Who Really is the Best All Time Golfer

[Cybergolfer]

I'm not a Tiger baser or a Nicklaus supporter the fact is I like Tiger and not so much Jack. My contention is that golf can not put a crown on whom is the best. We have had a drastic change in the technology of clubs , balls and course maintence. If you're going to put a crown on my contention is to split golf into different era eg. v groove era, square groove era, wood shaft era. People would love to say Tiger would have dominated anyways (ask the Pats last Sunday).

[golf nut]

Hands down. Tiger.!

[nearace]

Sam Snead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Snead)1912–2002http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Flag_of_the_United_States.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg) United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States)82wins7majors1936–1965

[Merlot]

Tiger Woods now but to be fair to Jack, give it 4 or 5 years.

[Tyger]

I say Tiger...you can still can compare them against their peers who use the same technology...

[kyles44]

As "Tyger" said, you can most definately compare the two based on the accomplishments (Dominance?) in their respective eras. Jack was playing against many other great players who were all using the exact same/similar to technology in clubs and other equipment as he was using, and the same goes for Tiger and his fellow competitors.

The dominance that each have displayed in their own time has been remarkable to say the least. At this very moment, I would give the edge to good ol' Jack. However, ask me in 5, maybe 10 years, and I would bet a good chunk of change that my answer will be different.

Cheers!
Kyle

[hogannut]

If you base it on numbers alone, it will be Tiger hands down, no questions asked. His wins IMO will be triple digit and his majors will have 2 numbers and may start with a 4 or even a 5.

The only record I can see that he may not attain will be 11 in a row, but even that is within his grasp.

[Cybergolfer]

I realize Tiger is dominate but I also see a real lack of threat. Under Jacks day we have Player, Palmer, Watson, Trevino, Flyodd all whom were not scared of Jack. Players now a days are scared of Tiger. They are consoled to second place.
Getting back to equipment I rather doubt Tiger would have been able to pull off the shots he does with the equipment say under the Nicklaus era. Anyone who played with these types of clubs knows what I mean. I have set of Hogan Plus 1 last summer for fun I pulled a seven iron I barely could hit hit 130 yds my TM LT-2 goes 165. I was lucky if my persimmon driver went 240 now my driver goes 260-270 and I'm 30 years older.
Tiger's accurracy with his driver is bad in V-groove day a ball in rough would get you a flier now adays they're stopping on a dime. Balls that went out of round quickly, persimmon heads . To me this makes Jacks 18 majors more impressive.

[Richard]

Not to mention that Tiger's era includes the NCAA and several mini-tours pumping out a lot more talented players than in any previous era.

Tiger's competition is better and he is winning at a faster rate than anybody before.

I think Tiger is the best, by a good margin.

[kyles44]

I realize Tiger is dominate but I also see a real lack of threat. Under Jacks day we have Player, Palmer, Watson, Trevino, Flyodd all whom were not scared of Jack. Players now a days are scared of Tiger. They are consoled to second place.
Getting back to equipment I rather doubt Tiger would have been able to pull off the shots he does with the equipment say under the Nicklaus era. Anyone who played with these types of clubs knows what I mean. I have set of Hogan Plus 1 last summer for fun I pulled a seven iron I barely could hit hit 130 yds my TM LT-2 goes 165. I was lucky if my persimmon driver went 240 now my driver goes 260-270 and I'm 30 years older.
Tiger's accurracy with his driver is bad in V-groove day a ball in rough would get you a flier now adays they're stopping on a dime. Balls that went out of round quickly, persimmon heads . To me this makes Jacks 18 majors more impressive.

I see what you are saying, but the only subject that your arguments make debatable are scoring averages, low rounds, and hole scores (number of birdies, eagles, pars, etc.) Number of tour victories and Major victories are not reflective of equipment, as all players competing against Tiger are using the same equipment, thus he has no advantage in that category.

Not to mention, courses today have been re-designed and lengthened with greater amounts of hazards/forced carries to compensate and counteract the greater technology in clubs today that enable any golfer to driver much greater distances.

Therefore, although it is impressive that Jack and many others made their achievements with the equipment they did, it is just as tough in todays game to achieve the same results. Again, I feel it is not a valid argument to compare Jack and Tiger on an equipment basis.

