Jack vs. Tiger
Monday, April 6, 2009 18:14
Mike Celzic pens an always excellent column for NBC sports. This week’s edition posits Tiger Woods is “playing on borrowed time” because of his once shredded, now repaired left knee. Mr. Celzic reasons Tiger’s joyous Bayhill celebration with his caddy demonstrates the superstar golfer’s tacit acknowledgement that his knee could pop at any time and that surgically invaded leg joint can’t take the pounding Woods demands of it. Celzic continues:
All he [Woods} cares about is the five more majors he needs to get to 19 for his career and one more than the total won by Jack Nicklaus.
You can call Woods the greatest golfer who ever lived, and you won’t get many arguments. But he knows that he’s not the best until he beats the best. That’s Nicklaus and his total of 18 major titles.
Right now, the knee’s fine, but it might not still be that way in another four or five years — or even three years. Woods is 33, still young for a professional golfer. But he’s not thinking, “I’ve got plenty of time to catch Jack.” He’s thinking, “I’ve got to do it now.”
There is no doubt Tiger Woods is one of those rare souls who had a vision of what he wanted his life to look like before he could spell the word vision. He was also blessed with a father who recognized and nurtured his son’s god-given talent. Tiger’s focus, his singleness of purpose, his drive are as impressive as any golf shot he’s ever made.
There is no doubt the stars were aligned for Eldrick Woods Jr. One could say he was destined for greatness. Many are—except some end up in Hollywood hotel rooms with their eyeballs full of heroin. Others can’t stand the heat or the light the stars give off and waste away in dark-boothed taverns addicted to nicotine and what could have been. Still others never allow themselves to reflect the light God shines upon them.
There is no doubt Tiger, by all accounts, is a class act, cognizant of the great responsibility his gifts bestow on him. Any father would wish his son could be just like Tiger—if only for the golf lessons.
There is also no doubt, countless pundits agree, that you won’t get many arguments if you call Tiger Woods the greatest golfer who ever lived.
However, you will get one here: Jack Nicklaus is golf’s all-time best player.
First, the props: even if Tiger never wins another major, you can still make a case that he is the greatest of all time. He’s won more tournaments by age 33 than anyone else. He has dominated his era like few before him. He has never given up a lead after 54 holes. His all around game—from tea to cup—is perhaps unmatched in history.
However, greatness is defined by much more than talent.
CRITERION OF GREATNESS
To compare athletes of different eras we can look at their performance over identical time spans of their careers. A statistical analysis of Tiger’s and Jack’s first 13 years as golfing professionals reveals just how great they are. One truth jumps out…
Dominance
Major championships are golf’s gold standard; both legends clearly dominated their respective eras and no matter what Tiger does from here on in, they will have firm grasps on the sports record books—until Jesus returns.
During the first thirteen years of Nicklaus’ career, he won12 Majors, finished second 9 times and third 6, for a total of 27 top three finishes. He missed the cut three times. (We are excluding Jack’s second place finish in the 1960 U.S. Open in which, as an amateur, he missed a short putt and lost to a charging Palmer, who shot a 65.)
In his thirteen years on tour, Tiger has won 14 majors, placed second 5 times, and took third 3 times—21 top three finishes. He missed the cut only at the 2006 U.S. Open.
A year-by-year comparative analysis can be found here:
http://secdominates.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/14176339/14279590
An interesting stat from that blog: Jack Nicklaus never won a Vardon Trophy, the award for lowest adjusted scoring average in a given year. Tiger has six Vardons on his mantle. Jack did, however, record the lowest scoring average six times and was second in six other years.
Given the above equity, the raw 13-year statistical analysis leaves the question of who is the better golfer unanswered, for now.
What qualities, achievements, or other criteria define greatness in sports besides statistical pre-eminence or dominating performances? Longevity, overcoming adversity, and quality of your opposition are three I will explore…
Next week…
Nate Barlow
says:
April 7th, 2009 at 1:28 am
Looking forward to the quality of opposition argument. I think that is one of the most important considerations in looking at any individual player's greatness. It's a difficult variable to balance between athletes of different eras. At one point does utter domination over weaker competition factor more than being the best, but only relatively better, than stronger opposition?
Great analysis so far!
Topics about Pens » Archive » Jack vs. Tiger says:
April 6th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
[...] Deep Into Sports placed an observative post today on Jack vs. TigerHere’s a quick excerptMike Celzic pens an always excellent column for NBC sports. This week’s edition posits Tiger Woods is “playing on borrowed time” because of his once shredded, now repaired left knee. Mr. Celzic reasons Tiger’s joyous Bayhill celebration with his caddy demonstrates the superstar golfer’s tacit acknowledgement that his knee could pop at any time and that surgically invaded leg joint can’t take the pounding Woods demands of it. Celzic continues: All he [Woods} cares about is the five more m [...]
Gairzo
says:
April 7th, 2009 at 4:37 am
Thanks, Nate…A confession…
I thought the first thirteen year comparison would show Jack as the clear winner. I think the fact Nicklaus was in the top three in over half the majors he golfed in is 12% better than Tiger's but not as much as I thought.
Few years back, Sporting News did a "what if" the great NFL dynasties played one another. Ended up the '49ers beat the Steelers in the final.
I respect the 49ers great team. But, even if you aren't a Steeler fan, damn, year in year out they had to beat Oakland and Miami just to earn the right to play a Dallas team in the Super Bowl. In the first win against Minnesota they were heavy underdogs. Those three organizations still contend they were the real team of the '70's.
