NPR

If we're talking transforming fitness and approaches to sport I think it's hard to look beyond Steve Waugh's Australians in cricket. If you watch back classic games from the 80s what's really noticeable is that just about every player has a beer belly, and diving in the field is surplus to requirements. Distinctly remember Waugh and the Aussies being used as the benchmark to change all that.

The depth and quality of golfers was much much deeper when Woods played. Same with tennis. It's really a numbers game, there simply wasn't anything like as many people who played golf in the 1960s and 70s, let alone played it professionally. And then there was the ability to get around the world to play, Palmer famously recognised the British Open as worth playing for which dragged a few other American pros with him but most of them still couldn't be bothered to attend. Going the other way, it was very difficult for the best players outside of the USA to get entry into the three majors there both logistically and via any kind of qualification criteria. The fields were dominated by American golfers.

The very best of any sport is a small club, it's a rare thing in men's tennis that we've had three GOATs at once, and the likes of Murray getting to No1, winning three slams and two Olympic golds plus winning the Tour Finals is a huge achievement in that company.

Woods' record speaks for itself, he has picked up the most difficult golf courses in the world and made them almost into pitch and putt. However, Phil Mickelson and who else was his main competition?

The 60s and 70s golf was a bit more like tennis has been for the last decade or so, Palmer, Player, Watson, Trevino, Ballesteros, Floyd, Miller... these were all brilliant golfers.

Tichtheid wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 8:53 am The very best of any sport is a small club, it's a rare thing in men's tennis that we've had three GOATs at once, and the likes of Murray getting to No1, winning three slams and two Olympic golds plus winning the Tour Finals is a huge achievement in that company.

Woods' record speaks for itself, he has picked up the most difficult golf courses in the world and made them almost into pitch and putt. However, Phil Mickelson and who else was his main competition?

The 60s and 70s golf was a bit more like tennis has been for the last decade or so, Palmer, Player, Watson, Trevino, Ballesteros, Floyd, Miller... these were all brilliant golfers.

You make the mistake of thinking Woods won a lot because the opposition was poor. The opposition was brilliant, it's just Woods was that good that HE was the outlier. No doubt peak Nicklaus would have won majors during the peak Woods years, I just think Woods would have won more of them. Probably by a margin of at least 2:1.

Kawazaki wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 10:49 am

Tichtheid wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 8:53 am The very best of any sport is a small club, it's a rare thing in men's tennis that we've had three GOATs at once, and the likes of Murray getting to No1, winning three slams and two Olympic golds plus winning the Tour Finals is a huge achievement in that company.

Woods' record speaks for itself, he has picked up the most difficult golf courses in the world and made them almost into pitch and putt. However, Phil Mickelson and who else was his main competition?

The 60s and 70s golf was a bit more like tennis has been for the last decade or so, Palmer, Player, Watson, Trevino, Ballesteros, Floyd, Miller... these were all brilliant golfers.

You make the mistake of thinking Woods won a lot because the opposition was poor. The opposition was brilliant, it's just Woods was that good that HE was the outlier. No doubt peak Nicklaus would have won majors during the peak Woods years, I just think Woods would have won more of them. Probably by a margin of at least 2:1.

I'm really not doing that at all. I fully acknowledge how great Woods was at his peak and I did mention what Woods did to golf courses, I just don't think there were the players around him of the calibre of those I mentioned when Nicklaus was winning, but you are welcome to do a comparison with them to those competing with Woods.

There's no real way to know what Nicklaus would have done with modern equipment and the kind of fitness regime today's players undertake, or indeed what Woods would have been like in the 60s and 70s.

Even if we take the opposition out of it and just look at the their careers at the majors, they have been winning over a similar time period with a similar spread of wins over the four competitions, but Nicklaus is on 18 with Woods on 15.
At 45 years of age and with the injuries, it's difficult to see him winning again, but then that's what they said about Nicklaus before he won the Masters at the age of 46.

They are both greats, but if you are calling someone the GOAT, you have to have some benchmark to compare them, if we are talking about the PGA tour wins then Woods is tied with Sam Snead on 82, with Nicklaus in third place on 73 - the European torus aren't really comparable because of what you mentioned before and how many either competed in.

Anyway, despite all this, I'm not going to "die on this hill" as they say, I vote Nicklaus due to the majors, but it doesn't mean I think that Woods is in any way second rate, he is a special golfer by any estimation.

Nicklaus was a great of his era but the fields were far easier for the reasons I've already described. Most European golfers and virtually none from other parts of the world even got to play in three-quarters of the majors that are held in the USA for much of Nicklaus's career.