[Merlot]

Not to mention that Tiger's era includes the NCAA and several mini-tours pumping out a lot more talented players than in any previous era.

Tiger's competition is better and he is winning at a faster rate than anybody before.

I think Tiger is the best, by a good margin.

This must be considered and pretty hard to argue.

[davepratt]

If you base it on numbers alone, it will be Tiger hands down, no questions asked. His wins IMO will be triple digit and his majors will have 2 numbers and may start with a 4 or even a 5.

The only record I can see that he may not attain will be 11 in a row, but even that is within his grasp.

Byron Nelson's 11 in a row should have an asterisk due to the fact it was versus very weak fields during the war. As far as comparing the best of all time. I know there's conjecture in every sport, but I don't think there's any way to be sure of who is the best ever. There's far too many variables.

[Quest]

I see what you are saying, but the only subject that your arguments make debatable are scoring averages, low rounds, and hole scores (number of birdies, eagles, pars, etc.) Number of tour victories and Major victories are not reflective of equipment, as all players competing against Tiger are using the same equipment, thus he has no advantage in that category.

Not to mention, courses today have been re-designed and lengthened with greater amounts of hazards/forced carries to compensate and counteract the greater technology in clubs today that enable any golfer to driver much greater distances.

Therefore, although it is impressive that Jack and many others made their achievements with the equipment they did, it is just as tough in todays game to achieve the same results. Again, I feel it is not a valid argument to compare Jack and Tiger on an equipment basis.

Exactly......Jack was not playing on courses that were 7500 + yards.

[setter02]

I still don't knowe why people don't take into consideration the amount of times Jack finished second in the majors. think about it, Jack was a few swings away each one from putting up a number like 35+ over his career. And finished second 58 times over that career. Another thing was how many tournies each year Jack played vs. Tiger. Tiger is avg. like 16 PGA events a year and is in his prime. Jack was playing in that many events after 20+ years on tour. I may not have seen Jack play, but I think these are more significant then how many cookie cutter players there are on tour that Tiger plays against.

[Samick]

All very solid arguements/points.

Equipment has changed, so have the courses, BUT, everybody gets to play with or at least have the same opportunity to play with the same equipment, so nobody should have an advantage there. HOWEVER, did it require more skill to execute a shot with the equipment of years ago in Jack's era? Some would argue yes. Think of that 1-iron that Jack hit uphill ( I think it was the US Open) when it took Lefty Phil a 4-wood to get to the par five in two.

Funny though, I dont think the scores have changed much even though the equipment and courses have.

In all honesty...I dont really think you could pin-point ONE 'Best of All Time Golfer', there will always be an arguement and a flipside to the coin. Case in point...Byron's 11 in a row.

Personally, my opinion still views Jack Nicklaus as the Best of All Time, which spans his whole career. Tiger isnt done yet....so this may, and most likely will change. Jack is still the man with the records, the wins, the majors...and as somebody else said, played ALOT more tournaments per year than Tiger. To be able to play and sustain that high of a level of play is astounding. The second place finishes in the majors is crazy!

Best of all time - Jack Nicklaus
Best current player in the game - Tiger Woods (by a long shot!)

Tiger has the potential to be the best player that ever lived if he continues on this train wreck called The PGA Tour.

[Richard]

I have a hunch that if you looked at the numbers, likely most payers who have won majors also finished second about the same number of times.

The reason why we have a few really famous golfers from the past eras is that there were simply not that many in terms of numbers of really skilled players. So the cream of the crop won more often than today. We still have a similar number of PGA tour stops, but a lot more players who could win on any given week.

I think if you could drop somebody like say Woody Austin back into the 50/60/70s, he would be as famous as Trevino or the like. Today he is an above average player but not winning majors like Trevino did.

Oh and don't forget how the game has grown in Europe and around the world, many countries sending their best to the PGA and majors, and Tiger whoops them too.

[Samick]

I have a hunch that if you looked at the numbers, likely most payers who have won majors also finished second about the same number of times.

The reason why we have a few really famous golfers from the past eras is that there were simply not that many in terms of numbers of really skilled players. So the cream of the crop won more often than today. We still have a similar number of PGA tour stops, but a lot more players who could win on any given week.

