Hate to be Rude: Tiger Woods vs Jack Nicklaus
Top Comments
All Comments (102)
-
Tiger woods is a loser
-
@RK831 Not even close haha. Tiger by miles. Byron won all those events because it was during WORLD WAR 2.
-
@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.
-
How about this one, guys: Tiger in his prime (2000) vs. Byron in his prime (1945).
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@jkc3841 Didn't a 60 year old Tom Watson lose the British Open on the last hole?
If Nicklaus's swing looked like Hogan's and he was in better shape, this would'nt even be a debate.
chaneypga 1 year ago 19
@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.
sretsam68 4 weeks ago