Kawazaki wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 12:59 pm Nicklaus was a great of his era but the fields were far easier for the reasons I've already described. Most European golfers and virtually none from other parts of the world even got to play in three-quarters of the majors that are held in the USA for much of Nicklaus's career.

and yet when the Americans came over to play in the one European major they did rather well during the Nicklaus era - Palmer, Watson, Weiskopf (my favourite player as I thought he had the best swing I'd ever seen when I was a kid), Trevino, Miller, Bill Rogers (thank you R&A, I'd never have remembered him) as well as Nicklaus himself won it.
From 1960 to 1986 (the year of Nicklaus' last major win) Americans won 16 Opens, the other winners being Kel Nagel, Bob Charles, Peter Thompson, Gary Player, Roberto De Vicenzo, Tony Jacklin, Seve.

Player and Seve were the only non-Americans to have multiple wins over that period and both of them won multiple majors in the US, in short when "the rest of the world" did get a shot at the top Americans they weren't that successful

It's almost as if having 3 majors as part of your domestic tour prepares a golfer well for the single one that isn't.

There are plenty of golfers in the Woods era that were/remain great players but because they played under such a huge shadow it's often forgotten just how good they were. Ernie Els, Vijay Singh, Payne Stewart, Davis Love, Olazabal, Janzen, Goosen, Furyk, Immelman, Montgomery, Jimenez, Appleby, Westwood, Lehman, Rose, Scott, Harrington, Cabrera, Cink, Glover, Sergio Garcia etc etc etc. The list of potential winners at the start of a tournament in the Woods era was vast. So much depth.

Kawazaki wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 1:45 pm It's almost as if having 3 majors as part of your domestic tour prepares a golfer well for the single one that isn't.

Augusta doesn't exactly prepare you for St Andrews

Tichtheid wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 1:58 pm

Kawazaki wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 1:45 pm It's almost as if having 3 majors as part of your domestic tour prepares a golfer well for the single one that isn't.

Augusta doesn't exactly prepare you for St Andrews

Pebble Beach might though.

But that wasn't really the point as I suspect you know.

There are another couple of interesting stats, to me at least, that I've just found - most runners up in majors - Jack Nicklaus with 19, Mickleson is second with 11, presumably often the silver to Woods' gold.

Most appearances at majors - Nicklaus with 164, though in latter years he wouldn't have been likely to win.
There are 16 players who are members of the 100 Majors club, Faldo is 16th with exactly the ton.
Woods isn't on the list.

As I say latterly Nicklaus wouldn't have been expected to win, but those figures do suggest that there were many likely winners when he was playing.

edit, I've become like a dog with a bone now

Most wins in Majors - Nicklaus with 18
Most runners up - Nicklaus with 19
Most Top 5 finishes - Nicklaus with 56
Most Top 10 finishes - Nicklaus with 73 (27 and 25 more than Snead and Watson, who are next in line)

Woods has played in 368 PGA tour events, made the cut in 334 of them, finished in the top 10 in 199 of them, finished third in 19 of them, finished second in 31 of them and won 82 tournaments.

It's extraordinary that the nearer to the top he gets the more likely it is that he wins.

Most Top 10 finishes - Nicklaus with 73


I want to reiterate this, although it didn't happen exactly this way, that is pretty damn close to being in the top ten in every major for 20 years straight.

Tichtheid wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:46 pm Most Top 10 finishes - Nicklaus with 73


I want to reiterate this, although it didn't happen exactly this way, that is pretty damn close to being in the top ten in every major for 20 years straight.

Yes, he was a very very good golfer.


Mostly in an era when there weren't loads of very very good golfers.

Kawazaki wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 3:35 pm

Tichtheid wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:46 pm Most Top 10 finishes - Nicklaus with 73


I want to reiterate this, although it didn't happen exactly this way, that is pretty damn close to being in the top ten in every major for 20 years straight.

Yes, he was a very very good golfer.


Mostly in an era when there weren't loads of very very good golfers.

I'm going to make an appeal to authority here, if Golf News' top ten is even close, then Nicklaus was one of the four best golfers of all time, all in the same era, he competed against Player and Palmer, having turned pro about 7 years after them and then he was competing with Watson.
Then there are the others perviously mentioned - the Trevinos and Millers etc

Woods doesn't have anyone else of his era on their top 10.

https://www.golfnews.co.uk/news/the-top ... -all-time/

The subject is greatest of all time, not greatest of the pro era or the best I've seen or whatever else.

Nicklaus' wins, runners up, the top 5s and top 10s mark him out as a one-off.

Tichtheid wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 3:58 pm

Kawazaki wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 3:35 pm

Tichtheid wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:46 pm Most Top 10 finishes - Nicklaus with 73


I want to reiterate this, although it didn't happen exactly this way, that is pretty damn close to being in the top ten in every major for 20 years straight.

Yes, he was a very very good golfer.