The better Nidal gets the more impressive Federer looks when he wins. Ali is the greatest because he beat a human tank with a left hook two outta three. When Ali beat Sonny Liston, nobody gave him a chance. Liston was a monster. Ali beat Foremen. People thought Foremen would destroy him.
I love Tiger, but the media re-coronates him with every time he wins a tourney. Look at Bayhill. O'hair gags on the first three holes. All these guys fold when it comes time to step up.
Gairzo;s Brain
says:
April 7th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Again, the side of my brain that does math was evidently, seriously damaged by Sister Philomena clanging the recess bell off my skull. Mr. Woods had 22 top three finishes not 21.
Nate Barlow
says:
April 7th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
That's exactly why I'm intrigued by the competition question. Yes, Jack's opposition seems tougher than Tiger's. But Tiger is so dominating, would he quite possibly still have all those titles even if the competition is better? I don't know. No one will ever know. It's the eternal problem of comparing athletes of different eras. Without that head to head… I suppose the closest we have is sabermetrics in baseball (and even then you can't factor in how good Babe Ruth would be with today's training methods instead of that steady diet of beer, cigars and hotdogs, though it does make him that more impressive).
Perhaps someone needs to come up for golf with a really in depth scientific approach that attempts to account for all factors in comparing players.
I agree, Federer's run at the top was remarkable, something we're only just starting to appreciate with Nadal's victories and their epic battles. Gripping tennis. Ali was a class by himself. But Tyson was dominating until his personal demons got the best of him. Would he eventually have rivaled Ali if not for his emotional issues?
The one thing everyone can agree on is that no matter how the games change, the best from any era would still be among the best in any other era. That talent is eternal.
Gairzo
says:
April 7th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Jack's competition was much tougher starting in 1960 ending in 1986. I'll post a pre-Masters follow-up.
Nate Barlow
says:
April 7th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Look forward to it! I figured Jack's competition was tougher. On the other hand, you don't want to dismiss Tiger's success just because his opposition is lesser; not his fault. I think in discussing golf, such elements as margin of victory, etc, may need to be taken into account when comparing players of different eras.
Gairzo
says:
April 9th, 2009 at 4:39 am
Have to comment on your Tyson question.
After Cus D'Amato died, Iron Mike lost his compass.
Cus trained a friend of mine in Denver, onetime roommate, for one of those Tough Man Competitions. Well, MV., my friend, was a good student. The peek-a-boo method Cus championed requires tremendous discipline and instinct–and respect for your opponent. Lo and Behold, my roomie wins the round-robin. Cus starts talkin' about a deal. We're happy…Then Cus leaves to train Tyson and I'm left to help train MV for the second Iron Man competition.
I'm not Cus. Yeah, I have a heavy bag, but that was just to impress women. (Never worked.)
Anyway, MV starts saying "screw the peek-a-boo" I'm gonna destroy these Mother@#$%. First three rounds, he knocked the snot outta his opponents. In the finals, he's facing the 50 year-old, but once legendary, Bulgarian Champion.
MV laughed at him because he had grey hair. Four right crosses later MV is in Staggerville with no way out.
Same deal with Iron Mike. People forget he was once a devoted student of the game. He understood the science of the sport–the angles, the hips, the legs. That's why he dominated. When Cus died, Tyson lost his respect for the sport and was too stupid to understand, nobody was gonna be scared of a 5'9 little punk who wasn't interested in boxing.
Ali, Louis, Marciano, Holmes, would have mopped the canvas with Tyson.
Deep Into Sports: Huskies Vs. Vols | Fierce and Nerdy says:
April 9th, 2009 at 10:01 am
[...] this week on DeepIntoSports.com, Gary Porpora wrote the first piece of a multi-part article on who’s the greatest golfer of all time, Jack Nicklaus or Tiger Woods. With so much of the [...]
Fierce And Nerdy: Connecticut vs. Tennessee | Deep Into Sports says:
April 10th, 2009 at 10:17 am
[...] Gary’s analysis (Part 1 & Part 2) of who is the greatest all-time golfer, Tiger or Jack, on my mind and with both the [...]
Bill
says:
December 26th, 2009 at 1:41 am
Why in the world do people think they can somehow figure it out? You can't, plain and simple. It's immeasurable. Jack and Tiger have never played head to head in their primes with the same club/ball technology and the same course conditions, and NEVER WILL. Would Jack intimidate Tiger? Would Tiger intimidate Jack? Who the heck knows? They were both mentally and physically tough as nails. No truly knowledgeable golfer would ever think that stats would figure these things out? I personally know several people that just automatically give the crown to Tiger. Guess what, NONE of them have ever watched Jack's tournaments when he was in his prime. They never watched it back then and haven't seen the reruns of his tournaments since then. That clearly means they aren't qualified to even comment on this subject or anybody out there that hasn't watched Jack's tournaments when he was in his prime. I have seen ALL of the reruns.
Gairzo
says:
February 11th, 2010 at 5:16 am
I've seen most of them too. People forget–or time makes it easier to forget–how unflappable Nicklaus was AND how Trevino and the others would do anything to try and distract him: a little joke, a comment, a look, anything to get Jack off his game. Of course, Nicklaus would give it right back.
The way the pros, the media re-coronate Tiger after every shot has gotten so old.
Gairzo
says:
February 11th, 2010 at 5:18 am
I don't think Tiger or Jack were ever intimidated on a golf course.
Golf PGA Tour Tiger Woods Buick Open PGA Championship | Deep Into Sports says:
February 27th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
[...] the Buick Open field last week, I couldn’t help but wonder about his dominance. Apparently, some folks aren’t even convinced he’s the best golfer of all time. Not me, [...]