I think if you could drop somebody like say Woody Austin back into the 50/60/70s, he would be as famous as Trevino or the like. Today he is an above average player but not winning majors like Trevino did.

Oh and don't forget how the game has grown in Europe and around the world, many countries sending their best to the PGA and majors, and Tiger whoops them too.

I dont know....they made a whole Tour based on the 'Old Dogs'....something about Champions... :D

You only hear about the most famous players of yesteryear because we havent seen or watched them. 25-30 years from now...if he doesnt do too much else...you think those kids in the futre will remember/know or think of Sergio? Stewart Cink? Charles Howell III? etc...etc..

[imAnewbie]

Happy GILMORE! beats everyone, aces on par 4s? beat that! hahahaha:rofl: hands down on tiger, the way he makes everyone catch up to him... now thats how you play

[Richard]

you think those kids in the futre will remember/know or think of Sergio? Stewart Cink? Charles Howell III? etc.
***************

What I was trying to convey, but didn't do well, was that from say Jack's era everybody usually says he had to compete against top notch competitors that Tiger doesn't today. I think what they mean is that there were a number of golfers with several majors under their belt. Today because of the increased competition there is not the opportunity for many players to achieve the multiple major wins like Jacks era. Because the competition now is larger in number for those tournaments.

There will likely be fewer really famous golfers from this era than previous eras becuase of the increased competition and more players being able to pull off a major win.

Champions tour is another good debate that will come about when Tiger turns 50, who will win more there Jack or Tiger? Or maybe not if Tiger has 120 wins, 30 majors and still in top shape. Will have to wait and see.

Don't get me wrong, I always admired Jack. But trying to analyze with my head.

[hogannut]

I still don't knowe why people don't take into consideration the amount of times Jack finished second in the majors. think about it, Jack was a few swings away each one from putting up a number like 35+ over his career. And finished second 58 times over that career. Another thing was how many tournies each year Jack played vs. Tiger. Tiger is avg. like 16 PGA events a year and is in his prime. Jack was playing in that many events after 20+ years on tour. I may not have seen Jack play, but I think these are more significant then how many cookie cutter players there are on tour that Tiger plays against.

Great point about Jack's 2nd place finishes!;) When you think of that then numbers like 40 or even .... 50 enter your mind, which is pretty scary!!:hush: Reality is though that TIger continues to improve and therefore widening the gap. He simply thinks he can improve every time he plays. Tiger may just be the best athlete (not just golfer) ever in terms of mental toughness.

As for the debates about equipment and/or the quality of competition in whatever era you are talking about is a debate that will never really be agreed on by everyone one way or the other.

However, I think in 20 more years, assuming TIger choses to, and I think he still loves playing; there will be no question if TIger would have had whatever record he holds at that point in whatever era you compare him to because it will be so dominent there will be no valid argument you could put up.:help:

[Weirfan]

I have had the pleasure of watching both players.

quite honestly I would have a hard time saying one over the other and frankly I think that it is impossible to compare the two golfers due to the drastic differences in the game and everything around it now versus before.

sure the courses were shorter for jack , but they were also in much less pristine condition...greens then like fairways now

The equipment, the training, the psychologists, nutrition, swing analysis machines and most importanly and regarded by most golfers as the biggest difference today is the advances in the ball and how far it travels ( Trevino says 40-50 yards difference) and easier to control.

Golf has so many more fans today but many are way too young to know or remember how amazing jack was.

As such they are seing Tiger and his dominance only with no real reference point. Make no mistake the man is amazing.

In the end I gues that the barometer will end up being the golfer with the greatest number of wins and majors ...and the way it looks is that Tiger can probably achieve that and will get the moniker of greatest golfer ever.

to me they are both great and having watched most of both their careers I cannot choose between them at least not now...if Tiger shows the longeavity and ability to win and compete im majors like Jack well into his career then maybe , just maybe.

dont forget that there have been some great , great golfers that have played the game......some could be considered as great as these two.....it is just that they did not have the duration of greatness that Jack and Tiger have shown

[Richard]

Jack quotes about Tiger;

“There isn't a flaw in his golf or his makeup. He will win more majors than Arnold Palmer and me combined. Somebody is going to dust my records. It might as well be Tiger, because he's such a great kid.”