Mostly in an era when there weren't loads of very very good golfers.

I'm going to make an appeal to authority here, if Golf News' top ten is even close, then Nicklaus was one of the four best golfers of all time, all in the same era, he competed against Player and Palmer, having turned pro about 7 years after them and then he was competing with Watson.
Then there are the others perviously mentioned - the Trevinos and Millers etc

Woods doesn't have anyone else of his era on their top 10.

https://www.golfnews.co.uk/news/the-top ... -all-time/

The subject is greatest of all time, not greatest of the pro era or the best I've seen or whatever else.

Nicklaus' wins, runners up, the top 5s and top 10s mark him out as a one-off.

Woods overshadowed all in his era. That's what makes him my GOAT. The depth of quality in his era was very deep as well, deeper than in the 60s and 70s when golf didn't have anything like the money in it. Peak Nicklaus versus Woods in the early 2000s era would have been quite a sight.

duke wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:49 am

Kiwias wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:08 am

westport wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 2:30 pm Swimming Michael Phelps
Boxing Ali
Golf Jack Nicklaus
Basketball Michael Jordan
American Football Joe Montana
Wendyball can't decide between Pele, Diego Maradona, Johan Cruyff
Motorbike Giacomo Agostini

I second your nomination of Joe Montana

Why Montana over Tom Brady?

Was wondering same.

I'd imagine Brady winning with Tampa Bay dispelled the notion that he was a product of BBs system in New England rather than just being a bloody good quarterback in his own right.

* Disclaimer - I only watch the Super Bowl every year so don't consider myself any sort of authority on American football.

Kawazaki wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 4:37 pm

Tichtheid wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 3:58 pm

Kawazaki wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 3:35 pm


Yes, he was a very very good golfer.


Mostly in an era when there weren't loads of very very good golfers.

I'm going to make an appeal to authority here, if Golf News' top ten is even close, then Nicklaus was one of the four best golfers of all time, all in the same era, he competed against Player and Palmer, having turned pro about 7 years after them and then he was competing with Watson.
Then there are the others perviously mentioned - the Trevinos and Millers etc

Woods doesn't have anyone else of his era on their top 10.

https://www.golfnews.co.uk/news/the-top ... -all-time/

The subject is greatest of all time, not greatest of the pro era or the best I've seen or whatever else.

Nicklaus' wins, runners up, the top 5s and top 10s mark him out as a one-off.

Woods overshadowed all in his era. That's what makes him my GOAT. The depth of quality in his era was very deep as well, deeper than in the 60s and 70s when golf didn't have anything like the money in it. Peak Nicklaus versus Woods in the early 2000s era would have been quite a sight.

Woods didn't have anyone that ranks with Arnold Palmer Gary Player or Tom Watson chasing him.

I'll go back to another stat - 18 major wins and 19 runners up.

That's almost ten years worth of Majors where he is first or second in every tournament.


I've actually enjoyed this, I haven't really had much interest in golf for ages, it was good to look up some stuff as it made me reminisce at little, like about the time I was completely star struck by Johnny Miller at the Open in St Andrews in 1978* when I asked for his autograph as a kid and I couldn't say a word.

*Nicklaus won

Would peak Woods beat peak Nicklaus?

That's why Woods is the GOAT.

I think all you can go on when comparing players is how much further ahead of the rest of the field they were.

It’s nonsensical to be saying it was easier / different then or now.

Kawazaki wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 5:57 am Would peak Woods beat peak Nicklaus?

That's why Woods is the GOAT.

Would they each use the equipment they used in their respective peaks? If so, then you are awarding Woods the massive advantage of improvements and developments in golf equipment through technology.

Think it's basically impossible to compare sportsmen from different eras. The sports are so radically different as to render the comparison moot.

Kiwias wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 8:47 am

Kawazaki wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 5:57 am Would peak Woods beat peak Nicklaus?

That's why Woods is the GOAT.

Would they each use the equipment they used in their respective peaks? If so, then you are awarding Woods the massive advantage of improvements and developments in golf equipment through technology.

Obviously no.

Peak Woods v peak Nicklaus each operating in either era. Woods wins 7 out of 10 times.

When Woods was in the last group on the last day in that red sweater then he simply didn't lose. Pressure made him play better. He won a major playing with a broken leg FFS!

I guess at least in golf we're all agreed that the GOAT is one of just two players...





...or maybe Ben Hogan...

This site asked 12 golf journalists to nominate which of NIcklaus or Woods they saw as the GOAT, with the result being six for Nicklaus, four for Woods, and two even or undecided.

This quote pretty much sums up my views on the question.

