Tiger vs. Jack, Part II
Wednesday, April 8, 2009 22:27
Overcoming Adversity
Most memorable stories have a character overcoming impossible odds to achieve an ultimate goal. John Elway finally winning a Super Bowl became a storybook feat only because he had smelled the promised-land roses twice before but couldn’t find entrance into the Garden. The Boston Red Sox’s dramatic ’04 playoff victory over the Hated Stankees was made infinitely sweeter because a century of failure and a fateful curse was about to be obliterated.
In golf, Ben Hogan won six majors after a near fatal car accident. Paul Azinger beat cancer to play on the Tour.
Our examination of the legendary careers of Eldrick Woods Jr. and Jack W. Nicklaus—and trying to determine who is the all-time greatest—begs the following question…
How did adversity shape the careers of Tiger and Jack?
Given his last major win and his recent triumph at Bayhill, we know Tiger can overcome the adversity of injury. The guy is a beast, benches 350, lifts everyday, and still has the flexibility of Gumby.
Nicklaus had a chronically achy back before the age of 30. Forty years ago, there were no nutritionists or personal trainers, or arthroscopic surgeons. In fact, if Jack had sustained the 2008 knee injury Tiger did forty years ago, his career would have been over.
Adversity in sports sometimes comes from fate, timing, or other demons an athlete cannot tame.
Even great athletes of the 70s did not earn the “screw the world” money today’s journeymen earn. Peter Lonard, the 100th earner on the PGA Tour all-time money list has made more money in the last four years than Jack Nicklaus did in 46 years as a professional golfer.
In his first thirteen seasons, Tiger has won 66 tournaments. He reached 50 wins after 10 years on tour. Jack did not reach that milestone until his thirteenth year. However, over his first decade the Golden Bear played in fifty more tournaments than Tiger—five kids are serious motivation— which probably contributed to Nicklaus’ bad back at a relatively young age.
There is adversity Nicklaus faced that gives him a significant edge in terms of who was forged with the stronger hammer.
People sometimes forget when “The Golden Bear” burst onto the world stage at the1960 U.S Open at Cherry Hills, he was a still in college—and nobody knew him by that nickname. He gave a still great, but fading, Ben Hogan all he could handle, playing with him in that Sunday’s final group. If it wasn’t for a legendary Arnold Palmer charge from seven strokes back, and rookie course management from the youngster, Nicklaus would have beaten two icons as a twenty-year-old amateur “by ten strokes,” according to Hogan.
The golfing public—which was almost single-handedly fashioned by the charismatic hand of Arnie and his Army and aided by the growth spurt of TV—didn’t particularly like a chubby kid from an Ohio country club having the temerity to challenge “The King.”
In fact, during the 1962 U.S. Open play-off against Palmer at famed Oakmont, the gallery catcalled Nicklaus derisively with nicknames like “Fat Jack” and “Ohio Fats.” When Nicklaus won that playoff by three strokes, the rivalry with Palmer turned bitter for at least the next decade.
The Golden Bear wasn’t Nicklaus’ moniker until after he and Arnie made nice in the late 70’s, and the public begrudgingly realized the fat kid from Ohio might be the best ever.
Conversely, Tiger came into the golf world during a lull in the sport’s popularity. There was no dominant figure in the game. Nick Faldo had retired and Greg Norman had other things to do. Young players like Justin Leonard, Payne Stuart, and David Duval had shown promise but none deserved mention with the all-time greats.
The world’s eyes were on young Tiger and he did not disappoint, especially not those doing golf betting. Television ratings spiked along with prize money and golf supplanted tennis as the cool individual sport for American kids to play.
High expectations create tremendous pressure, but not compared to high expectation and hostile galleries every week.
And there are other questions…
Who Have You Played?
The quality of who you have to face down tournament after tournament cannot be dismissed as easily as many in the punditocracy contend. They try to sell the public on how deep today’s field is and that Jack had to worry about 5-10 golfers while Tiger has to worry about 150, any one of whom can surge to the top and win any given tourney.
If you buy that one, I have some swampland in Tucson you gotta get in on.
The argument is laughable. The handful of golfers who hope to be to Woods what Nicklaus was to Palmer all fizzle when it is time to sparkle. Goosen, Els, even Mickleson have yet to match Tiger shot for shot the way Casper, Watson, Trevino, Palmer, and Player matched Nicklaus—week in week out, year after year.