“He has the finest, fundamentally sound golf swing I've ever seen.”

[golf nut]

I have had the pleasure of watching both players.

quite honestly I would have a hard time saying one over the other and frankly I think that it is impossible to compare the two golfers due to the drastic differences in the game and everything around it now versus before.

sure the courses were shorter for jack , but they were also in much less pristine condition...greens then like fairways now

The equipment, the training, the psychologists, nutrition, swing analysis machines and most importanly and regarded by most golfers as the biggest difference today is the advances in the ball and how far it travels ( Trevino says 40-50 yards difference) and easier to control.

Golf has so many more fans today but many are way too young to know or remember how amazing jack was.

As such they are seing Tiger and his dominance only with no real reference point. Make no mistake the man is amazing.

In the end I gues that the barometer will end up being the golfer with the greatest number of wins and majors ...and the way it looks is that Tiger can probably achieve that and will get the moniker of greatest golfer ever.

to me they are both great and having watched most of both their careers I cannot choose between them at least not now...if Tiger shows the longeavity and ability to win and compete im majors like Jack well into his career then maybe , just maybe.

dont forget that there have been some great , great golfers that have played the game......some could be considered as great as these two.....it is just that they did not have the duration of greatness that Jack and Tiger have shown

Did they play the smaller ball back then?

[Big Shooter]

Tiger, although I'm not a big fan, and I grew up a Jack-fan! ;)

[Samick]

you think those kids in the futre will remember/know or think of Sergio? Stewart Cink? Charles Howell III? etc.
***************

What I was trying to convey, but didn't do well, was that from say Jack's era everybody usually says he had to compete against top notch competitors that Tiger doesn't today. I think what they mean is that there were a number of golfers with several majors under their belt. Today because of the increased competition there is not the opportunity for many players to achieve the multiple major wins like Jacks era. Because the competition now is larger in number for those tournaments.

There will likely be fewer really famous golfers from this era than previous eras becuase of the increased competition and more players being able to pull off a major win.

Champions tour is another good debate that will come about when Tiger turns 50, who will win more there Jack or Tiger? Or maybe not if Tiger has 120 wins, 30 majors and still in top shape. Will have to wait and see.

Don't get me wrong, I always admired Jack. But trying to analyze with my head.

Very good points, especially on the "...fewer famous golfers from this era.." The fields today include ALOT more players from around the world, the European, Nationwide Tour..etc...etc. The competition today is very diverse with alot more players, bringing on a 'new arguement' that Jack didnt play against as many players. But, I was just trying to say before, that anybody that hasnt watched Jack, Arnie, Lee, Billy...etc.. in their era, would not recognize anybody else, or the 'lesser' players that havent won many tournaments or majors.

I have a soft spot for Jack, so I'm a little biased, and the fact he still holds the records gets my vote. I will go on record to say that in a few years, baring a catastrophy, Tiger will break the records and become the greatest of all time.

[golfpal]

I would say Hogan for reasons below. But for stats I would say Jack as he has proven himself. He did take a lot of time off when he could have even won many more than he did. Tiger does look like he is on that road but yet to be seen. I ttherefore on stats would take Jack. But on skill and what is brought to the golf world I would say Hogan. How many golfers could go through what Hogan went through and accomplish what he did. Had he not had his accident and recovery time of years in between he may have exceded all here. The doctors said he would never walk again let alone win another tournament and he did both. He was in immense pain and still was a champion. So even though the records don't match up what could he have been had he been healthy his whole life and stayed on the path he was on before his accident.:rolleyes:

[Weirfan]

Did they play the smaller ball back then?

small ball.........thats baseball no??

I really dont know 100% but dont think so. pretty sure not in the 70 and 80's..can't say about the 60's

was the smaller ball not just used in Europe??

