The Harsh Truth About the GOAT Debate

🔴 WATCH NEXT: Gary Player LIFESTYLE Is NOT What You Think ▶ https://youtu.be/zlmZkQp8DLo

The mistake you make in percentages is including all the years Jack continued to play when he was no longer the best - Tigers fall from the top has been steep with very few starts since his problems began.

A key to this debate lies with the inferior golf ball Jack played throughout his entire career. Jack was signed to MacGregor and dutifully played whatever golf ball they produced. Almost no other top player would play that ball. Ben Hogan flat refused to play a MacGregor ball even when signed with them. After a 300 hundred-yard drive, Jack would hit an approach shot with a ball that had still not returned to round from the deformation of the drive. The same when putting. Jack would putt with a ball that was out of round!! Jack's pro majors total of 18 is unbelievable considering the inferior ball he loyally played. A second item not mentioned here was the difference between golf course conditioning in the 60's and 70's and from the late 90's onward. In Jack's era, the courses were set up and conditioned as the courses wanted so there were huge differences in almost every aspect of the events throughout the year. By Tiger's era, the courses were far more uniform in setup and conditioning requiring far less adjusting week to week. Add in Tiger's "horses for courses" titles and we can quickly see how he relied on courses he liked. Jack had his favorites as well but his variety of course wins is remarkable. The graphic on Tiger's injury list is interesting and the lack of a comparable Jack list may be because Jack would not make such a list. Tiger's injuries were sometimes self-induced through ill-advised activities as well.

I think Butch Harmon said it best when he said "Nicklaus is the greatest champion, but when he was playing his best, I think Tiger was the best golfer I’ve ever seen."

Bobby Jones..... Entered a total of 11 US Opens - 4 wins (tied with Nicklaus and Hogan), 4 seconds, one 5th, one 8th. Entered the Open Championship 4 times, won 3 (tied with Nicklaus and Woods). The amateur championships were also considered majors in those days: US Amateur - 13 entries, 5 wins, 2nd twice, lost in the semi-finals twice. Amateur Championship (aka British Amateur) - 3 entries, 1 win. Never won the PGA because he was an amateur. Never won the Masters because he didn't start the tournament until after he retired from regular competition. From 1923, when he was 21, until his retirement at 28, Jones entered the 4 tournaments he was eligible to play 21 times, winning 13 times and finishing second 4 times. That's what dominance really looks like. Oh, yeah, he also won all 4 of them in 1930 - the Grand Slam. And for influence on the game, he founded Augusta National and started the Masters. Plus he issued a series of instructional films in the 1930s that helped spread the game.

One cannot forget about Bobby Jones. He only golfed as an amateur, because professionals had an unsavory reputation at that time. But, had they all been professionals at the same time, with the same equipment, it would be a constant and very close battle for numbers 1A, 1B and 1C. Debating is always fun unfortunately we will never truly know.

Let me be clear up front - Jack and Tiger are definitely the two greatest golfers of all time. For various reasons, some will favor Jack and some will favor Tiger. Having said that, I have trouble with some of the analysis in this post. You can't compare Jack's lifetime percentages to Tiger's percentages to age 46. Jack played in so many tournaments after his prime that his percentages would certainly drop. A few years ago, I compared performance between the two to age 43 (meaning just before they turned 44). Tiger had the higher win percentage, 22.6% to 15.8%. Jack had a higher percentage of top 3 finishes, 37.8% to 36.6%. Jack had a significant lead in top 10 finishes, 65.5% to 55.0%. Both were phenomenal at making cuts, but to age 43, Jack's rate for making cuts was an astounding 95.2% while Tiger's was 90.5%. I think changes in training methods and fitness regimes is irrelevant. In either time period all players had whatever resources were available in that era. As a result, we cannot say that Tiger's competition is tougher than the competition Jack faced. Tiger has the same access to resources as does his competition. The same is true of equipment. All players had access to whatever was available in the era. Speaking of competition, in his career Jack regularly played against 3 golfers who were are in the top ten for career wins. Tiger played against two in the top twenty, Phil at #8 and Vijay at #14 (It must be noted that Vijay's last win was in 2008). However, I think that each week through all of Tiger's career, there were likely more competitors who had a realistic chance of winning than there were in Jack's career. For Majors, we all know that Jack has 3 more wins that Tiger. For 2nds and 3rds, Jack's numbers are far higher than those of Tiger, 19 to 7 for 2nds and 9 to 4 for 3rds. If we look at Majors to age 43, Jack played 96 events to Tiger's 83. Since Jack won at age 46, he had only 17 wins to age 43. Tiger had a slightly higher winning percentage, 18.0% to 17.7%. From then on, it is always Jack in the lead - for 2nds 19.8% to 8.4%, for 3rds 9.4% to 4.8%, for top five 57% to 40%, for top tens 69.8% to 49.4%. In any consideration of greatness, the length of a career is important. Tiger accumulated more wins earlier in his career than did Jack. Jack had more staying power. I think that between ages 33 and 43, Jack had 20 wins and Tiger had 10. I can't conclude that one is better than the other. In case you couldn't tell, overall, I favor Jack as the GOAT. Tiger has been better at winning outside of the Majors. In events overall, it is a tossup on top 3s, but Jack has a significant lead in top 10s. In the Majors, it is a tossup on wins but Jack has a dramatic lead in 2nds, 3rds, top 5s and top 10s. Frankly, I have been blessed to have been alive to watch both of them as they proved they are the best, well ahead of those behind them.

