I like Jack's reply when asked if he or Tiger hit it as good as Hogan - "No, no . Its not even close, Its Hogan." But Hogan was before TV.
@graemetaylor4149
2 жыл бұрын
To this day Hogan is regarded as the best ball striker ever. But for fate he could have been the GOAT. It took him years on tour to eliminate his destructive hook. As soon as he started winning play was stopped by WWII. He then had his crash in 1949 incurring injuries that made Tiger's look like a mere scratch. Despite that he won the US Open at Merion only 18 months later and went on to have the closest it was then possible to get to a grand slam in 1953. His injuries severely limited the number of tournaments he could play and so he could never rack up the number of PGA wins or stats that would bring him into contention for GOAT but what he did achieve given the circumstances was remarkable.
@rapidrecovery1545
2 жыл бұрын
God... I've gone from not being a fan of Faldo at all to absolutely loving listening to him. What an amazing interview guys. Well done!
@Dragon-Slay3r
8 ай бұрын
Did he manage to get his leg over? To cover something? He's more than willing 😭
@jopo7996
2 жыл бұрын
Tiger is a great driver, just not off the course.
@kylethompson6648
2 жыл бұрын
A low comment for a low perspective
@radar0412
Жыл бұрын
@@brmc6145 He didn't get away with it. He'll pay for that accident for the rest of whats left of his career (if any) and his life.
@joseamador5516
Жыл бұрын
@@brmc6145 actually a lot of celebrities have gotten with such instances and many of them committed worse crimes and gotten away with it.
@Chyeahokay
Жыл бұрын
lol people taking this so seriously
@Discipleofthelordandjesus
Жыл бұрын
Lmaooo .
@Jimbo_Adkins
2 жыл бұрын
Equipment equipment equipment. Jack was hitting the ball 3 bills with a 43 inch persimmon. In ‘65 jack was 12 under on the front at Augusta. With honestly, Stone Age technology. You put tigers 975D and miura “titleist” irons in jacks hands. With that Scotty Cameron. Shit son no course record is safe. Jack did with sticks and stones what these kids today can’t even do with the most modern equipment. No doubt he’s the goat.
@manuelperales9389
2 ай бұрын
Totally agree Nicklaus played crappy mcgregor golf balls, can u imagine the distance with titleist and modern clubs 25 majors easy
@hillbilly4christ638
9 күн бұрын
I remember Jack in an interview years ago saying that the quality of the golf balls was changing the game. He said they would hit a dozen balls and maybe three of them were “hot” balls and at the time of the interview he said that they were getting nine or more per dozen. That interview was done when they were still using balata balls. The balls they use now almost guarantee you 320yds. Jack was doing that with the old stuff. There is no question that Jack is the goat. Look at his last Masters. Infamous!
@graemetaylor4149
2 жыл бұрын
Both moved the needle but it is very hard to make an objective judgement as I would wager most commenting here did not see Jack play in his prime, if at all. Faldo also makes a good point about how few of Jack's shots were recorded far less capturing his best. What I would venture to say is that Jack would adapt to Tigers equipment better than Tiger would adapt to Jack's. As someone who chooses to play blades and persimmons from Jack's era I would encourage others to try and in doing so gain a whole new appreciation of the game Jack played and his level of skill. I would also argue that Jack was the more consummate professional whose sportsmanship and personal conduct throughout his career is legend. Jack gets my vote.
@tadlowry4453
2 жыл бұрын
Well said.
@thomashacker9029
2 жыл бұрын
More than the Persimmons and blades Tiger would have trouble adapting to the balls used in Jack’s time. Jack was under contact to use MacGregor balls which were substandard.
@graemetaylor4149
2 жыл бұрын
@@thomashacker9029 Yes, and even when they found one which was actually round, they were super spinny requiring very precise striking to keep straight. Although I still play equipment from the era I started playing, much of it a lot earlier, I do play modern balls and although now a poorer striker than in my youth, I cannot reproduce the arcing slices and duck hooks that were the result of any less than pure strike with the balls from Jack's era. Modern equipment, including the balls, flatters a poor swing - it was a far more subtle and precise game in Jack's day and, IMHO, a better one too.
@dmkappa62
2 жыл бұрын
I don’t agree about Tiger struggling with Jacks equipment. Tiger is all feel and he could tell if an iron was 1 swing weight out. He could adapt. Also Jack would of had better fitted equipment than say the average pro in his day. To me Tiger elevated the game to heights not reached previous. But I’d take either ones game no problem.
@johnnyp6202
2 жыл бұрын
@@thomashacker9029 It was so bad that many of the pros of his era said if Jack had played with a better ball he would have won even more often. Big 3 golf is a great way just to see how really far ahead of Arnie and Player he was. Also one thing that no one mentions too often is that Tiger switched to the "modern" Pro V1 type of golf ball a few years before the rest of the tour finally switched and that was a huge advantage. One interesting twist on Jack with modern equipment is that he would have been monumentally long and his wedge game was never the greatest so he would have had to adapt a lot more than many think. I think Jack is the best and probably Tiger second but Hogan could wiggle into the argument as well, the accident really hindered his career despite being easily the best golfer of his time.
@daylearceneaux4083
2 жыл бұрын
If Shooter McGavin hadn't got into legal trouble, he would have owned most of Jack's records. - - They didn't call it Shooter's tour for nothing.
@robertrenekerjr6819
2 жыл бұрын
Jack was my golf idol growing up. But IMO, Tiger is the best golfer to have ever lived. Of course, it is an impossible argument given different eras, equipment, etc. Jack has more majors but that is not the only yard stick. Tiger has more wins overall and honestly, played during an era where there were more good golfers. Tiger racked up 82 wins in 359 starts, that is a 22.8% win percentage. Jack racked up his 73 wins in 595 stars or a 12.2% win percentage. That is such an amazing stat to me, Tiger wins one out of every 5 tournaments he has entered. They are both GOATS in my opinion.
@GolfQuestChannel
2 жыл бұрын
Well said and agreed.
@janga75
2 жыл бұрын
@Ll L he wasn't just talking about majors guy, tigers win percentage on tour is just unfathomable. You're cherry picking data to suit your narrative. Jack has more majors and tiger wins at a better clip if he gets one more major he's the goat to me, cuz then hell have the most wins on tour as well as 16 majors which in this super competitive era of golf will probably stand for a millennia.
@bigboots6114
2 жыл бұрын
@@janga75 tigger only played golf courses which suited him
@johnnybgood7442
2 жыл бұрын
@Ll L what you guys always misunderstand is the depth of the fields matter. In Jack's day, he really only played against a hand full of really good players that had a chance to win. That's why the top guys have so many wins. When you add more good players to the mix, it's only natural that winning will become more difficult. Golf became more popular, more affordable and more profitable and all of this lead to more people playing the game, which again, will lead to more difficulties trying to rise to the top. We can all agree that golf right now is as deep and difficult to win as ever. Well even the best players today are topping out at 1,2,3,4 majors instead of 6,7,8,9 like in Jack's day. And that is directly correlated with more players entering the game, making it tougher to win.