[guitarman]

I would say Hogan for reasons below. But for stats I would say Jack as he has proven himself. He did take a lot of time off when he could have even won many more than he did. Tiger does look like he is on that road but yet to be seen. I ttherefore on stats would take Jack. But on skill and what is brought to the golf world I would say Hogan. How many golfers could go through what Hogan went through and accomplish what he did. Had he not had his accident and recovery time of years in between he may have exceded all here. The doctors said he would never walk again let alone win another tournament and he did both. He was in immense pain and still was a champion. So even though the records don't match up what could he have been had he been healthy his whole life and stayed on the path he was on before his accident.:rolleyes:

Regardless of what someone may have done under better circumstances I think the only thing you can go by is hard stats. Most wins, majors, etc. You can't extrapolate that if someone didn't have an injury or the field wasn't as deep, etc, etc, then they would have been better. Its not factual. Tiger is on the path of being the best ever. If he gets hit by a bus tommorrow then its all speculation and the current best will hold the title. Me, I could care less. As I have only been seriously in to golf for a few years I'm not familiar with all the stats beyond knowing a little about all the past greats. I'm just enjoying the present greats and not so greats.

[golfpal]

Ok is your going on strickly stats then I guess its Jack!

[guitarman]

Ok is your going on strickly stats then I guess its Jack!

Yup. And if Tiger doesn't get hit by a bus or meet some other untimely demise I expect one day it will be him. But until then its technically speculation. Now didn't that make this subject a whole lot simpler.

[Pingnut]

What is Tiger's winning percentage vs Jack's?
I wonder if we could get Jack's winning percentage up to Tigers current age, or number of seasons?

I feel like Tiger is already the best all-time.

[Bellyhungry]

They are both best in class in their era, and it is kind of like comparing artists, be it painters, musicians, or writers. Hard to say one is better than the other.

[Golden Bear]

Jack until Tiger wins his 18th professional major. You want the title of Best of All Time, you have to earn it, and an 18th major is what it's going to take. Now, I hear you say, "but that only ties him with Jack!" I'll explain in a moment.

There are legitimate arguments to be made about the equipment (not just the clubs, but the wildly inconsistent balls the old guys played with) and the competition (Jack played against more "greats", Tiger plays against a far deeper field). But I'm no longer interested in making those arguments, because such arguments are subjective. You make the case that supports what you want to believe.

So, I've just reduced it to a number -- the number of TOTAL majors the two have won, including the US Amateur.

The US Amateur used to be counted in majors totals, and Jack used to be credited with 20 Major wins thanks to his two US Amateurs. Tiger has won three US Amateurs, and there's no reason to exclude those wins when comparing the two golfers. With the US Amateur wins, Jack has 20 majors, Tiger has 16. When Tiger wins 21 total majors, the title is his. But not before.

(See? I'm making it easier for Tiger! He's one closer!)

Even after he pulls that off, I'll be waiting to see if Tiger can trump what is, in my opinion, the greatest golf moment of all time ... the one you see in my avatar. :D

small ball.........thats baseball no??

I really dont know 100% but dont think so. pretty sure not in the 70 and 80's..can't say about the 60's

was the smaller ball not just used in Europe??Yes, they used a smaller ball in the UK. I believe they used the smaller ball until the late 70s, but someone might correct me on that.

[golfnguru]

:D

Yes, they used a smaller ball in the UK. I believe they used the smaller ball until the late 70s, but someone might correct me on that.

Here's the skinny:

In the USA, International teams were allowed to use the small ball.
The PGA made the bigger ball compulsory for main tournaments in 1964, and from 1968 announced that it was to experiment with the bigger ball of 1.68" in its tournaments, and soon after made it mandatory.
In 1974, the R&A made the bigger ball compulsory for the Open Championship.
Under the R&A, both balls were legal until the smaller ball was finally outlawed by the R&A in 1990 (http://www.ruleshistory.com/appendices.html#1988appIII).

As for golfer. Tiger. Easily the most dominant golfer ever.

[BowmanvilleJim]

One day there will come along a young player that will challenge all the records being set by Tiger and the debate will continue as it should.

[Richard]

*******************
I'll be waiting to see if Tiger can trump what is, in my opinion, the greatest golf moment of all time
*******************
86 Masters

I remember that putt, what a back nine
I still have a Nicklaus GB86 putter

No doubt Tiger will hole a similar putt when he is 50 something and become the oldest winner of the Masters ever!

That will be a fun time, an Old Tiger trying to keep beating all the young upstarts.