Excluding Tiger, those five players alone have more majors to their credit than the top 100 in today’s rankings. Jack consistently played against hall-of-famers tournament after tournament—Ballesteros, Miller, Irwin, and Floyd, to name a few more from 1960 until his last major win in 1986.
Of course, Tiger has no control over who the cosmos put before him. He has beaten all comers, but Mickelson, Harrington, and Vijay simply do not test him the way the Watsons and Trevinos tested Nicklaus. If we use the logic of Tigermaniacs, we then must recognize Rocky Marciano as the greatest boxer ever.
Think that would create some debate?
When has another golfer given Woods something to think about on the golf course? While it is true he has never lost after holding the 54-hole lead, Tiger has yet to mount a Sunday charge from a deficit. In fact, including, Rocco Mediate’s challenge in last year’s U.S. Open, we are hard pressed to find any tournament where Tiger was at his best and playing another golfer who was playing at his best. His other two play-off wins came against Sergio Garcia and Bob May, neither of whom will be kicking down the Hall of Fame door in St. Augustine Florida.
Nicklaus won eight of his 18 majors trailing after 54 holes, two others when tied. He beat Palmer in the ’62 U.S. Open play-off, in Arnie’s back yard.
Five of Jack’s most famous second place finishes are summarized here:
http://golf.about.com/od/jacknicklaus/tp/nicklausseconds.htm
Who beat Jack? Palmer, Watson and Trevino, with 21 majors among them.
Nicklaus entered the arena when Palmer was at his zenith. Trevino, Casper, Player, Raymond Floyd were his contemporaries. Ten years later guys like Seve Ballestertos, Watson, Nelson, Hubert Green, and Johnny Miller, all HOFers and multiple major winners, battled Nicklaus the rest of his career.
On this point, the argument of who is the greatest golfer in history clearly turns in favor Jack Nicklaus.
What Tools Do You Have?
Today’s golfers not only have the growth of sports sciences as an asset but the equipment they use has forced architects to redesign modern golf courses to well over 7000 yards and counting.
Watching an old documentary on the Big Three, as they were known—Palmer, Player, Nicklaus—was telling because of the astonishment observers had when “Jack blasted a 230 yard one-iron within a foot of the pin” or “Arnie rifled a 240 yard three-wood onto the green.”
Today, those lengthy shots can be made with a well-struck three iron by average-length hitters, (accuracy, of course, is another matter.) Tom Kite, once was known as a notoriously short driver of the ball, now routinely hits 300 yard drives.
Technology has created golf balls that add 20+ yards for the average golfer—if she wants to spend 4.00 per ball.
Experts correctly give Tiger credit for making the whole field more physically fit, stronger and healthier. Golfers were not considered athletes until Woods hit the scene. He has made everyone who plays work harder to be a better golfer.
Final Round
So how does our argument end? We have Tiger averaging 5+ wins and 1+ major per year. We have Nicklaus dominating and finishing second to hall-of-fame opponents for 26 years. Jack finished in the top five of 163 majors 35% of the time; Tiger, sits at 42% against clearly inferior competition.
Make a great movie wouldn’t it?
Here’s the pitch…The year is 2075. St. Peter, an avid golfer, (you should see the greens in heaven), is sick of the debate. Jack and Tiger have both been dead awhile so he proposes the following:
A four-day event, alternating rounds of stroke and match play. Here are the rules: “We will fit you to identical 500.00 clubs from Wilson. One set of persimmon woods with steel shafted irons made in the 70’s, one set of titanium heads with graphite shafts from the 2000’s. You must use a different kind of set each round. Balls from Pinnacle, 1995/doz, at Sport Chalet, (Oh yeah, they’re still around.”)
“The four day event will be held at a course neither of you have ever played. You get two weeks to practice and to make last minute tweaks to your swings and equipment. When you return to earth, the talent you have will exactly match that of your three most successful years on tour.”
Who wins?
Nicklaus wins an 18-hole playoff by four strokes.
He has been there before.
Nate Barlow
says:
April 15th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
I could have sworn I commented on this previously, but it must not have gone through… great, great breakdown! Question for you: what would Tiger have to do for him to surpass Nicklaus in your mind, if anything?
Gairzo
says:
April 17th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Well, first, just so I'm clear…
You can make and win the argument he has done that already. Just to advocate the devilish side of my arguments…
Maybe Tiger hasn't come back from a deficit because he was so far ahead. Woods can't beat anyone who isn't in front of him.
I just want to give Tiger his due. He is the contemporary athlete I respect most.
