a generalization, then you shouldn't make them, and you should quit whining about being "taken out of context." That is what happens when you make generalizations.

And it is "couldn't" care less, not could, and if you truly couldn't care less, you wouldn't have taken the time to comment in the first place. You have a great day too!

[StevenGA1011]

O i can handle any little task u can type up notta prob i'm just not good at taking orders from someone on yt. if and since it is something u are used to maybe u can handle this 1: get off my jock ty!

[daveu01]

I don't think you can handle it; your reply demonstrates that clearly--if you can't take orders "from someone on yt," then don't come here.

And you skipped all the points I made in my last post, so you have also demonstrated you are at the end of your illogical rope. Sorry.

At least the "get off my jock" revealed you have a marginal ability at being clever, although the get off my jock comment is pretty common, so you get zero points for originality. Keep trying!

[StevenGA1011]

handle what playing comment tag with a douche? yea i can and have til i get bored with it anyway. O oops i skipped ya points?? maybe because i answered your original question respectfully so i apologize if u aren't used to receiving any. O the "get off my jock" comment wasn't made for style pts. i was actually hoping u could grab a clue. so it is a common term ya hear? hmmm would have never guessed others have told u this before.

[daveu01]

There we go! Calling me names now! Ha ha ha. Got your blood pressure up a little bit?

Yeah, don't worry, you didn't get any style points. And I never said it was a common term I hear, I said it was common, but if you have to twist things to your advantage to feel better, go ahead.

Oh yeah--apology accepted.

[StevenGA1011]

yawn...uhh yea heres another name for ya. have a nice life lil tiger.

[daveu01]

That was disappointing. But then again, based on your other comments, I shouldn't be surprised.

[StevenGA1011]

aw disappointed? maybe u should take a shot at life and not let yt comments get ya so down.

[daveu01]

Again, you're twisting words. Either that or your low brain functioning prevents you from understanding simple sentences. I said "That was disappointing," as in your previous comment. Maybe I am expecting too much from you.

[StevenGA1011]

yes u are definitely expecting way too much. i will always "twist words to my advantage" just get used to it. its too easy when u are a person with a glutton for punishment as yourself.

[daveu01]

Prove it.

[StevenGA1011]

u are doing that for me

[daveu01]

Prove it.

[StevenGA1011]

see below

[daveu01]

Prove it.

[StevenGA1011]

sleep

[daveu01]

Prove it.

[StevenGA1011]

hole

[daveu01]

Prove it.

[StevenGA1011]

in 1

[daveu01]

Prove it.

[StevenGA1011]

head

[daveu01]

Prove it.

[StevenGA1011]

ti evorp

[daveu01]

Prove it.

[StevenGA1011]

ti evorp

[StevenGA1011]

ti evorp

[StevenGA1011]

ti evorp

[StevenGA1011]

ti evorp

[daveu01]

Prove it.

[DoctorFist]

what an interesting exchange that was

[daveu01]

Prove it.

[daveu01]

Prove it.

[stackleft]

Tiger. But Jack's 19 2nd's in majors is almost as impressive as his 18 majors.

[hubomba]

Equiptment is irrelevant.

[sretsam68]

Right. "Equiptment" is irrelevant. However, when comparing eras, equipment is relevant. When comparing players within the same era, equipment is irrelevant.

[amandamh74]

wtf maybe jack composed himself better during tournaments but tiger is a good guy hes just very competitive and hates to loss.

its not lik tiger is the only person on earth that cusses so u guys hav no right to judge

[jbolin000]

I see them equally as golfers,although Nicklaus's 18 still gives him the edge in that regard. As a sportemen hands down Nicklaus. Where Woods curses and slams clubs on tv, Nicklaus in his heyday snuffed out his cigarette as he reached the holes with the tv cameras on, as he later said he didn't want to be a bad role model. He since quit smoking obviously. He's class all the way.

[dkjaerwdww]

i prefer nicklaus as a person and as a sportsman than woods - but i think woods is the greater talent

still, i would be rooting for nicklaus all the way because eldrick is nothing more than a pompous, egotistical, self-serving a-hole.

[ard9murc]

on a golf course self-serving is bad. Is it?

[RandomCaribou]

Jack Nicklaus was way better in his time than Tiger is now. Tiger is just a pompous ass