[cldale]

I realize Tiger is dominate but I also see a real lack of threat. Under Jacks day we have Player, Palmer, Watson, Trevino, Flyodd all whom were not scared of Jack. Players now a days are scared of Tiger. They are consoled to second place.
Getting back to equipment I rather doubt Tiger would have been able to pull off the shots he does with the equipment say under the Nicklaus era. Anyone who played with these types of clubs knows what I mean. I have set of Hogan Plus 1 last summer for fun I pulled a seven iron I barely could hit hit 130 yds my TM LT-2 goes 165. I was lucky if my persimmon driver went 240 now my driver goes 260-270 and I'm 30 years older.
Tiger's accurracy with his driver is bad in V-groove day a ball in rough would get you a flier now adays they're stopping on a dime. Balls that went out of round quickly, persimmon heads . To me this makes Jacks 18 majors more impressive.

Driver: Equal. Tiger doesn't HAVE to be accurate so he isn't. But when its called for (US Open) he suddenly manages to find the fairway in tighter setups? Fairways weren't nearly as narrow in jacks day as they are now when the USGA or PGA sets up a course.

Long Irons: Equal. Jack was a master of the long iron, so is tiger. Both can hit a 1-iron well, something you don't see many (anyone?) else do.

Mid Irons : Tiger. Tiger can do things with his mid irons that defy the imagination

Short Irons/Wedges: Tiger. Nicklaus didn't really play much from the rough so didn't develop his short game.

Putting: Tiger, by a wide margin.

Overall, I say Tiger is better, regardless of equipment. Put them both together in the same era with the same equipment and I say tiger wins.

Also, don't discount that tiger is in MUCH better shape than Jack ever was. This counts.

Tiger is also winning much earlier in his career and much faster.

To say Nicklaus had better competition is insulting to the guys who play today. Els, Mickelson, Garcia, etc al are as good or better than Nicklaus' contemporaries.

[golfnguru]

To say Nicklaus had better competition is insulting to the guys who play today. Els, Mickelson, Garcia, etc al are as good or better than Nicklaus' contemporaries.

Not when it comes to majors. IMO, these guys can't hold a candle to Watson, Trevino, Player or Seve. But maybe thats because Tiger beats them all.

[Golden Bear]

Not when it comes to majors. IMO, these guys can't hold a candle to Watson, Trevino, Player or Seve. But maybe thats because Tiger beats them all.I'd agree ... and add Player and Palmer, as well as guys who had their time in the sun like Johnny Miller -- who for a brief stretch was arguably the best player in the game. When these guys and the ones you mentioned were in their prime, they all had killer instinct that I don't see in Tiger's competition. They stepped up their games, rather than bouncing balls off hospitality tents. If I had to equate Tiger's competition with Jack's, I might compare his stiffest competitors to a Greg Norman -- loads of talent, and some great wins, even at majors, but having a tendency to go off the rails. Or perhaps a Tom Weiskopf when he was at the top of his game.

But as you suggest, it's possible that if all the old guys were playing today, Tiger would be beating them so soundly that the "killer instinct" they showed was getting them some nice second place finishes. I don't think that's the case ... but this is why it's so hard to compare players from different eras. Until they actually go head-to-head, we just don't know.

I'll echo what Jack has said many times -- the greats in one era would still be great in any other era. Who would be the "greatest" is something we can only debate.

I'm not sure that I care all that much, to be honest. Obviously, Jack's my all-time favourite, but I don't particularly care if he's not everyone's favourite.

[Flog]

I'd guess that Woods is the best and has the numbers to prove it, but for shear impact on the game as a whole, I'd give Bobby Jones my vote. He did an awful lot for the advancement of the game, way back then. Even watching him on tv is just unreal. He was so good it was scary.

[Golden Bear]

I'd guess that Woods is the best and has the numbers to prove it, but for shear impact on the game as a whole, I'd give Bobby Jones my vote. He did an awful lot for the advancement of the game, way back then. Even watching him on tv is just unreal. He was so good it was scary.

"Impact on the game" would be an interesting one to debate.

