- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Jack vs Tiger
Posted on 4/2/25 at 7:46 am to dblwall
Posted on 4/2/25 at 7:46 am to dblwall
No one has to get sucked into an either, or. Jack had his own era and played at a time when the PGA was being formed. He was a steady player and his second-place finishes in majors and other tourneys are almost as amazing as all the wins. Tiger's records on so much of the game that don't include all his wins are more than amazing. Many will never be broken.
This is even a discussion because Tiger didn't have health even at a very young age. He lost his age 30 decade, for the most part, and still has 82 PGA wins—that's crazy good. When Tiger played, he was so much better than anyone coming in second during this time. Tiger would have easily had over 100 PGA wins and 25 majors if he could have enjoyed decent health. That is golf dominance, the likes of which we will never see again.
This is even a discussion because Tiger didn't have health even at a very young age. He lost his age 30 decade, for the most part, and still has 82 PGA wins—that's crazy good. When Tiger played, he was so much better than anyone coming in second during this time. Tiger would have easily had over 100 PGA wins and 25 majors if he could have enjoyed decent health. That is golf dominance, the likes of which we will never see again.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 8:22 am to grizzlylongcut
quote:I mean Tiger’s career essentially ended in 2013 due to injuries. If he’d retired then this would be as nonsensical a statement as it gets. All but 1 of his majors occurred in a 12 year span before his body started breaking down and his personal turmoil. He’d have Tiger-proofed all of Jack’s records if he wasn’t closer to an android at 30
Who gives a shite about the peak? Throughout their entire history of their careers, Jack is better.
Tiger’s the superior and it’s not particularly close. Sorry geezer
This post was edited on 4/2/25 at 8:27 am
Posted on 4/2/25 at 8:39 am to dblwall
If Tiger would have left his swing alone, he'd probably have Jack beat in every category.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 8:41 am to ChestRockwell
quote:
Give Jack modern clubs and he is the GOAT.
Jack didn't have modern clubs during the time he played? The frick was he playing with? The flintstones club? A stick with rock tied to it?
Posted on 4/2/25 at 8:51 am to 3PieceSpicy
quote:last amateur to win on tour, oldest major champ ever
think Phil is arguably at 1
Posted on 4/2/25 at 8:57 am to _Hurricane_
quote:
Jack is a better person. Tiger is a better golfer. Anyone who says different to either of those propositions is kidding themselves.
No one will ever touch prime Tige
Who is the better person has nothing to do with it nor does who's prime was the best. Not many will argue that Jacks prime was better than Tigers, but when considering who's the goat, you don't just take their prime. Jack's resume is just better, anyone who says different to that is kidding themselves.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 9:03 am to dblwall
Tiger is the best player of all time. I don't think anyone can really argue otherwise.
Jack has the GOAT career at this point and I don't think anyone can really argue that, either. Tiger was on pace to shatter it all, but the last 15 years have been an adventure
Jack has the GOAT career at this point and I don't think anyone can really argue that, either. Tiger was on pace to shatter it all, but the last 15 years have been an adventure

Posted on 4/2/25 at 9:05 am to bamameister
quote:
He lost his age 30 decade
Yea, it is kind of wild to think about him not having the decade you are "supposed" to be in your golfing prime

Posted on 4/2/25 at 9:10 am to chalmetteowl
quote:
last amateur to win on tour
Nope
Posted on 4/2/25 at 9:20 am to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
Yea, it is kind of wild to think about him not having the decade you are "supposed" to be in your golfing prime
You must be thinking about the multiple major knee surgeries and at least 5 major back surgeries, including a spine fusion that cost at least a decade of competition. Then being out for so long and now in his 40s, goes out and wins the Masters for the 5th time. Tigers' 30s, in perfect health, would have been unlike anything the record books have ever recorded.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 9:25 am to Tiger Ugly
Jack Nicklaus: “In 1930, there were perhaps ten golfers, pro or amateur, who might defeat Bob Jones when everything was right for them. After my first few years as a pro, there were maybe 30 guys who could beat me if I wasn't playing my best. If I were out there today (1998), that number would be tripled.”
This post was edited on 4/2/25 at 9:26 am
Posted on 4/2/25 at 9:30 am to bamameister
Yea, that Masters win was one of the most remarkable things i've ever seen. It really felt like going back in time, just how it all unfolded that Sunday. Buddies and I were going bonkers watching.
We kind of felt at the time that would be the last time we saw that kind of play from him. I'd love to get it one more time, but at this point I just don't see how that is possible.
We kind of felt at the time that would be the last time we saw that kind of play from him. I'd love to get it one more time, but at this point I just don't see how that is possible.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 9:51 am to ChestRockwell
quote:
Give Jack modern clubs and he is the GOAT.
I'd love to see Jack in his prime with modern-day equipment! His driving distance would have been insane. It would be amazing to see both of them in their prime, head-to-head. People often forget that Jack was clutch in key moments, just like Tiger was during his prime.
Ultimately, it's a matter of perspective: If you prioritize major championships and longevity, Jack Nicklaus is the clear winner. If you value peak dominance, career wins, and influence on the game, Tiger Woods has a strong case.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 9:54 am to Muahahaha
quote:
Give Jack modern clubs and he is the GOAT.
Jack would be less dominant with modern equipment. Modern equipment brings the field together, not separate it. Hitting the middle of the face and being punished for bad shots has all been eliminated for pros with modern balls and club heads.
Grab a balata and a 175cc driver head and hit it 8mm on the toe against a modern driver and see what happens
Posted on 4/2/25 at 9:56 am to dblwall
Jack is the goat. The PGA tour wouldn’t exist without him. 86 is one of the greatest sporting moments of all time. But tiger is just the better competitor and golfer. Everyone talks about 18 vs 15 but no one talks about Tiger surpassing his wins record in half the time it took Jack.
The fact that it’s even a debate when one guy has basically a 15 year stretch vs 3 decades..
The fact that it’s even a debate when one guy has basically a 15 year stretch vs 3 decades..
Posted on 4/2/25 at 10:01 am to tigre704
quote:
Jack is the goat. The PGA tour wouldn’t exist without him.
They wouldn’t be giving away $10MM+ every week without Tiger
Posted on 4/2/25 at 10:36 am to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
Grab a balata and a 175cc driver head and hit it 8mm on the toe against a modern driver and see what happens
And playing with older technology forged irons.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 10:42 am to tigre704
quote:
The fact that it’s even a debate when one guy has basically a 15 year stretch vs 3 decades..
That's the reason it is a debate

Posted on 4/2/25 at 10:59 am to dblwall
Tiger is my favorite, Jack is the GOAT
Posted on 4/2/25 at 11:18 am to ChestRockwell
quote:Sigh
Give Jack modern clubs and he is the GOAT.
Tiger would have been more dominant if the equipment was dated when he played
Popular
Back to top