@johnnybgood7442
2 жыл бұрын
@Ll L that's the issue. You are talking about Jack's competition (the top guys) being tougher than Tiger's because of their wins, specifically their Majors. It's no coincidence that all of Jack's competition had high major totals... It's because they were only competing against those same handful of guys. And that's the point. The fact that machines like Adam Scott and phenoms like Sergio only have 1 major is the smoking gun. It's the same reason why Johnny Miller said that Tiger wouldn't win even 10 majors because the fields are too deep. And as far as competition goes, Tiger won the Zozo, tour championship and Masters in short order against EASILY the toughest era in golfs history, being only maybe 70% of the golfer he used to be. So you can add guys like Rory, DJ, Brooks, Speith etc to your list of guys he would've clapped when he was in his prime.
@mtcollins64
2 жыл бұрын
I think Tiger's peak was greater than Jack's, but Jack's high level of excellence lasted longer than Tiger's. So it's a toss-up. Both are GOATs.
@douglasmc98
2 жыл бұрын
Agreed. My thoughts exactly. I think Tiger in his prime played the game better than anyone in history has ever played, but Jack’s consistency and longevity give him the edge on careers overall.
@charlesbarry7479
2 жыл бұрын
@@douglasmc98 You are both wrong. Tiger was great, Jack was better.
@reyrosasgolf
2 жыл бұрын
@@charlesbarry7479 no chance
@charlesbarry7479
2 жыл бұрын
@@reyrosasgolf Jack won 18 majors and came in second 19 times. 37 times Jack was 1st or 2nd in a major. Tiger won 15 and came in second 7 times. That's 22. Jack has the numbers to prove he was the best.
@reyrosasgolf
2 жыл бұрын
@@charlesbarry7479 Jack competed in 164 majors, won 18. Tiger competed in 87 and won 15. If you take Tigers winning percentage in major tournaments and multiply it to Jacks 164 majors played, Tiger would have 28 majors lol. Since you brought up numbers. Not to mention Tigers winning percentage on tour at 22.9% when no other player in history is above 10%.
@rickbarrett178
Жыл бұрын
As a tv fan since 1970 it seems to me that their are probably 3 times as many players talented enough to win majors as compared to the 1970's. BUT, it also seems like the top 10 players of the 70's were much more reliable finishers under pressure than today's top 10. Jack had to beat and lost some tough majors to guys like Palmer, Player, Casper, Trevino, Floyd, Watson etc. Guys who all managed to win multiple majors and who rarely threw away tournaments on Sunday's. The top 10 of Tigers 20 year era haven't been as prolific or reliable. And that includes the many times Tiger was injured and didn't play. Nobody ever stepped up to fill the void.
@cjsmith8319
2 жыл бұрын
I think the definition of “GOAT” goes beyond how many wins a person has. Tiger was the paradigm shift in golf. I think without him, golf would not be what it is today. He is who made golf “cool”. He made everyone want to play the game. Jack definitely earned his place amongst the greats, but if pressed I think Tiger is the best to ever play. Hands down.
@jwstorey173
2 жыл бұрын
Tiger had way deeper fields than jack did
@haroldarmstrong8285
2 жыл бұрын
Jack IS the greatest of ALL time!!!!!
@tomboston9669
2 жыл бұрын
Tiger went 8 years without missing a cut. 8 years ! But what really seals the deal for me is of the top 10 lowest scoring average seasons in the history of golf, Tiger has 8 of them including the top 6. The other two were Vijay Singh, and Greg Norman. Jack has 0. Tiger's dominance in that time is unparalleled in ANY sport.
@Kaddywompous
2 жыл бұрын
Correct me if I’m wrong: that stat wasn’t kept before 1980, which was past Jack’s prime period.
@tomboston9669
2 жыл бұрын
@@Kaddywompous Look up the Vardon trophy on wiki. The records began in 1947. Jack didn't win the lowest scoring average for a single season even once. Tiger's career scoring average is at least 2-3 strokes better than Jack's.
@Kaddywompous
2 жыл бұрын
@@tomboston9669 Fascinating. Never knew. Hogan? Snead? I’ll look it up.
@Kaddywompous
2 жыл бұрын
And wasn’t Tiger’s missed cut right after his Dad died? Maybe I’m misremembering.
@coophandluke3697
2 жыл бұрын
Jack played against 23 hall of farmers, tiger 6... jack 18 majors and 19 FUCKING 2ND PLACES
@MrAlliswell88
2 жыл бұрын
A better question is "WHO REALLY CARES?" It all depends on your B.O.P's (Beliefs, Opinions and Positions) There is no true answer!
@2ndPlayerGolf
2 жыл бұрын
In Jack’s peak condition I would love to see what he could do with a Callaway Epic. There’s no way of comparing the two with such a wide gap in technology during their “hay days”. But I personally cut my teeth hitting real woods 😋
@roguecheddar
2 жыл бұрын
Years ago I had the Driver, 3Wood, 5Wood 'Jack Nicklaus' set of MacGregor oil hardened persimmons with stiff shaft. I couldn't hit them worth a damn , but I'm still kicking myself for ever giving them away. (sigh)
@keanur6112
2 жыл бұрын
Thats the thing tho tiger did play that tech in the 80s/early 90s. He learned on small driver heads with 200cc and upgraded as the tech got much better throughout the late 90s and 2000s. If you watch his early career. You will see how masterfull he was with a 5wood from the fairway. No one comes close to that level and the shots he pulled of with a 5w and i believe it was because of him learning on the old tech and smaller driver heads of the time through his junior years . look at juniors todayl they play hybrids when they should learn to hit 3/4 iron. Thats where you learn and when your a pro you know how to shape those irons in the wind. This is where jack nicklaus and that era stood out. They could play 1/2/3 irons so masterfully in the wind.
@2ndPlayerGolf
2 жыл бұрын
@@keanur6112 As soon as I sent the comment I remembered oops he was playing with the “Old School clubs”.
@aaronzachar657
2 жыл бұрын
Yea imagine all the old time greats with new clubs... would love to see what they could do
@djrondo1224
Жыл бұрын
@@keanur6112 That’s not the question … who cares about technology…. Who performed better with what they had. Obviously we will never know what Jack could have done with a ProV1 and titanium/carbon driver but he could hit a small wooden one with a balata ball 300yds😮
@chrismathis4162
Жыл бұрын
Tigers best was better than Jacks best but for not as long. It depends on how you want to define greatness. Also, Tiger played in an era where there were more good golfers.
@167kinggam
Жыл бұрын
Not about longevity imo. It’s about who reached a level no other person in history can. But if u wanna make that argument, Tiger won the masters at 43 years old with against TOUGH competition.
@josephpowelliii9169
Жыл бұрын
Jack is the best golfer, and the better human being....period.
@craoutdoors6827
2 жыл бұрын
Like nick said the amount of 2nd places jack got too was crazy. Also most of tigers career is out there to watch so we see way more of him. but one of my favourites is Jack's final round at the masters in 86 worth a watch on youtube so many amazing shots and his putting was legendary this coming from a man who's eye sight wasnt the best at that point. Umtimatley we cant decide between the two as different eras but I would go for jack because of the majors he had won but also the players he was up against at the time, sam sinead, Arnold palmer, seve, watson, player. Wow!