Bobby Jones, obviously, is a name that has to be discussed. But you could also make a case for Hogan. You could make a case for Palmer, who not only played a key role in establishing the current configuration of the four majors (re-popularizing the British Open in the process) but was the centre of the explosion in TV interest in golf in the 60s that brought the sport into the mainstream, and helped to found The Golf Channel. Nicklaus was part of the growth of the game along with Palmer. And Woods' presence has certainly had a major impact.

[abz-pete]

Here's the skinny:

In the USA, International teams were allowed to use the small ball.
The PGA made the bigger ball compulsory for main tournaments in 1964, and from 1968 announced that it was to experiment with the bigger ball of 1.68" in its tournaments, and soon after made it mandatory.
In 1974, the R&A made the bigger ball compulsory for the Open Championship.
Under the R&A, both balls were legal until the smaller ball was finally outlawed by the R&A in 1990 (http://www.ruleshistory.com/appendices.html#1988appIII).



From memory, I'd say pretty much everyone in the UK changed to the 1.68" ball in the late seventies. All it took was the manufacturers to halt production and within a season the small ball was history.

[golfnguru]

From memory, I'd say pretty much everyone in the UK changed to the 1.68" ball in the late seventies. All it took was the manufacturers to halt production and within a season the small ball was history.

Sounds right.

I was golfing in Glasgow in May and my son found an old Dunlop 65.
I'm sure that the guy that lost it was pissed. Probably played it for 30 years:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:.

Looks like he will have to go buy another ball or quit golfing.

[Flog]

"Impact on the game" would be an interesting one to debate.

Bobby Jones, obviously, is a name that has to be discussed. But you could also make a case for Hogan. You could make a case for Palmer, who not only played a key role in establishing the current configuration of the four majors (re-popularizing the British Open in the process) but was the centre of the explosion in TV interest in golf in the 60s that brought the sport into the mainstream, and helped to found The Golf Channel. Nicklaus was part of the growth of the game along with Palmer. And Woods' presence has certainly had a major impact.

It's hard to discount the involvement or impact any of these gentlemen have made. The game wouldn't be the same had a single one of them not shown their brilliance and aptitude for our beloved sport. I couldn't carry the lunch-box for a single one of those golfers, but I'm forever endebted to each and every one of them.

[Golftime]

For what it is worth here are some statistics on Jack and Tiger. First column is winning percentage, 2nd column is 2nd place % and third column is 3rd place percentage. The first row (Jack) is for Jacks; career totals. Second row is Tigers career totals. Third row(J244) is Jack after 244 tournaments and fourth row is Jack after 345 tournaments. So in his Jack's prime Jack and Tiger won at an equal pace but Jack finished in the top 3 more often. It will be interesting to see how much Tiger drops off in a few years.

Played 1 2 3
Jack 12% 10% 6%
Tiger 27% 10% 7%
J244 18% 14% 10%
J345 28% 18% 12%

[Weirfan]

To say Nicklaus had better competition is insulting to the guys who play today. Els, Mickelson, Garcia, etc al are as good or better than Nicklaus' contemporaries.

completely inncaurate and wrong , so wrong that it defies logic.....there is more depth and taleny overall today than back then but the big guns jack competed against were and are always going to be way better than any of these guys.....Player, Trevino, Miller, Floyd, Watson, Norman for a short stint, Seve, Tom Kite, Ben Crenshaw.....the list of Jacks competitors is a whos who of great golfers.........

Garcia, Els.............come on , :rofl: I would rank Weir as a better challenge than Garcia.........more majors as well:p

although things have changed alot and it is only pure speculation......put Tiger's current game back with Jack in his prime and have them use the equipment and ball Jack used and the lousy greens they played on and I will take Jack all day long

[setter02]

I think one thing should be taken into consideration aswell, Jack I don't think was breed to be the best golfer out there. Didn't have a mental coach at age 5. Tiger's whole life has been groomed for one thing and one thing only. I think the comparison should be Jack vs. Machine.

[Merlot]

Exactly......Jack was not playing on courses that were 7500 + yards.

Tiger and Jack in his prime (young prime) basically hit the same clubs into greens at the Masters for example.

Jack knows tiger but not sure about the most technically correct swing comment.

