Tips, Quips, and Yips

This argument, or discussion, or comparison, has been going on already for about 10 years.
Who is better, Tiger or Jack? I think the answer is extremely clear, but the pundits discussing the matter skirt the issue in a way that muddies the topic.

Because underneath all the stats and Jack's 18 majors is the unspoken question: Who is the greater man? There is an unwritten rule in golf reporting, whether on TV or in the written press: don't ever criticize Jack (and therefore, don't count him second).

This is understandable. Jack is a great man, a great family man, father, sportsman, leader, role model and humanitarian. He deserves the Medal of Freedom (which Tiger also earned recently). Tiger has become a far better person than he once was, more balanced, more generous, a positive leader and mentor, a better father.

But Tiger has had some dark, even ugly periods. Ever since the fire hydrant episode, his legacy has been tarnished, even though it had nothing to do with golf. For a number of years, Tiger was far from being a role model. If anything he was the poster child for parents to look at and say, "let's not raise that kind of child".

This comparison of character is what has lain under much of the supposed comparison of golf champions. And whether that is important or not, it should not influence the topic in question.
The question is "who is the best golfer that ever lived?" The answer is very clear: it's Tiger.

Let's start with his amateur record:
3 consecutive World Junior Golf championships (didn't exist when Jack was young)
3 consecutive US Junior Amateur Championships (Jack's best was a semi-final)
3 consecutive US Amateur Championships (Jack won 2, non-consecutively)

This is an astronomical feat. This is Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Special Relativity put together, as a teenager. It will never, ever be equaled or repeated. Not in 100 years, not in 1000 years. It's a once- only human accomplishment. It's Wilt Chamberlain scoring 100 points three games in a row. Never happened. (As an aside, the sometimes witty Dan Jenkins decried Tiger's entire career because he claimed Tiger "never came back to win from behind". Right.

This would already put him in the hall of fame even if he never turned pro. And the way he won his 1996 US Amateur title, coming from 5 strokes back after 18 holes to beat Steve Scott was one of the greatest comebacks in golf history.

Now let's look at his World Golf Titles: 18! Eighteen! Who is number two? Dustin Johnson with 6. This is an underrated accomplishment. They represent the strongest fields in golf every time. Those 64 players are all the best at each moment - a better field than even in the majors. The courses are difficult and varied, the weather and grasses different. How hard is it to win a WGC event? Well the former "world #1 Lee Westwood" never one one. Phil, Rory, and Geoff Ogilvy each have three. Again, Tiger, against the best in the world, already has eighteen.

Lots of people talk about The Players as the fifth major. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But one could make a case that if you won, say, three Players, that's kind of like winning one major. It's only been done once, by Jack. That rarity is a function of how difficult a win that really is. Again, this is just purely hypothetical.

But if you follow me for a minute, and just for the moment agree that three Players is worth one major, then I'd posit that six WGC events also equals a major. Again, only two players in history have won 6 or more. Far more rare than winning an actual major. Easily as difficult. Ask Rory, what would he expect to do first: win six MORE WGC events or win another major. Honestly I think he'd say he's just as likely to win at Augusta. So I'm giving Tiger an additional 3 unofficial, unscientific, non bona fide majors - putting him at 18 already.

Ok that's just musing. Now let's look at Tiger's 82 PGA tour victories. This crushes Jacks record of 73 wins. And Jack had maybe six realistic players to beat at any given time: Casper, Palmer, Trevino, Player, Watson, Weiskopf, and later, Norman, Faldo and Seve. Maybe a few others. Tournament field of 140 or whatever - how many of them could realistically beat Jack? Again, a handful.

Compare that with Tiger's wins. He beat every world player at the top of their game, over and over. Not five or six guys, more like 30 have a chance to win any given event. Proven major winners: Phil, Els, Vijay, Retief Goosen, Rory, Sergio, Henrik Stenson, Davis Love III, Fred Couples, Adam Scott, Francesco Molinari, etc. Until losing the PGA title to Y.E. Yang, he never lost a major leading after 54 holes.

In fact, Tiger never lost a tournament in his life with his A game. Never. Jack played his best at a slew of majors, but got nipped by Watson or Player or Trevino who outplayed him. Tiger was never outplayed in 12 years of professional golf. He won 33% of the majors he's contested in!!

No one comes remotely close to this. He won most of the tournaments he lead after either 36 or 54 holes. He was #1 in the world for a record 683 weeks. Think about at that one: 683 weeks. Greg Norman dominated for years and is second at 331 weeks. Tiger went 142 weeks without missing a cut. Crazy. Will never be repeated.

And then we have the two best major rounds in history: the 1997 Masters and the 2000 US Open at Pebble. Won the Masters by 12. Won the US Open by 15. Crushed, demolished, demoralized the field. The 2000 Open win will never be equaled or repeated in 10, 100 or 1000 years. Jack never did anything like this. His biggest margin of victory was 7 strokes.

Now let's talk about golf, golf shots, and pure golf ability. Jack was a straighter driver than Tiger and almost as good a long iron player. But he did not have the variety of shots Tiger has: high, low, draw, fade, crazy trouble shots, stingers, snap-hooks around trees, ridiculous over-the-water out of the bunker shots that land softly from 210 yards.

Jack was easily the 2nd best putter in history. But no one will ever equal Tiger's putting between 1997 and 2008. At times he made every putt under 8 feet for an entire week. The crazy putts he has made over the years are almost comical they're so good, and under such pressure. Jack made a lot of great putts, a few of which make the highlight reel. Tiger had one in almost every tournament. When he had to.

Finally, Tiger's short game magic is so far ahead of Jack's that it's no contest. Jack hit most of his greens, so his short game wasn't that evident. He had no flop shot, wasn't a great chipper, was one-dimensional in both his short pitches and even his bunker play. Tiger is a magician. Like Phil, he can do whatever he wants to a golf ball, especially when it counts. His finesse, feel, and imagination are the best in history.

So, let's add it all up:
Tiger vs. Jack

Amateur career: Tiger
PGA Tour Wins: Tiger
WGC wins: Tiger

Driving: Jack
Iron play: Tiger
Short Game: Tiger
Putting: Tiger
Majors: Jack

Quality of wins: Tiger
Career hero shots: Tiger
Imagination, creativity: Tiger
Variety of shot shapes: Tiger
Crushing the field: Tiger

Weeks at #1: Tiger
Weeks without a missed cut: Tiger

And: the Intangibles:
Winning under injury, duress, physical pain: Tiger
Quality of fields beaten: Tiger
Win Percentage, lifetime: Tiger

There you have it: By far the greatest golfer of all time. And I believe, forever. Tiger Woods.