@Whoopdido777
2 жыл бұрын
By the way, not as if Tiger didn’t have wins given to him, but Jack was gifted that Masters by both Norman and Seve. Jack finished the tournament at -9. Seve was -9 after #14. He bogeyed both #15 and #17 and finished -7. Norman was tied with Jack after #17, but bogeyed #18 and finished -8. At the very least there should have been a playoff. Jack got really lucky. Frankly just like Tiger got lucky in 2019. He just played his own game and everybody else wilted.
@bryanstock281
2 жыл бұрын
The bombs Jack drained on hole after hole after hole on that back 9 in ‘86 was absolute stupid! I’ve watched that KZitem over and over and Jack made it look so easy I had to keep reminding myself this is Sunday at Augusta pin placements and speed. What he did in ‘86 may never be topped. I think it’s the greatest major win of all time.
@jimcolbert-ij3se
Жыл бұрын
CRA, know what they say about guys that finish second, thats right, " they lost"".
@beckyhenkel7917
Жыл бұрын
@@jimcolbert-ij3seTiger is not for seconds. They suck and third is even worse! It's sad he had all those surgeries.
@spreet65
2 жыл бұрын
Fascinating just hearing Nick talk... 6 majors, so much understanding of the game.
@Scotland50
Жыл бұрын
Pretty hard to compare what tiger did as a Black man in golf, so much pressure his entire life. His peak golf was insane. Jacks focus on the course kinda nutty.
@georgewilson197
4 ай бұрын
Jack had a far better game, crapper clubs, balls and courses. He is also a far nicer person ad tried to help all no metter their skin colour.
@malarvannan3400
2 жыл бұрын
Excellent intellectual discussion with one of the all time great golfer of the game . What knowledge, game awareness and analysis on Tiger woods and Jack Nicklaus.
@Tiburon876
Жыл бұрын
That's a good summary..then how come Tiger won't use some of that intellectual in normal day to day life!!.. that is so MUCH needed 24/7
@rickbarrett178
2 жыл бұрын
Jack had 18 major titles and that's still the most ever. But what MIGHT be MORE amazing is Jack has 19 second place finishes in Major Championships. NOBODY ELSE COMES CLOSE TO THAT. AND NOBODY EVER WILL.
@ihavetubes
2 жыл бұрын
I think we tend to forget these legends grew up without having to deal with social Media. So they could relax more. Tiger had to worry about a lot more than jack.
@silversurfer8208
Жыл бұрын
Competition was easy way easier back then. Tiger was able to win in 4 generations of golf
@Jellybaby50
Жыл бұрын
SO agree.
@BritainsBestGuitar
Жыл бұрын
Totally wrong! Jack’s main competition we’re all Hall of Fame great golfers, like Arnold Palmer, Lee, Trevino, Gary player, Tom Weiskoff, Johnny Miller, Tom Watson, Ray Floyd, Seve Ballesteros, and many more! Tigers main competitors were chokers, like Phil Mickelson. Jack’s competition was much tougher than tigers.
@cjrrun
Жыл бұрын
@@silversurfer8208 absolutely not. Players were mentally tougher back when Jack was in his prime
@MarkSmithhhh
2 жыл бұрын
The only sure fact is tiger and jack are in one class of their own, and everyone else is far below them...it will always be between those two
@rodneychristian9834
2 жыл бұрын
Here's another way to look at it. Ben Hogan won 21% of the 300 PGA tournaments he entered, with 64 wins. He was either first, second or third 45% of the time. 76% of his tournaments he was in the top 10. 92% of the tournaments entered he was top 25. He only missed five cuts and three withdrawals for a 97% cuts made. Next, Byron Nelson had a winning percentage of 18% of 287 tournament entered, with 52 wins. 40% of the time he was first, second or third. 71% of the time he was in the top 10 and he made 96% of the cuts of tournaments entered. Tiger Woods has the highest winning percentage at 22%, 368 tournaments with 82 wins, incredible. He was either first second or third 35% of the time. 54% of the time he was in the top 10. 73% of the time he was in the top 25 and he made 90% of the cuts. Jack Nicklaus has played 584 PGA tournaments winning 73 times. His winning percentage is 12%. 28% of the time he was first second or third. 49% of the time he was in the top 10. 66% of the time he was in the top 25 and he made 84% of the cuts of the tournaments he entered. He has the most majors won and his 2nd place finishes in majors is astonishing. Nelson was only active for 12-13 years then he retired. Hogan's career was about 20 years but a fascinating statistic is that after his injury in Feb 1949, he only played in 20 tournaments through 1953, and of those 20, he won 6 majors, including back to back US Opens ('50, '51) and a total of 12 wins. His best year was 1948. He played in 21 tournaments and won 10, including the Masters, the US Open and the PGA. Everyone knows about his magical 3 majors, 5 out of 5 tournament wins during the 1953 season. But he is the only golfer to win 3 majors in the same year twice (1948, 1953). Think about that. He might have had two Grand slams had he had the opportunity to play in the Open in '48 and the PGA in '53. Statistically speaking, Hogan is the most dominant golfer. Between serving in world war II, his devastating injury and the fact that the British open conflicted with the PGA, he missed playing in 31 majors in the prime of his career. Hogan is the greatest professional golfer to ever live.
@rapidrecovery1545
2 жыл бұрын
Well, honestly I didn't think so but that convinced me. I'm a belieber. Amazing stuff. Thanks... also, I smell a Bobby Jones post coming )and wish you'd do one) because you said "professional" and nobody who writes a post like that, and chooses their words so wisely, inserts an additional qualifying word without great intent. Again, bravo. Well done.
@nicholasschroeder3678
2 жыл бұрын
You did a beautiful job of laying out what I suspect is true--Hogan really was never eclipsed. One other fun fact: from 1940 through 1960, he NEVER finished out of the top 10 in the US Open. Another sad fact, the accident left him effectively blind in one eye, which was a big factor in his putting woes (he was actually a good putter through 48).
@eugeneelar2231
2 жыл бұрын
Decent analysis but I disagree with percentages taken out of context.If you watch old shell golf films Snead and Hogan had horrendous putting strokes.Hogan I believe lost 2masters 3putting the 18th at Augusta.Woods and Nicklaus had ideal upbringing and instruction.Palmer didn't get on tour till 24 Trevino 27 for example and the tour was nothing like the modern era with so many tournaments.For example Nicklaus finished ahead of tiger at the masters couple years after tigers win in his late fifties and tiger like 24.Using modern equipment Nicklaus in his late fifties finished ahead of woods in prime young condition so I am not buying tiger better than jack or Hogan or nelson
@rodneychristian9834
2 жыл бұрын
@@eugeneelar2231 Yes, Hogan's putting stroke was not pretty. Nickolas may have been the greatest putter of all times. In his defense, Hogan lost much of his vision in one eye after the accident. But no denying Nickolas' greatness in any Era.
@burzul2736
Жыл бұрын
@@rodneychristian9834 Hogan won two majors in 1948 not three .
@shukigkato
2 жыл бұрын
Jack was remarkable in the Majors, but he wasn't quite as dominant as most people think. He won back to back majors exactly once - the 1972 Masters and US Open. Tiger on the other hand won his 4 in a row from the 2000 US Open to the 2001 Masters and additionally won back to back majors in 2002 and 2006.
@gjwhite
2 жыл бұрын
I laughed when he said that walking Augusta gives you shin splints. Peak performance here.