Now, to answer your question: "what would Tiger have to do for him to surpass Nicklaus in your mind?"
In a word, LOSE. I don't mean to older guys like Cabrera or Singh, or even Michelson.. How about Anthony Kim or Rory Mc Elroy beating Woods in the next three majors or so? Not when Tiger is off his game but when he is on…He makes an eagle birdie,par finish at a major–fist pumping, re-coronated by the media, the crowd loving it–and Kim sinks a birdie at the last to force a playoff then whips Tiger in the playoff. That heartbreak Tiger has never known–it was an annual rite for Nicklaus.
And that would bring the Celzic theory to the fore. You get the sense that Tiger will win 20 majors and pull a Greg Norman–raise his kids, design courses, make films. All Tiger wants is 19 majors. To surpass Nicklaus, the next five need to test his mettle like it's never been tested.
Let's see how Tiger does when a young gun doesn't fold when it counts or when he has to shoot 65 to be in the hunt.
Nate Barlow
says:
April 17th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Fair enough. So, in some ways, it's not so much what Tiger has to do but what his competition has to accomplish to prove that Tiger's dominance actually comes from him rather than the weakness of his opposition?
Gairzo
says:
April 18th, 2009 at 3:26 am
Yes, well put. The "drama" Allan referred to in a recent post comes from only what Tiger might do, based on the great things he has done. Nicklaus did those same great things week in week out, major after major when other all-time greats were equal to the task.
Tiger has never faced that.
What do I know? Maybe because Tiger is so dominant he prevents other truly great players from winning multiple majors.
But I don't think so.
Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, Hogan,Trevino, Watson, Casper, Ballesteros–all in the top fifteen of all time–would rarely miss a put like Phil did at Augusta TWICE. That kind of relentless pressure from guys who wouldn't give Nicklaus anything, Tiger Woods has never experienced.
Wouldn't it be fun to see how he deals with that adversity?
Housious
says:
August 13th, 2009 at 6:28 am
Woods would destroy Nicklaus.
Why? Because Tiger is the greatest putter of all time. People dont realize that.
Ryan
says:
August 16th, 2009 at 6:33 am
it's because he is black.
Ryan
says:
August 16th, 2009 at 6:37 am
Tiger faced adversity. 1. He is a black golfer. 2 he has met and surpassed all expectations. 3. he won the us open on one leg.
Moreover, I did not know the overall talent of pga tour is worse than the players from the 60's and 70's. Afraid a black man is going to be the best golfer ever.
j fever
says:
August 19th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Tiger is awesome on steroids
Gairzo
says:
October 4th, 2009 at 5:43 am
Why is Tiger being part African have to do with adversity? You pissed me off Rye-Rye. First, I acknowledge in my column Tiger has overcome adversity. I also correctly point out that Jack faced much more constant and discriminatory adversity because he came up when one of he games greatest, and certainly its most revered player was in his prime (palmer).
Evidently , you don't read well. The point I made was the overall field today may, in fact be more talented, but the top 15-30 players are nowhere as close to Tiger as the golfers I named were to Nicklaus.
You can't argue the facts rationally, so you lean on the race crutch like a lame dog.
It really is kind of pathetic.
Gairzo
says:
October 4th, 2009 at 5:46 am
Now here's a valid point. If Tiger does succeed in surpassing Jack statistcally his putting will be what wins him those 23 majors. I would also add Tiger was the most athletic golfer who ever lived.
Gairzo
says:
October 4th, 2009 at 5:48 am
Why don't you take another hit off your crack pipe. You have nothing intelligent to offer and you make yourself seem more lame with every post.
Gairzo
says:
October 4th, 2009 at 5:49 am
You couldn't cite me one source linking Tiger Woods to steroids. Give Ryan a call, I'm sure he'll let you hit up some crack.
STAN
says:
January 20th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Nice research by some fans but you've wasted your time. Trying to figure out who's the best ever cannot be measured, simple as that. THEY HAVE TO PLAY AGAINST EACH OTHER BOTH IN THEIR PRIMES. If Tiger breaks the major record, what most people won't understand is that when you're comparing from different times with totally different circumstances, it's silly to think that you can figure out what would've happened if they played in the same era. DO YOU GET IT? JACK was beating his own records. He didn't have a special number to reach like Tiger has. If the situation were reversed, Jack would've been motivated to reach that goal. Folks, we'll never know. What I do know is that some people these days hate the possibility that Jack may have been better.
Gairzo
says:
February 8th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Good and obvious point about different times and circumstances.