How many times Jack came in second is almost more amazing than his 18 major wins

Golf will always be remembered through Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus, they're two superb players who emphasize excellence in the sport. In my eyes, they're both great and I don't think anyone should declare one over the other.

I'm old school! Jack was playing at Augusta National when I lived there and I am SUCH a fan! Jack all the way!

Jack with those 19 2nd place finishes in majors is awesome. He could have won 37 majors! Tigers injuries and other self-inflicted life events cost him time and possibly more wins and majors. Jack, although not injury free, was able to continue playing and never really missed a beat. For me, it's Jack as the GOAT, but Tiger gets honorable mention with an asterisk....what could have been had he been healthy.

They are both equally great. Jack had serious competition from far greater players.

Jack was the best in his era and Tiger in his. Jacks character was and is the finest. It would have been wonderful if the same could be said about Tiger.

The topic that seems to come up the most is the number of Majors. In that regard, not only does Jack have the most major wins, but he has the most 2nd place finishes in majors with 19. The next from there is Mickelson with 11. Tiger is down the list a bit with 7. So if Jack would have won just a few of those, we would not be having this discussion.

Who do you think is the GOAT? Jack Nicklaus or Tiger Woods Let us know below ⬇️

Tiger won more in less time with many more injuries. I think that says a lot. Bobby Jones only played a few years and won percentage wise much more. Plus the grand slam, that no one has ever matched, before retiring from golf.

Very good analysis. The one thing to consider is Tiger could’ve done it with the equipment from Jack time. Tiger would’ve had to play a more controlled game with that equipment.

Both are/were amazing. One piece of the puzzle not touched on are the purses in the Tiger years. The money he made through winnings and endorsements allowed him to pick and choose when to play. Jack had to play more often to make a living. I wonder if Tiger had been forced to play as much as Jack, if his body would have broken down quicker. Also, I don’t think we can discount the differences in equipment. This is an impossible debate. Both are great champions.

Jack finished first or second in 37 majors. Tiger Woods finished first or second in 22 majors. Sorry, but 37-22 is sort of a blowout. If you make it top 5 finishes Jack leads 56-31. Tiger was great but Jack was otherworldly.

Tiger is GOAT and it ain't even close. One huge point that wasn't mentioned in this video is that Tiger won 18 World Golf Championships where the field were just as strong if not stronger than in the majors. Only the official top 50 World Golf ranked players could play in the WGC events. Also, Tiger's era had wayyyyyyyy better competition who were fitter, stronger and better coached, a new generation that followed Tiger's blueprint. During Jack's era, many players were overweight and smoked cigars. Tiger won so much that people thought the competition was weak. Tiger's biggest opponent was himself because he was so great. Tiger was so dominant that players wilted when he was in the lead, they coined the term "The Tiger effect." Also, no other PGA golfer has won the grand slam in consecutive wins like Tiger has aka "Tiger slam," Bobby Jones is the ONLY other golfer to ever do it but he was an amateur. This alone makes Tiger GOAT. PS. For those of you who mention Jack's numerous second place major finishes is better, Tiger always said "second place is first place loser." NOBODY cares about second place finishes in golf. I bet most of you can't recite who came in second place in the last major. lol