@valentindegen
2 жыл бұрын
I like faldo much more on your podcast than on tv
@mikemcdonald9337
2 жыл бұрын
They both have said that Majors is the judging stick for ranking players. Jack the most at 18. Also, most second place and top 10 finishes. Tiger, a close second but no cigar.
@samjames8690
2 жыл бұрын
Jack also said tiger is the best to ever play the game, I’m not going to argue with jack Nicklaus. Tigers the goat
@mikemcdonald9337
2 жыл бұрын
@@samjames8690 Jack was just being modest. Of course nobody in their right mind is going to call themselves the best ever. But 18 majors versus 16 majors and almost 20nd places in majors. No doubt about it. The Golden Bear.
@samjames8690
2 жыл бұрын
No modest person would call themselves the best, you’re right. But there’s a difference between not saying you’re the best; and going out of your way to say someone else is. Which is what jack did. Jack also played twice as many major championships, does he have double the majors?
@keithbrown8814
Жыл бұрын
@@samjames8690 because Jack is a consummate gentleman and not an egomaniac... he was always gracious and thought of others 1st!!
@GrumpyGolf4
2 жыл бұрын
Johnny Miller said it was Jack...no fault of Tiger, but Jack had to deal with Player, Palmer, Watson and others that were really good, HOF type players and Tiger didn't contend with that as much. I'll always be partial to Jack having seen him as I was growing up in the 70's. He was always a gentleman and never berated photographers, cheated on his wife, or endangered himself and others by driving under the influence...so it's a no brainer to me. I like to look up to people like Derek Jeter...not guys guy Clemens and Woods. To me, character matters, and Tiger fails that test.
@TheToledoTrumpton
Жыл бұрын
The thing everyone said about Tiger when he was 17, was: 1. He was going to win a lot. 2. He would start getting injured before he was 30. You could almost see his joints come apart and snap back together every time he hit the ball. Then there would be a squeak and a buzz as the club hit the ball and it left the driving range disappearing over whatever was at the end of it..
@keithbrown8814
Жыл бұрын
His son has the same snap in his left knee!!
@gimletinf69
Жыл бұрын
Tiger is the greatest and most dominant golfer golf has ever seen… His putting is something we have never seen and will never see again
@Markdfadf
5 ай бұрын
Most dominant? Yes. Greatest? No. Tiger fell of the map at a pretty young age. Jack was the tortoise that beat the hare.
@gimletinf69
5 ай бұрын
@@Markdfadf 82 wins (most all time) and holding all 4 major trophies/Jacket simultaneously with the Tiger Slam… 👆We will NEVER see that again I don’t know how you define “Greatest of All Time”….. But to me just those 2 feats are the minimum measuring stick of greatness in golf Jack didn’t come close😮💨💯
@Markdfadf
5 ай бұрын
@@gimletinf69 I define greatest of all time as having the best record. Tiger winning 4 majors in a row means nothing. Each major counts as one. A third of Tiger's events he won were limited field events. The Tour championship on that total has 30 players in it. Jack won no such events. Jack has 18 Majors. Tiger 15 Majors. Jack has 3 Players Championships (which they didn't start playing until he was 33. Tiger 2 Players Championships Jack had 19 seconds in majors Jack had 73 Top 10s in majors. Tiger only had 41 Top Tens in majors. Something no one brings up is Jack won 8 Senior Majors. Will Tiger win 8 senior majors. I guess we'll see. Tiger was not spectular from age 33 on. Jack was at that age. Their total career output isn't close. Tiger's gap behind Jack is the size of the Pacific Ocean.
@gimletinf69
4 ай бұрын
@@Markdfadf 🥱😴
@natethegreat3602
2 жыл бұрын
Also Jack is by far the better man and wasn't raised by a phsyco. Jack never cheated on his wife and never took pain pills or steroids like woods and actually treated people with class from day one unlike woods who only now has maybe matured in his 40's
@bobbrown5951
2 жыл бұрын
Dr. Anthony Galea was caught bringing HGH over the border but Woods never tested positive for it according to an ESPN writer. Steroids? People close to him, including Steve Williams, say he never did them. Would like to know where you saw that. Would be interested to see it. As far as his dad goes he certainly pushed him hard like a lot of hockey etc. parents do. That can get out of hand. There are stories that Earl was a carouser. Hearsay?
@silversurfer8208
Жыл бұрын
We’re talking bout golf. And tiger wins that. By a lot. Most Influential. Had a lower scoring average and was more exciting
@rrgoody
Жыл бұрын
@@silversurfer8208 Golf is measured in majors. That is a direct quote from Tiger. Jack has more firsts in majors and 12 more seconds in majors. Jack is by far better than Tiger.
@silversurfer8208
Жыл бұрын
@@rrgoody it’s called showing respect. That’s what MJ did when talking about past legends in basketball even tho everyone knows he’s the goat also.
@rrgoody
Жыл бұрын
@@silversurfer8208 Respect the fact Jack has more majors and 12 more seconds. Respect that!
@brianwashere7966
2 жыл бұрын
Hard for me to give the nod to Tiger. The club and ball tech Nicholas had to play with was stone age level by comparison. Yes all their competitors were on equal footing but for someone in Jack's era to win as consistently as he did with that garbage tech is just other level stuff.
@167kinggam
3 ай бұрын
terrible logic. Everyone in Jack's era was also playing with that same equipment. Literally the definition of an even playing field, and beside they made the courses harder (tiger proofing) to compensate for the advance in technology.
@lonestar6709
2 ай бұрын
@@167kinggam They don't understand. Jack dominated the most glittering era of Golf, in history. With todays equipment? He'd flay Tiger Woods!
@167kinggam
2 ай бұрын
@@lonestar6709 it was only glittering because the field was so weak. Only a few were able to shine. Also Jack never dominated, he wasn’t destroying anyone really. He was just consistent over a long period of time.
@aimeagle
2 жыл бұрын
Both are great! Hard to say who was "better". Seems Tiger was more dominant but golf wasn't everywhere when Jack was in his prime.
@infinitescreams6666
2 жыл бұрын
It was tiger who made golf everywhere! He was the person that made golf popular!
@bradelliott3698
2 жыл бұрын
Yeah too much of a tech difference , however , Jack could muscle the ball down near 300 yrds in the 60's ,, I pick Jack by a tiny bit ,, super consistent , longevity , playing on courses that werent finessed the way they are today ,, winning percentage etc .. all very little differences but i think Jack would come out on top
@golferdude3232
2 жыл бұрын
One thing we can all agree on is that Tiger Woods had changed golf, people literally watch golf not cause of golf but because of Tiger, facts.
@lukefisher7890
2 жыл бұрын
Agreed. Golf was on a downward swing, and people came to see this young "kid" making a splash...
@Willthethrill478
2 жыл бұрын
I’m 55, I started golf at 30 bc Tiger and so did all of my friends
@AndrewLane-pm2ro
4 ай бұрын
Two great players ... but if it's windy, my money's on Jack.
@mikemiller4169
2 жыл бұрын
Jack had less tech, better competition, lack of a green book and still dominated for a longer period of time. Could Tiger have done the same? That is the real question that will be unanswered.