For what it is worth here are some statistics on Jack and Tiger. First column is winning percentage, 2nd column is 2nd place % and third column is 3rd place percentage. The first row (Jack) is for Jacks; career totals. Second row is Tigers career totals. Third row(J244) is Jack after 244 tournaments and fourth row is Jack after 345 tournaments. So in his Jack's prime Jack and Tiger won at an equal pace but Jack finished in the top 3 more often. It will be interesting to see how much Tiger drops off in a few years.

Played 1 2 3
Jack 12% 10% 6%
Tiger 27% 10% 7%
J244 18% 14% 10%
J345 28% 18% 12%


There was less competition then so it was easier to finish in the top 3.

Also, though Jack would say you need to be around the lead to win, but I also heard him say something to the equivalent of 'second place is first loser'

[golferboy]

Tiger...Tiger.....Tiger......the difference being that if you compare the eras in which each great player dominated.....there are for more challengers to Tiger than there ever were to hogan and nicklaus or even palmer...Tiger is the complete package...skills, physical makeup and the mental game that no one in his era can even compete with.

[Golden Bear]

although things have changed alot and it is only pure speculation......put Tiger's current game back with Jack in his prime and have them use the equipment and ball Jack used and the lousy greens they played on and I will take Jack all day longYeah, and this is why I always say it's impossible to compare players of different eras.

The metal drivers and fairway woods are talked about quite a bit, but you're right to mention the ball, as well. Those balls the old guys used were horrifically inconsistent. The USGA did a comparison a few years ago and found that the old balls Jack and his peers used didn't just travel less far, but the distance they travelled varied widely -- 20 or 30 yards. There was also a drastic inconsistency in how straight they flew. When people talk about the more narrow fairways now (and the existence of any rough at all at Augusta), the old balls made the old fairways narrower, too.

And it's a very good point about the greens. Watch old highlight films on The Golf Channel -- the putts bounce like crazy. It's amazing that Jack was such a fantastic clutch putter (not to mention great putters of the day like Billy Casper).

Like Jack, I believe that the greats would be great in any era, and Tiger would have been great in Jack's era -- and vice versa. There's just no way of knowing who would have been better.

I'm content to give Tiger the mantle when he wins his 18th major, just to be done with the discussion. But as I said earlier, he doesn't get the crown until he gets the number.

[Smully]

Byron Nelson's 11 in a row should have an asterisk due to the fact it was versus very weak fields during the war. As far as comparing the best of all time. I know there's conjecture in every sport, but I don't think there's any way to be sure of who is the best ever. There's far too many variables. I can`t agree,Tiger is the best of all time,cause we haven`t lived all time, In my opinion,Tiger is the most successful currently, because he and the media intimidate the rest ah the players.Time for somebody,,aka..Tom Watson,Trevino, Player,,etc, to step up to the plate, too many clones out there right now,,Show a little JAM.

[Queen of the Beach]

Without a doubt. Tiger is the best all time golfer.

[Golf_Goof]

Best golfer means the guy who has the greatest command of the game. The ability to pull off all the shots, withstand the pressure, manage the course, grind it out when struggling and beat the competition more often then the next guy.

Tiger's world ranking vs his competitors is a good measure and I'm pretty sure if Jack an co. had a similar ranking back then, the differential would have been far less. I'm too young to have watched a lot of Jack in his prime but purely by numbers he doesn't appear to have beaten his competition with equal frequency, nor utterly destroyed fields as Tiger has so often done - especially in majors. Before Tiger, had we ever heard of winning the Masters by 12? U.S. Open by 15?

The total dominance over his contemporaries gives Tiger the edge in my mind.

[kyles44]

although things have changed alot and it is only pure speculation......put Tiger's current game back with Jack in his prime and have them use the equipment and ball Jack used and the lousy greens they played on and I will take Jack all day long

Yea, but take the longer, harder, more demanding courses of Tiger's era, along with the slick rolled greens, give Jack all the same equipment and ball as Tiger, and I will take Tiger all day long.

I just do not see any substance to the argument regarding Jack's equipment...If Sidney Crosby ends up breaking all of Wayne Gretzky's records, is Wayne Gretzky still a better player because Sid the Kid had better equipment? HELL NO!!! Tiger/Jack...and Wayne/Sid...every player played against players who were using the same stuff they were. There is not point in debating about the equipment.