Was Jack Nicklaus' Competition Better Than Tiger Woods'?

Question

Was Jack Nicklaus' opposition throughout his career better than Tiger Woods' current competition? And will Woods eventually conquer and overtake Jack's record of 18 Majors?

Johnny Miller shot 8 under par 63 in the last round of the 1973 U.S. Open. Shot 13 under (65, 66) for the last two rounds of the 1975 U.S. Masters which Jack won.

Tom Watson holds the second lowest aggregate total at the Open Championship (12 under 268) which Jack finished second in while shooting 11 under 269.

Raymond Floyd shot 17 under 271 (65, 66, 70, 70) at the 1976 U.S. Masters. Shot a 63 at the 1982 U.S. PGA which he won

Lee Trevino shot 15 under 273 at the 1984 U.S. PGA which he won.

Bobby Nichols shot 9 under 271 at the 1964 U.S. PGA which he won. A tournament Jack shot a 64 in and still lost.

Isao Aoki shot 6 under 274-the lowest losing score in a U.S. Open-and still lost out to Jack at the 1980 U.S. Open.

Greg Norman holds the low aggregate total at the Open Championship (13 under 267) on the hardest Open course in Royal St George's.

Nick Faldo shot 18 under 270 at the 1990 Open Championship which he won and was 19 under after 12 holes of the final round.

Then you have the normal candidates jack also lost against and conquered. Great players like Gary Player, Arnold Palmer, Tom Weiskopf, Tony Lema, Roberto De Vicenzo and Billy Casper. That is a better quality of opposition than the players Tiger competes against in my book.

Another player I forgot is Ben Crenshaw who shot 14 under at the 1995 U.S. Masters which he won as well as winning it in 1984. And Fred Couples shot 13 under at the 1992 U.S. Masters which he won. My point is all of the players I mentioned all have better scoring records in the Majors than the players Tiger competes against. All of those players I mentioned were beaten by Nicklaus in different eras. Tiger's competition is better you say? lol Somehow I don't think so.

Okay David Toms shot 15 under 265 at the 2001 U.S. PGA. A tournament which Mickelson shot 14 under 266 in but those scores happened in that same tournament while Jack's opponents did it in all of the Majors in different eras.

Jack's scoring records in the Majors:

U.S. Masters: 17 under 271 which included a round of 8 under par 64.

U.S. Open: 8 under 272 which included a round of 7 under par 63.

British Open or Open Championship: 11 under 269 on a very difficult course in Turnberry but still lost to the great Tom Watson who shot 12 under 268.

U.S. PGA: 8 under 272 and has also shot a 64 in this tournament in 1964 but lost to Bobby Nichols that year who shot a then record 9 under 271. And Jack also shot 19 under 269 at the T.P.C. (The Players Championship) at Sawgrass which stood until Greg Norman shot 24 under 264 in 1994. And Norman should have beat or equalled at least the U.S. Masters record Nicklaus and Floyd set, the year before Woods did it but had a disaster in that final round while playing with Faldo.

Tiger's scoring records in the Majors:

U.S. Masters: 18 under 270.

U.S. Open: 12 under 272.

Open Championship: 19 under 269.

U.S. PGA: 18 under 270.

So when you compare Nicklaus' and Woods' scoring records in the Majors there is not much between them in that sense.

Answer 1

No both had good competition but it seems Tiger just dominated his better.

Answer 2

There's arguments for both sides:



1. Jack's "main" competition had more majors- Arnie (6), Player (9), Watson (8), Trevino (6); Tiger's: Phil (4), Els (3), Harrington (3), Goosen (2).



2. Jack had LESS overall competition. According to Peter Kostis (announcer for CBS Golf, Paul Casey's swing coach) there's 100+ golfers today that can win a major. Unfortunately, it's going to take about 25 years to identify them all.



3. Tiger plays in the "modern" era, where the 460cc titanium drivers with trampoline faces and 60* LWs that make the ball spin like crazy have allowed marginal players to become millionairs; Jack played with persimmon and SWs with tiny grooves, where skill was the most important factor. In the same vein, greenskeeping has become more of a science, with better looking (and playing) courses rule (not going to get into the COST of said improvements...).



This, for all the pomp and circumstance, results in a push. There are WAY too many variables, from technology to Stimpmeter readings to improved physical conditioning of today's golfers to make any fair apples-to-apples comparisons. The only way to go is with numbers: Jack has 18 majors, Tiger has 14. Until Tiger gets to 19, Jack will always be considered the "best".

Answer 3

Jack had some great opposition, actual, yet there have been purely a handful. Tiger, on the different hand, faces a container of a few a hundred or greater gamers each and every time he tees up, all of whom can hit the ball almost 3 hundred yards, and function performed years of aggressive golf through college, and assorted expert excursions international, formerly becoming to be a member of the PGA excursion. Tiger merely keeps elevating the bar. i think of Jack could believe this.

Answer 4

The easiest way to learn golf like a pro is by following "The Simple Golf Swing" program. It's primarily a 31 page eBook that teaches golfers how to make solid contact with the ball, how to avoid hitting fat, how to avoid slicing, how get more power, accuracy, and consistency in your swing. Consistency being the number 1 golf skill.



You not only get the eBook though, you also receive a ton of extra material including video, lessons on putting, driving, chipping, sand play etc. Here is their official site: http://www.golfswingguru.net

Answer 5

Its impossible to get a correct answer to that question. Its a subject that could be used to pass some idle time.