@ronniemassart3834
2 жыл бұрын
Equipment is a huge difference.....Jack could hit over 300 yards in the 1960's with a driver that was equivalent to a 5 wood these days and they didn't have balls that were designed to go straight
@silversurfer8208
Жыл бұрын
And? Tiger still could swing faster and stronger
@hunkyhaggis2161
Жыл бұрын
@@silversurfer8208 "And?" No, there's nothing more necessary to say, Jack wins it.
@silversurfer8208
Жыл бұрын
@@hunkyhaggis2161 old head mindset. Y’all don’t know golf
@williwilliams5238
Жыл бұрын
Jack…..by faaaaaaarrrrr!!
@sportainmentjudge
4 ай бұрын
casual fans
@primarchvictus8560
2 жыл бұрын
I think the part that is being ignored that would be an argument favoring Tiger is the talent he was playing against. They talked about it earlier in the podcast but Faldo said when he played that there were 10 great ball strikers, now there may be 10 poor ball stikers. It's that much harder to win when everyone else else is so good.
@mglegacy012
2 жыл бұрын
I agree. Things like launch monitors, clubs, balls, etc have made it much easier for someone to have a chance at winning. Also the support that exists for junior golfers. Think of how many times you were watching a tournament and thought “who the hell are these guys leading?” It seems like when Jack played, his only real competition was 10-15 guys, whereas the #175th ranked player could win a tournament today
@chevy4x466
2 жыл бұрын
Actually, tiger came into a dead era of golf. Tiger saved golf and help make it what it is today. Jack played in a great era: Tony Jacqueline, lee Trevino, Watson Palmer miller and on and on. No slight against tiger though, jacks resume is way better. Builder of 300 awsome courses, and an amazing family.
@janga75
2 жыл бұрын
@@chevy4x466 what does his family(which you know nothing about btw) or how many golf courses he built have to do with them as golfers?
@johnnybgood7442
2 жыл бұрын
@@mglegacy012 your argument would hold little water anyway, but it gets destroyed when we just watched Tiger a couple of years ago win the Zozo, tour championship and Masters during the deepest, toughest era of golf. And he did that being maybe 75% of the player he used to be. Safe to say he would've dominated in any era
@kengallacher2722
2 жыл бұрын
when asked to build the perfect golfer faldo chose players from before the 90s, except for tiger. driver jack woods freddie long irons wieskof (spelling) short irons player sand trevino putting woods. says a lot.
@rickbarrett178
Жыл бұрын
Many great players, especially before 1960, played in few or no British Opens. Hogan played ONCE and WON it. Snead played one or 2 and won once. Other tournaments in usa like the North-South were regarded as prestigious as a US Open or PGA title. But WE don't count those wins as MAJORS for those players, even though the fields and courses were as tough as any OPEN.
@pigslefats
Жыл бұрын
Bobby Jones greatest player to ever live retired at 27
@psallen5099
2 жыл бұрын
Tiger placed first or second 22 times in 87 majors or 25%, Jack placed first or second 38 times in 164 majors or 23%, but Jack played in his last major when he was 65 years old!!! Unless Tiger plays until he’s 65 and passes Jack I’d say we have to give the GOAT award to Jack.
@jacknicholson8246
Жыл бұрын
Jack played with better top players Player 9 majors Watson 6 Palmer 7 Seve 6 Trevino 6 Tiger has played at a little higher level imo but it's also a different era. They're both great and won when they had to more times than not.i think jack is the goat
@generalveers1418
2 жыл бұрын
Jack Nicklaus has won more majors than anyone. He is the goat
@TomGillisGolfInstruction
2 жыл бұрын
Jack all the way !,
@billsinclair313
Жыл бұрын
Jack simply because of class and love of the game. Tiger, well he’s deficient in many areas of humanity.
@1kJae
4 ай бұрын
That’s irrelevant to what he did on the golf course . Stop acting like you lived a perfect life.
@billsinclair313
4 ай бұрын
@@1kJae whoa, struck a nerve there, I still think he’s a pig.
@stuartperry1047
20 күн бұрын
@@1kJaeFunny how the same people who critique Tiger for his flaws, adore a guy like John Daly BECAUSE of his flaws. Wonder if they'd feel the same way if Daly was a black guy.
@MLMfraser
2 жыл бұрын
Warning long response 😁 For Tiger vs Jack debate The true answer to the debate is that they are both so good that to decide the best is in someways an insult to both, the were and are the best for different reasons, and all around there is no ability to say that one is better without an argument that can be made for other that is hard to debate. For me the question is how long will it be till we get another player like either of them or for that fact better, my guess is a really long time, and as far as better, not sure anyone alive now will see it and truthfully that is entirely due to Tiger and the influence he has made on the game, not saying that decides anything or ends the debate in anyway but in itself it has to go down as a feat that is almost if not completely unmatched in sports history, and definitely unmatched in golf history, Tiger was one of the best ball strikers and shot shapers ever, he completely revolutionized the game of golf, changed the way it is played forever, changed the players, the viwers, and really everything about golf, and Nicklaus won the most Major and was an absolutely incredible golfer so for me honestly anyone saying one is greater then the other, hard to agree with it... What I can say is that I'm glad to have been around to watch Tiger play, it has been incredible, and wish I got to see more of Jacks career...
@WilliamFrogge
2 жыл бұрын
Greg Norman for driver Freddie for all other woods Jack for long irons Hogan for short irons Seve for wedges Tiger for putting
@reyrosasgolf
2 жыл бұрын
In a scenario where they were tied and paired up on a Sunday of a US Open, Tiger would hoist the trophy after 18 holes. He’s just different!
@SF-rw1oz
2 жыл бұрын
Based on what though? I'm not saying you're wrong but they can't be compared. In their peaks using the same equipment is the question and we just can't say.
@johnnybgood7442
2 жыл бұрын
@@SF-rw1oz I would say the difference is the wedge play. If you study Nicklaus' wedge play during his career, it was really sub par relative to the rest of his game. And when you consider he played on greens that were like Velcro compared to today's greens, it is even more eye opening.
@reyrosasgolf
2 жыл бұрын
@@SF-rw1oz based on the dominance of Tiger. At pebble in 2000, he won by 15 strokes as the only player under par at -12. Jack won there in 72’ at +2 and there were 24 players within 15 strokes of him. Both dominated and finished 1st but Tiger is different at that stage in my opinion.
@rogerparker4468
2 жыл бұрын
A lot of nonsense being made here about equipment difference. When Woods was coming through the amateur ranks and early pro days he was using similar clubs and balls. As a teenage amateur he was striping the driver 350 yards. Aesthetically speaking Woods was more pleasing on the eye and excelled in all aspects, bar driving off the First tee perhaps.
@Ronnie-nx6rw
Жыл бұрын
Jack said "I should have tried harder!" Ha
@luke2183
2 жыл бұрын
Jack for sure! We talking prime v prime with somehow same technology and ball etc. Jack the golden bear for sure
@MapleSyrupPoet
2 жыл бұрын
I support Jack #goldenbear 🐻👋
@skpknight8115
2 жыл бұрын
Of course the answer to this is one's opinion, but for me the answer is Jack and for two reasons; 1) The Majors and 2) the Competition .Now consider the Majors, which is perhaps the one record Tiger wants more than any other. Tiger has 15,Jack has 18.But Jack has 19 solo, or tied for 2nd 19 times to 7,maybe 8 for Tiger. 2) Tiger didn't play the competition that Jack did. Sure Tiger faced Phil, and V-Jay but he never faced Arnie, Gary, Raymond Floyd, Ben Crenshaw ,Tom Watson ,Billy Casper, even Nick Price. Again just my opinion.
