Much has been made in recent years about who is the better golfer of all time, Tiger Woods or Jack Nicklaus particularly now that Tiger has won the 2005 Open Championship and has ten major victories.  It seems his new swing has finally paid off, that he is at the top of his game, and well on his way to breaking Nicklaus's record of 18 majors.

The people who insist on debating this can really go on forever, but they are really comparing apples and oranges.  Different equipment, different rules for getting into tournaments, different courses, different competition, different everything else.  So many variable exist that the comparison amounts to a useless exercise.  I want to scream at these people to invent a time machine dammit, but until you do, you folks sound like computer geeks arguing about Mac v Windows.

Jack played inferior MacGregor golf balls that measure shorter and more offline than balls most of the other pros were hitting and was still
winning when they weren't.  He did, after all, drive through the 18th green at the Old Course when he last won there.  Before Jack, Bobby Jones was playing with hickory shafts and hitting drives 275-300 yards when he had to. 

Up until about half way through Jack's career, the tour had rabbits.  The guys had to qualify in order to play that week.  If you made a cut, you got a small exemption for a couple of tournaments.  If you won you got a better exemption.  The players were hungry to win, unlike today where if you make the cut. you'll do just fine.  Jerry Kelly finished dead last in the U.S. Open this year and still brought home a check for a little over 8 grand.  Last year at the Open championship, guys whodidn't even make the cut got £2000. 

The point is that when they built the Old Course,  Tom Morris was the best of his day.  Bobby Jones was the best of his.  Hogan and Snead were the best of their era.  Nicklaus, obviously was the best of his.   And Tiger certainly is the best of this one.  why can't the argument simply be left at that until you can invent that time machine.

I been lucky.  I got to sse Hogan and Snead toward the end of their careers, but they could still play.  I got to see Arnold, and Gary, and Jack in their primes.    And now I get to Tiger. 

I ain't making a comparison, but for my money, to win a match, I'd want Hogan or Snead on my team.

To me, and to many of my generation, Arnie was first in our hearts, and we didn't like Jack when he started out beating our guy.  We grew to love him and appreciate the fine player he was.  I suspect that the same will hold true with Tiger.

flagBack to The Cragin Home Page