I think this is a little bit like the Tom Brady-vs.-Joe Montana debate. Montana was probably better and was otherworldly brilliant for a short time (like Woods). But Nicklaus (like Brady) was the best consistently over decades. I also think Nicklaus faced more protagonists than Woods. In his prime, Woods basically competed against Vijay Singh, Ernie Els, David Duval, Sergio Garcia and Phil Mickelson. Nicklaus had to deal with Lee Trevino, Johnny Miller, Dave Stockton, Gary Player, Arnold Palmer, Tom Watson, Tom Weiskopf, Lanny Wadkins, Billy Casper, Raymond Floyd, Ben Crenshaw, Seve Ballesteros and Hale Irwin. I think Woods was greater at times, but Nicklaus is the greatest.

https://www.vsin.com/all-time-shootout-jack-vs-tiger/

Kiwias wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 9:56 am This site asked 12 golf journalists to nominate which of NIcklaus or Woods they saw as the GOAT, with the result being six for Nicklaus, four for Woods, and two even or undecided.

This quote pretty much sums up my views on the question.

I think this is a little bit like the Tom Brady-vs.-Joe Montana debate. Montana was probably better and was otherworldly brilliant for a short time (like Woods). But Nicklaus (like Brady) was the best consistently over decades. I also think Nicklaus faced more protagonists than Woods. In his prime, Woods basically competed against Vijay Singh, Ernie Els, David Duval, Sergio Garcia and Phil Mickelson. Nicklaus had to deal with Lee Trevino, Johnny Miller, Dave Stockton, Gary Player, Arnold Palmer, Tom Watson, Tom Weiskopf, Lanny Wadkins, Billy Casper, Raymond Floyd, Ben Crenshaw, Seve Ballesteros and Hale Irwin. I think Woods was greater at times, but Nicklaus is the greatest.

https://www.vsin.com/all-time-shootout-jack-vs-tiger/

This is a personal opinion of course but I think the standard of other golfers in the Woods era was as good if not better than those in the peak Nicklaus era and I definitely think it was deeper. What I guess I'm trying to say is that those players didn't necessarily shine as much at they might have because of Woods. His shadow and influence over all other golfers was omnipresent. He dominated them. Nicklaus didn't do that to the same extent often because he didn't need to.

I'd also add, just looking at that list of 'great' golfers in that quote, that there's nothing like nostalgia to ramp up reputations. Ray Floyd and Billy Casper - I mean, really? C'mon.

As if golf is a sport

Darts - Phil Taylor
Rugby - Jonah
Football - Maradona
snooker - Ronnie
Tennis - 3 way tie tbh even if djok ends up with more than 20 thanks to the drugs
D1 - Hamilton

Kawazaki wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 11:00 am

I'd also add, just looking at that list of 'great' golfers in that quote, that there's nothing like nostalgia to ramp up reputations. Ray Floyd and Billy Casper - I mean, really? C'mon.

Casper is 7th on the list of all time PGA tour winners and has three majors.
Ray Floyd has four majors.

They aren't in line for GOAT status, but they aren't dummies either. Though having said that they are probably towards the lower end of that list of protagonists that Nicklaus faced.

Kawazaki wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 11:00 am

Kiwias wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 9:56 am This site asked 12 golf journalists to nominate which of NIcklaus or Woods they saw as the GOAT, with the result being six for Nicklaus, four for Woods, and two even or undecided.

This quote pretty much sums up my views on the question.

I think this is a little bit like the Tom Brady-vs.-Joe Montana debate. Montana was probably better and was otherworldly brilliant for a short time (like Woods). But Nicklaus (like Brady) was the best consistently over decades. I also think Nicklaus faced more protagonists than Woods. In his prime, Woods basically competed against Vijay Singh, Ernie Els, David Duval, Sergio Garcia and Phil Mickelson. Nicklaus had to deal with Lee Trevino, Johnny Miller, Dave Stockton, Gary Player, Arnold Palmer, Tom Watson, Tom Weiskopf, Lanny Wadkins, Billy Casper, Raymond Floyd, Ben Crenshaw, Seve Ballesteros and Hale Irwin. I think Woods was greater at times, but Nicklaus is the greatest.

https://www.vsin.com/all-time-shootout-jack-vs-tiger/

This is a personal opinion of course but I think the standard of other golfers in the Woods era was as good if not better than those in the peak Nicklaus era and I definitely think it was deeper. What I guess I'm trying to say is that those players didn't necessarily shine as much at they might have because of Woods. His shadow and influence over all other golfers was omnipresent. He dominated them. Nicklaus didn't do that to the same extent often because he didn't need to.

I'd also add, just looking at that list of 'great' golfers in that quote, that there's nothing like nostalgia to ramp up reputations. Ray Floyd and Billy Casper - I mean, really? C'mon.

I get that it is your opinion regarding the depth of players in the two eras but qualified and several experienced journalists who cover golf exclusively do not agree with you.