@richardresendes2526
Жыл бұрын
Congrats Rick. What an accomplishment and experience. Looking forward to seeing the scorecard
@MrChannelnamehere
2 жыл бұрын
Jack had a multi-decade run of dominance but still had to fight for a lot of his wins. It's hard to imagine anyone going toe to toe with Tiger during his prime, even Jack. He was truly in a league of his own during that era. If you ask any pro during that era, the general consensus is that you were always fighting for 2nd place if Tiger played.
@dennisseibert9043
2 жыл бұрын
just not true .. not based on facts, just some assumptions that don't translate over the eras they each played in. If we are to assume tigers prime then we need to assume Jack's prime which by any measure was longer than tiger's 🐅 . Jack's competition by any measure was much stronger than Tiger's also. Tom Watson , Gary Player, Arnold Palmer ,Lee Trevino, Seve Ballesteros to name a few were all in a category of players that would give Tiger a run for his money any day of the week. None of these guys were one hit wonders. So now to the actual fact that makes this all possible and ties it up in a nice neat bow. If Tiger played in Jack's Era he would have lost such distance his intimidation would not have been possible. All these greats were never threatened by Jack's extra distance because it was just not that significant. so the same loss of distance to tiger would have been monumental to him. if he grew up in the 60's and 70s his dedication to his body would have also suffered. Now conversely if Jack and the boys were coming up in the Era of perfect balls , clubs , putters and conditioning their play would have been far better than it already was. Sure they have lengthened courses but that took many years to catch up to the technology so not a good counter argument. Jack won so many big tournaments and him coming in 2nd to those other legends of the game was no shame .. but again had tiger come 2nd to Rocco mediate that would have been poor indeed , (even with the bad knee) Tiger's length, short game and putting were his main strengths . All of these massively improved by technology. have you ever seen a lob wedge in the 60's.. they didn't exist.. those guys chipped with 6 irons .. cmon man .. it's all science and tiger had all its advantages. to think these guys that were consistently below par with wood woods and balls with 90 dimples couldn't compete with tiger at his peak is kinda comical.. Tiger is the man .. but Jack is Jack we shud never compare because we can't but if we try to assume the only assumption is Jack would have been better and tiger less so
@ibrodinho
2 жыл бұрын
@@dennisseibert9043 Wow, a paragraph of hogwash. Amazing!
@dennisseibert9043
2 жыл бұрын
@@ibrodinho too much for u to grasp eh? no worries bro lol . yur sentence is the definition of a useless counter argument and the basis for added reading comprehension in public skool
@40ollie67
2 жыл бұрын
Technology in clubs has changed. Jack playing Tiger on his era clubs beats Tiger. Tiger with his clubs and Jack using them too, is not as guaranteed. Who knows really?
@GolfQuestChannel
2 жыл бұрын
I think the last part is best - who knows really. They are both tremendous that we know for sure.
@leospaceman2976
2 жыл бұрын
Tiger grew up playing the old stuff. The new tech leveled the playing field a bit. I heard Bernhard Langer drives it farther now as a 64 year old then he did in the 1980s when he was in his 20s!
@GolfQuestChannel
2 жыл бұрын
@@leospaceman2976 Yes that's incredible. I know there would be lots of financial considerations with what I'm about to say, but I think a place like Augusta should consider moving to a standard ball moving forward. They can't control the clubs but I think it is more reasonable to be able to control the ball. Stop adding length and think outside the box a bit. Just an idea.
@40ollie67
2 жыл бұрын
@@GolfQuestChannel it'd kind of be cool to have a tournament that they have to use old fashioned refurbished woods and irons.
@MC-nb6jx
2 жыл бұрын
@@40ollie67 … And working out yardages the old fashioned way, using non of those measurements down to the inch😉😉
@leeprice2849
Жыл бұрын
The biggest difference is in Jack's Era to really make the big money you had to Win. Tiger had deeper fields he was playing against but they were already financially stable and didn't need to win. Tiger was playing against guys who were comfortable with just making the cut.
@jimcolbert-ij3se
Жыл бұрын
COMFORTABLE just to make the cut, sorry my friend but; you don't know professionals when they tee it up.
@jamesrock9917
Жыл бұрын
Some comment that
@rootedrotor525
2 жыл бұрын
I'd take Jack in his prime, if: Give him modern equipment and if he worked out like Tiger. Dude was more clutch than Woods - came back so many times from behind, unlike Woods. Better Driver: Jack. Better Irons: Jack: Better Chipper: Woods. Better Putter: Wash. More Clutch: Jack.
@ProthroGroupSA
Жыл бұрын
You guys are hilarious. Tiger didn't have to come back because most of the time he was in the lead (check your facts). He amassed 82 wins in how many fewer tournaments than Jack? How does 200 fewer tournaments played and 9 more wins equal "less clutch". Better irons? According to what? Jack has 3 more majors and Russell has 5 more rings than Jordan. Funny thing, you wouldn't hear these same folks calling Bill Russell the GOAT. But obviously Jack is great and this makes for great fodder back and forth.
@scottclark6685
2 жыл бұрын
Look up Tigers stats from 99-01. Win %, top 5’s, it’s literally video game numbers. he has the best 3 year stretch of any player from any era. However, forget jack winning 18 majors, he also finished 2nd 19 times. Had Tigers personal life not fallen apart this wouldn’t even be a discussion, but it did. Jack is still the best career overall
@thatwilldonicely1314
Жыл бұрын
although its off the actual discussion, Miller was impossibly good for three years !! even Jack was somewhat in awe of him at that time (73-76)
@michaelmontana0804
2 жыл бұрын
18=GOAT….nothing else to sat.
@nicholasschroeder3678
2 жыл бұрын
The big difference between the two is motivation. Tiger played at a higher level, but he also pushed himself a lot harder. Jack kinda cruised and never developed a great short game. He just wasn't as wrapped up in it: he had family that he genuinely cared about and led a much healthier and balanced life. I actually think Hogan belongs in the GOAT conversation as well. His achievement is as impressive as both Jack and Tiger's, given the limitations he faced, and the what-ifs--given the trajectory he was on before the accident?
@RepriseFan
9 ай бұрын
Tell me how you "cruise" and win 18 majors, finish 2nd 19X and have 55 top 5 finishes in majors?? To say Jack wasn't as wrapped up in it is completely absurd and devoid of any common sense.
@nicholasschroeder3678
Ай бұрын
@@RepriseFanHe had tremendous natural talent, didn't practice fanatically after his teens, played a limited schedule, and really did neglect his short game. He pretty much relied in the game and talent he started the tour with, and he admitted that he'd slacked off by his later 20s. He refsshioned his body and game at 30--and had his best years in the next 5--but he just didn't push himself nearly as hard as Tiger did. Better long-term career, and certainly the better life. But Tiger took the game to a higher level, no doubt. But it was a terrible price on his body and character.
@iananderson5900
2 жыл бұрын
Jack beat guys like Sam Snead, Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Tom Watson, Lee Trevino, Seve, Faldo, Ray Floyd, Greg Norman etc etc over a 25 year period. Many of the greatest ever. Tiger’s main rivals over his decade of dominance were Phil, VJ, Els and Duval. No comparison.