Couple things: Why put so much weight on Tiger having a "special number" to reach?
AND, Jack did have Bobby Jones(?) record–at that time The American Amateur was considered a major–of 13 majors he was consciously shooting for.
I believe my point about Nicklaus week in, week out; major after major; year after year, facing 15-20 HOFers whereas, if the statistics and HOF status carry any weight, Tiger has faced a much, much less quality of opponent–especially in majors–edges the argument clearly to Jack.
When Watson, Trevino, Miller, Palmer, Player, Ballesteros, Floyd, Irwin, and Casper had three or our footers to win a major against Nicklaus or anyone, they made the putt. Mickelson had two putts to make at Winged foot and gagged on both. Even at the last Open play-off against Mediate, Rocco had two putts to win and couldn't make them.
Of course, Tiger has always made those putts and I' m not selling him short. He is as deserving of any accolade we can give Nicklaus.
I do know this. The 20 top golfers Nicklaus faced relished the opportunity to play him in a major. Trevino used to say his dream scenario was to beat Jack in a major play-off because he wanted to beat the best.
It wasn't until the last PGA when Y.E. Yang made those crucial shots that a contemporary golfer didn't act like he was just lucky to be there against Tiger.
I think I made a legitimate argument that has yet to be refuted.
bob colling
says:
February 9th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
What gives Nichlaus the edge to my mind was his ability to raise his game when it counted. Eight major wins coming from behind highlighted by shooting 7 under on the last 10 holes at the 86 Masters says it all. Tiger on the other hand has never been able to do that. He seems to either come out with his A game and take the 54 hole lead, or doesn't have it and can't summon it when behind. He seems to get frustrated, starts banging his clubs and cursing, both of which aren't conducive to comebacks. The greatest players are those who can lead a 4th quarter rally and make the winning shot at the buzzer ala Michael Jordon, to score a goal in the last minute to tie it up and another in OT to win ala Gretzky. Nichlaus had that quality in spades. Tiger doesn't.
Gairzo
says:
February 10th, 2010 at 1:50 am
Good stuff, Bob,
Once again, though, let's give Tiger his props; if other guys can't make the first three rounds count, that's not Tiger's fault.
However, your point makes even more sense when you consider Jack was coming back, beating, or losing to great golfers in their own right who NEVER deferred to Jack like today's players do to Tiger.
Just listen to the contemporary player speak about Woods compared to how Jack's opponent's spoke about him. They sound like they're afraid to say anything like, "You know what, I can play too, he's Tiger Woods, not Jesus Christ."
Another point, I only skimmed in my column or comments: Tiger has had a global corporation making equipment to his exact specs. I'm sure Nicklaus had his sponsors and favorite club maker, but when you have one of the richest and largest corporations in the world making balls specifically for you–and, of course, selling those balls to a public that wants to be just like you–it simply has to make a difference.
STAN
says:
February 12th, 2010 at 1:58 am
To Bob and Gairzo. It's nice to hear some intelligent comments instead of all the brain-washed Tiger fans who don't know a lick of golf history and have never actually watched Jack's reruns. They somehow know that Tiger's the best????? Totally rediculous. They're just watching stats and not really thinking outside the box. Good going guys!!! Here's to Jack!!!
bob collins
says:
February 12th, 2010 at 6:28 am
I cut a little slack to Tiger fans just because of what you say, they've never seen any reruns of Jack. Can't really blame them for that though. They'd have to go out of their way to buy a DVD or something which would be expecting a little too much. I would love to sit down with a few of them though to watch the last round of the 86 Masters, then ask them what they thought. I don't know about you, but I never saw anyone do anything quite like it, including Tiger.
bob collins
says:
February 12th, 2010 at 7:06 am
I'm not sure that saying other golfers defer to Tiger really covers it. Perhaps I'm being a little unkind, but laying down for him seems a little better description. Seriously, maybe you know the answer to this and if you do I'd love to hear, in the latter half of Tiger's career so far, from 2003 to now let's say, how many of the rounds shot by the other guys in the top 10 on the leader board going into Sunday in a major were in the 60s. I don't know how many or what the percentage would be, but it has to be an awfully small number. The pattern in Tiger's victories has been Tiger has the 54 hole lead, sets it on cruise control and shoots a fairly pedestrian round while the other 9 guys at the top of the leader board shoot par or even back up. I sit down in front of my TV and hope one of them can turn it into a shootout by firing a 67 and it just fizzles. Whether he's better than Tiger or not, they sure seemed to play more exciting golf in Jack's day.
