Back in June 2013, I posted the following on my old blog DJ Watts Golf (I’ve edited it slightly due to its age) about the ever-raging debate about who was greater, Jack Nicklaus or Tiger Woods:

Someone finally had the wherewithal to do some number-crunching to put to rest the old canard that even if he never wins 18 majors, Tiger Woods is still better than Jack Nicklaus because Tiger won his majors against “better players” and “deeper fields.”

But it ain’t so, I’m going to report.  I just came across an article “The Myth of Deeper PGA Tour Fields During Tiger Woods’ Era” in the online Bleacher Report.

Says contributor Mike Lynch:

Arguing that fields are significantly deeper today than during the Nicklaus era has no basis in statistical reality.  If fields today are so much stronger, a greater number of golfers should be winning in a season.  However the statistics say that is not the case…

The time periods being compared are 1962-1972 and 1997-2007.  In 1962, Jack Nicklaus won his first major championship, a U.S. Open in which he defeated Arnold Palmer in a playoff at Oakmont.  Tiger Woods won his first major at the Masters in 1997, obliterating the field in a 12 stroke victory…

Percentage-wise, the eras are extremely close. Dividing the winners number by the total tournaments gives us 69% for the Nicklaus era and 71% for the Tiger era. To further clarify, if 100 tournaments were played in the Nicklaus era, you would likely see 69 different winners. In the Tiger era you would likely see 71 different winners over 100 tournaments…

As for the number of total major champions over these time spans: The Nicklaus era saw seven different Masters champions, eight U.S. Open Champions, nine British Open champions and nine PGA Champions. The Tiger era saw seven Masters champions, nine U.S. Open champions, nine British Open champions and seven PGA Championship winners. One more total than the Nicklaus era.

So, there you have it.  And guess what?

For the “deeper fields” guys, these numbers show that Jack Nicklaus was better than Tiger – he beat other players who had won 5, 6 and 7 & 8 majors during his career and won more majors than them while he did it.

During Tiger’s era, you have Ernie Els, Phil Mickelson* and Vijay Singh having won 4 majors each (*since the posting, Mickelson has increased his majors count to 6).   Padraig Harrington has 3.

So, Tiger’s won less majors than Jack to date, and he’s won his majors against fields that didn’t have 5, 6 and 7 & 8 major winners.

The best guys back then were better than the best guys from this era, and Jack beat them all for 18 majors and 70+ wins.

Add to that, how many of Tiger’s non-major tournament wins have come from reduced-field events, further reducing the competition in the field (by the way, don’t tell me you don’t remember Rich Beem beating Tiger in ’02, Michael Campbell in ’05 or Y.E. Yang in ’09 in major showdowns – every person can win it, and less people in the tournament increases the odds for the eventual winner)?

Not much else to say, except that the numbers suggest that Jack Nicklaus was the G.O.A.T.

And still is…

At the end of the day, your personal affection or preference for or admiration for either of them shouldn’t be the factor in who’s considered the Greatest of All Time.

I personally don’t care if Jack or Tiger (or Byron Nelson or Ben Hogan) is considered the greatest – that should be determined by metrics that can be measured, and by standards that you won’t shift just to make your guy the best.

According to tradition for years, the most majors won has been the standard to determine greatness.

And Jack still holds the most majors.

---

* Edit note – I will include this from a comment I made this morning as more reasons I consider Jack coming in above Tiger, and notice that I am saying nothing about either golfer as a man or as a personal favorite – I am looking only at metrics:

Nicklaus was winning majors before they were even largely considered “majors.”

For example, the Western Open was once considered a major tournament in the 60’s, and even when the majors became majors, Nicklaus had no one to chase after he surpassed Bobby Jones’ 13 major wins (6 of which were Amateur titles, I should add).

TW set out with Nicklaus’ majors total taped to his bedroom wall, and he still fell short of 18. He had a number to chase and didn’t reach it. Nicklaus was winning majors between fishing vacations.

Also, Jack had 19 runner-up finishes. Tiger had 7.

That’s 3 more majors, 12 more runner up finishes and 37 top 2 finishes to Tiger’s 22.

Add to this the fact that Jack barely worked on his swing while Tiger broke his body on the altar of the modern swing and over-work… as a player and champion, Jack is above Tiger in my humble opinion.

… the above numbers to me suggest that Tiger won about as many majors as he could have, perhaps more than he should have, while Jack likely underachieved (19 runners up!) and probably should have won more.

Just my own opinion.