@janga75
2 жыл бұрын
Cuz he didn't allow them to be great. Tiger played in an era where everyone on their day was world class plus the tour was/is more international with players ready to win and compete. Jack still gets the edge because of the major wins but there is way more competition now. Thats just the nature of sports. Tiger had to beat Ernie Vijay Phil Adam scott Harrington Rory etc..all these guys in any other era would have had more majors. Jack had 5 or 6 serious rivals tiger had a whole tour.
@iananderson5900
2 жыл бұрын
Totally agree that the top guys of Tiger’s era would have won more if he hadn’t been so good. However, I feel as if greats will rise to the top in any era. In tennis, Federer, Nadal and Novak were unlucky to be in the same era. But they were so great, they still all won loads of slams. I also totally agree that the lesser players now are better than in Jack’s day. However, I think that’s only an issue if you’re battling to make cuts. If you’re winning majors, it comes down to those you have to beat to win. Many of the greats from the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s weren’t scared to win. They thrived under the gun. That didn’t seem to be the case with guys like Phil and Ernie in the late 90’s/early 2000’s.
@janga75
2 жыл бұрын
@@iananderson5900 yeah i remember early in tigers dominance people folded easily. I think the pressure from the press plus how dominant tiger was played a part. But in the mid 2000s guys started to catch up, they got fitter employed sports psychologists etc case in point, Vijay dethroned tiger for world no1 also winning nine times in one year. Phil got better because tiger kinda forced him to be better. If Duval didnt have an existential crisis plus the injuries he would have been tigers real rival. He was just as good as tiger imo. That would have been a great rivalry. In any event jack and tiger are GOATS and it just makes for a fun debate.
@SuperChalkster
Жыл бұрын
its always hard to compare people from different eras. but imo its more impressive to win in the modern era. Tiger was up against a stronger field then Jack was imo.
@BrianIverson1
Жыл бұрын
Wonderful video, Neil. I'm a new subscriber (from the beginning of your pond project). Many Americans could use your lessons in resourcefulness. In particular, I loved your recent video of your restoration of the John Deer for your dad. I look forward to your videos.
@Dragon-Slay3r
8 ай бұрын
Deploy the Lion! 😭 that blob was the force J blob they made straight with a minaret skull cap on it 😭 So God can beat the Christians, Muslims and Lucifer 😭
@Weshopwizard
2 ай бұрын
There’s a valid answer for each so I’ll go based on Ryder Cups. Jack wins hands down.
@grantp4022
2 жыл бұрын
It's easy to say Tiger, because we've all seen his wins in our era, so their fresh on our minds, so a lot would think Tiger was the better. When you look at Jack's records, you have to say "hold on now" they will be hard for anyone to ever best. Jack was a fantastic golfer, and played against some great competition. You know, I'd have to call it a draw between the 2, instead of speculating who was the best. If they had to square off head to head in their primes, they likely would have split this wins right down the middle. They both had immense mental fortitude, that few have. Let's call it a draw, and that's likely what it would be.
@rommelvillanueva8652
Жыл бұрын
Jack vs Tiger is like saying Ric Flair vs Shawn Michaels! Who is “The Man?”
@jimcolbert-ij3se
Жыл бұрын
Lets be honest, what Jack accomplished in his time was extraordinary. but he did it in a relative healthy career , never having to miss playing due to injury or illness, that is why he had nearly twice as many tournaments and Majors more than tiger did. Jack's career was nearly 24 healthy years, Tiger's was about 16 and a half of his total of roughly 25 years being healthy. Yet Tiger is better at every stat except 18---15 in major wins and he missed so many because of injury. Tiger played in half as many majors as jack, had he played in the same number ,there is no reason to think Tiger would not be sitting on at least 25 majors today. Plus a lot og the courses were tiger proofed to slow him down while I can't think of any courses changed to hinder Jack.
@MLMfraser
2 жыл бұрын
To the Jack played with less tech and if he played with today's clubs and tech think he would have...same can be said of Tiger, and how much better then everyone else he would he have been with those clubs and balls remember Tiger is one of, if not the purist ball strikers in golf history, he is also one of the most athletically, and mentally strong as well as intimidating golfers to every play, he won many tournaments with his mental strength as much as with his golfing abilities, so not sure the equipment they each played with or time they played in is a valid argument or would have made any difference in a comparison of the two and who would have beaten whom playing against eachother in their prime, truth is if either was in a tournament everyone else's chance of winning went down drastically. They are both Goat's we can never have them play eachother in their primes with the same equipment, the same conditions and competition, (though I wish we could, would be inssssaannneeeeeeee) so can't say who would be better with what equipment, or who would have the edge, just that they were both incredible and betterthen everyone else they played against,. Really hope I live to see someone as good or better play as watching even a little of Jack, and a lot of Tiger has been incredible, will remember Tigers last Masters win for the rest of my life.
@kjkblade69
2 жыл бұрын
Jack had old equipment with tiny sweet spot and a soft balata ball that spun like crazy and didn’t go nearly as far. Goat for sure! They had to change golf courses to make it harder for Jack he was so good!
@johnathonklinedinst5889
2 жыл бұрын
They did the same thing for Tiger.
@mpres1973
2 жыл бұрын
@@johnathonklinedinst5889 No sir they did not, you could say the same for Daly.
@deandrecrawford9245
Жыл бұрын
U gave tiger the same equipment he would’ve been just as dominate if not more due to the difficulty of everyone else hitting them.
@167kinggam
Жыл бұрын
@@mpres1973never heard of tiger proofing huh?
@jburrows1980
2 жыл бұрын
Tiger IS Golf!!
@jimlocke8281
Жыл бұрын
Answer: Tiger. The level of competition day after day for Tiger far exceeded the competition in Jack's prime.
@luckybowler3321
2 жыл бұрын
What would Jack have accomplished with modern clubs and balls?
@MLMfraser
2 жыл бұрын
Ya but the same can be said of Tiger, how much better then everyone else would he have been with those clubs and balls remember Tiger is one if not the purist ball strikers in golf history, and one of the most athletically and mentally strong and intimidating golfers to every play as well, so not sure it would have made any difference in a comparison of the two. They are both Goat's we can never have them play eachother in their primes with the same equipment so can't say who would be better with what equipment just that they were both incredible, hope I liveto see someone as good or better play watching even a little of Jack, and a lot of Tiger has been incredible, will remember Tiger last major win for the rest of my life.
@Foxtrot1967
Жыл бұрын
No more Tiger in old Eldrick. Great to know Jack Nicklaus will still be known as "The Greatest Golfer"
@Punishergames1
2 жыл бұрын
Neither of them are the best in my opinion Ben hogan is he came back after having a car accident and breaking both of his legs and still kept winning after he came back three years later even after getting 3 years of his prime taken away he is still fourth in pga wins which is incredible
@MH77391
Жыл бұрын
I think that no one has dominated like Tiger. My view is skewed however by fact I don't admire Tiger. My vote therefore would probably still go for Nicklaus. Watch Nicklaus hitting 1 irons. It's incredible!