STAN
says:
February 13th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Bob, I agree again. What the Tiger fans could do is watch the reruns on the golf channel. That's what I've been doing over the years. Then they would have an intelligent opinion. What bugs me is they're giving the best ever ribbon to Tiger based on stats!!! That's so shallow and Jack knows it's not fair. Again, Jack and Tiger would have to PLAY AGAINST EACH OTHER IN THEIR PRIMES. It's something that can't be measured. What I do know is that they are lots of Tiger fans that can't accept that Jack may have been better. Here's to you Jack, we know how good you were. We watched you!!!
ben
says:
April 18th, 2010 at 6:13 am
i feel if tiger woulds surpases nicklaus he will maybe not be the best golfer who ever played put in the technology back then to know things have changed and i still believe if you gave nicklaus the tech we have now when he was 28 30 yrs old he would have played even better
Dex
says:
June 10th, 2010 at 5:09 am
They both are great. I would suspect that Jack sees things in Tigers game that he wished he had possessed while playing, mostly shot shaping. We can never put the two on the same stage in their primes respectively. Its almost like comparing Ali to Marciano, Speed vs Power. We just have to enjoy them for their contributions.
Gairzo
says:
June 24th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Dex,
Have to take issue with the Ali/Marciano analogy.
You gotta understand, Rocky was a god in every Italian home and he probably had more heart than any fighter in history. I love him.
And, I absolutely hated Ali–his Big mouth bullshit just turned me off. I never rooted for him against anyone.
But Dude, Marciano wouldn't have lasted 6 rounds against Ali. You mention speed as being Ali's forte, of course, it was but he had as much power as any heavyweight in history. He floored Liston with a punch so quick, film cameras couldn't see it. Before that fight, Liston was being touted as invincible and had never even been knocked down
When Ali rope-a-doped Foreman in Zaire, Foreman had demolished everyone he faced on every level of the sport. Ali was the underdog in that fight.
Ali had power equal to his quickness; that's why he's the greatest–and their ain't even a close second.
In golf, Nicklaus was as long as Tiger–he just didn't have a 460 cc titanium clubhead or a perfectly balanced super stiff graphite shaft to hit a 330 yard drive.
Nicklaus consistently faced HOF competition that consistently pushed him in almost every tournament. Tiger has not Jack played in many more tournaments yearly. There were no 40 million dollar endorsement deals before Nicklaus won a tournament. Tiger has never faced the pressure Jack did–financially, competitively, or personally-. When you are playing to feed and clothe five kids, the pressure is significantly greater than Tiger, whose great grankids were set for life the day he turned pro.
Finally, just look at the last few majors. Tiger had a three stroke lead and needed to hold off Yang. Couldn't do it. If he shot one under at Pebble he wins the Open. He folded like an accordion.
We'll see how Tiger handles his first real adversity.
Bob Collins
says:
August 17th, 2010 at 8:32 am
You're absolutely right about Nichlaus being pushed by his competition. If you look back to the last six majors Tiger has won since 05, no one has done that to him. If you look at the other guys who were in the top ten going into Sunday in those majors, none of them turned the heat on Tiger by going low. Watson shot a 65 at the British Open to best Nichlaus' 66 as but one example. It was far from the only time that happened to Jack. I challenge anyone to show me where an opponent did something like that to pressure Tiger.
Rick
says:
August 20th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
They're both great players, no question. Better than great: two "golfers for the ages" a category that surpasses "mere" Hall of Famers. The debate about who was better is not very meaningful. I've tended to favor Tiger, only because I thought his dominance was more pronounced than Jack's, in terms of win percentage, numbers of majors captured before turning 30 – things like that. I give the edge to Tiger for that reason. But only narrowly. AND, if the timing had been reversed – Tiger coming along first and establishing big-time records and Jack showing up thereafter? No way in the world would I assume that Jack couldn't surpass those records. We're talking about two monsters and as far as the debate about who who was more monstrous ("monstrous," in this case, being a compliment) is concerned, it's a bit silly to get too excited about this candidate or that. There'll be no one like either one of them for a long, long time.
Gairzo says:
August 23rd, 2010 at 11:58 am
Agree with your points, Rick. Tiger won more, sooner, and has won a greater percentage of the tournaments he's played.
You put no weight on my quality of opposition argument? Jack being under more constant financial, competitive pressure?
Tiger having equipment made for him by one of the largest corporations in the world?