@axlejohnson9156
Жыл бұрын
Faldo said it. Jack was always there and you had to know he was lurking around. Just in mental strength alone, Jack Nicklaus was way ahead. Nicklaus wasn't playing with a multi million dollar NIKE sponsorship in his pocket like Tiger was, straight out of college. What would Jack Nicklaus have done, in his prime with titanium woods and graphite shafts and new ball technology. I also believe that the competition Jack faced was a whole lot more competitive. Jack played against some of the greatest names in golf. But aside from the game, Jack Nicklaus is just a better person with stronger character.
@rorrt
2 жыл бұрын
The thing I always admired about Tiger Woods, and this isn't unique amongst golfers. Is the perfect mental state of "there is nothing I can't control about me and my performance". He's almost the antithesis of Novak Djokovic taking his homeopathic potions, sleeping with crystals under his pillow and playing with magnets in his shoes. Like that gives him the extra 1% on his opponents. I also got the impression that Woods worked really really hard. I got the opposite impression from my all time favourite golfer, Seve. I know both are incorrect, to win anything you have to work your bollocks off to buy enough lottery tickets, and some of those tickets will pay off.
@RepriseFan
9 ай бұрын
Had Tiger avoided all the injuries and mishaps he would have been the greatest and had more majors but fell short. Tiger dominated a decade like no other Golfer ever will but Jack was more consistent over a 24 year span to pick up his 18 majors. Once the 2010's rolled around and the competition stiffened Tiger won only one major and there's the difference people rarely talk about which is the degree of difficulty.
@Klistern2
Жыл бұрын
Imo if they swapped places in time, Tiger would have won 30 majors. But his injuries would have ended his career at age 40 so he would have had to get busy early. Which he did anyway.
@natethegreat3602
2 жыл бұрын
Jack by far holds more majors by 3 and 8 more 2nd / 3rd place finishes as well. Jack also played against way better talent as all you need to do is look at all the hall of famers in his time compared to all the losers eldrick played against who won't even sniff the hall.
@MrJstuck465
2 жыл бұрын
The competition argument is hilarious. Jack played against some HOF’s, but so has Tiger. The difference is the remainder of jacks competition had no business being called “pros”.
@natethegreat3602
2 жыл бұрын
Let me further break it down for you jack played against Legends Watson Trevino Crenshaw Miller Palmer etc tired played against good golfers Vijay Phil and who knows.... Tiger dominated may dimarco love lll
@MrJstuck465
2 жыл бұрын
@@natethegreat3602 hate to break it to you, but those legends you named, with the exception of Palmer, would be no more successful than any of the guys Tiger beat up on. In jacks day 4-5 people had a chance to win the tourneys including him, in tigers day there were 30 guys capable of winning. It’s no different than the NBA in that day vs today. There is zero comparison.
@MrJstuck465
2 жыл бұрын
@Cindjor Jr apparently reading is tough for you
@thomashacker9029
2 жыл бұрын
I find it funny how the people who argue the Tiger is the greatest say that it’s because of his dominance and then in the next breath contradict themselves by saying there were 30 people who could win every week. Which one is it? It can’t be both.
@BB-wb9lv
Ай бұрын
I had the good fortune to see both of them play in their prime, but there are just too many variables to compare great players of different generations. So the question is unanswerable. We will never know who was better. But I can say they were the 2 best players I ever saw.
@iainfairholm2096
Жыл бұрын
No competition. Hands down Jack is the GOAT. Tiger is just roadkill on Jack's Highway.
@666dr
3 ай бұрын
Mate..you are not writing for a newspaper here..
@djrondo1224
Жыл бұрын
Jack is the GOAT….. numbers don’t lie.
@cjrrun
Жыл бұрын
Jack's opponents respected him, but didn't fear him. They were mentally tougher and wouldn't quit. Tiger's time, private Jets, personal trainers. Way easier than Jack's time. Not to mention equipment. Number of seconds in majors. Won 8 majors from behind. Tiger only one.
@tameimpala37
Жыл бұрын
Definitely Tiger. Jack could never win majors and juggle mistresses like Tiger!!!
@ericjencson9489
Жыл бұрын
Tiger in his prime would have kicked Jack's butt just like he kicked everyone else's butt.
@63002
Жыл бұрын
Your a dope.
@666dr
3 ай бұрын
Talks cheap buddy
@chrisb.4496
Жыл бұрын
Mr. Nicklaus
@part1801
2 жыл бұрын
Jack played with better top players Player 9 majors Watson 6 Palmer 7 Seve 6 Trevino 6 Tiger has played at a little higher level imo but it's also a different era. They're both great and won when they had to more times than not.
@davidbarnard1409
Жыл бұрын
In all Honesty Tiger is the GOAT. Tiger dominated golf (Amateur and Pro) from 1991-2009. In that era golf was big in Europe, Asia and the States. In Jacks day golf was big in the States. It practically didn't exist in Asia and Europe was very small except for the occasional Ryder Cup and a British open.
@papihuge6702
Жыл бұрын
Not a huge golf fan but I do watch a bit, this podcast came up on my recommended and it’s great! Very good clip 🔥
@lonestar6709
2 ай бұрын
Woods had the best equipment, the audience on his side, and was protected like no tomorrow. And the courses were shortened, to allocate his game. He also came and went, in less than 10 years. He was a flash in the pan. Jack remained the top player for 20 years, against the greatest era of golfers in history. Player. Trevino. Palmer. Snead. Watson. Ballesteros. Faldo. All of them, multiple major winners. The only world class player Woods competed with, was Mickelson. Don't even compare the two. Nicklaus by a mile. And it's not even close.
@danieljd6776
2 жыл бұрын
Jack played in a golden era of golf with Arnold, Gary, Trevino, Watson, Casper, Seve, and so on... Tiger single handedly made golf much watch and made golf cool again.
@MarkSmithhhh
2 жыл бұрын
Or, tiger was so good he didn't allow anyone else to even make their own legacy...Jack wasn't that much better than those guys...thats why they were able to win so much and become legendary...tiger was so much better he made a lot of would be legends obsolete
@johnnybgood7442
2 жыл бұрын
@@MarkSmithhhh exactly. Skill wise, they were all in Jack's category. The advantage Jack had was that he could hit the ball a mile in the air. Nobody was really in Tiger's category, skill wise. Phil was close, but Tiger was a different animal.
@HRHBooBoo
2 жыл бұрын
Jack. No doubt
@billsinclair313
Жыл бұрын
Considering the clubs Jack used vs. what Tiger used, just imagine what Jack in his prime would have done with modern clubs/technology and modern balls. Jack hands down.
@billmoyer3254
Жыл бұрын
nobody could win majors and be creepier to women than Eldrick
@ryanbaggs3568
2 жыл бұрын
I’ve actually never seen Jack hit a golf ball…and I’ve been golfing all my life
@codyallen9486
2 жыл бұрын
They are both tied to me but if tiger gets 1 more win in any tournament then he will be by himself in wins
@richdouglas2311
2 жыл бұрын
This is the second video where I am wondering, "Who is the other guy?" (No, not Sir Nick.) Perhaps, since he's holding a mic, Rick could give him a speaking role? Frankly, my esteem for Sir Nick has gone up with these clips. He talks almost nothing about himself, and shares so many incredible insights about others. I like him a lot more than ever before.
Пікірлер: 552