Good stuff, any way you look at it. Makes for an enjoyable debate!

For me, it’s easier to connect Jack to Tiger, personality-wise, than it is to make the same connection between Arnie and Phil. Phil may be cheerful and outgoing, but he also comes across (to many people, at least) as kind of quirky. Palmer was a much cooler, more glamorous personality than Phil could ever hope to be. I can easily imagine Jack’s being envious of the adulation heaped on Arnie when he was the master of the golf universe. I can’t imagine Tiger’s being at all envious of Phil’s place in the public’s imagination.

You make a great point about the evolution of Jack’s persona over the years. It’s easy to forget that he was once thought of as somewhat of a bad guy when he first came on the scene. I think that ties in with my point that Jack has had a much longer period of time than Tiger has had to “grow his legend.” We think of Jack today as practically the greatest man the game of golf has ever produced. That idea would have been revolting to a lot of people in the mid-1960s. I don’t see how Tiger can really be expected to measure up to the legend of Jack Nicklaus in 2009, and yet we already place him at nearly that level.

BD #7
I disagree with two components of their games. Nicklaus was far superior with the driver. Allowing for the far from perfect putting surfaces of his day, Nicklaus was just as good with a putter. It was far more difficult back then.I agree with your point that greatness takes time.

MikeZ
Nicklaus was a bit cold on the course in his early days, but not in the post round festivities, which I’m old enough to have witnessed since the beginning of his pro career. I read Arnie & Jack - yours is a good synopsis. I’ve been waiting for Tiger to soften just a tad for years - lets hope he does so sooner than later as it is now costing him points with fans and certain members of the media.

Second, I’m not sure I agree that Jack has always been the consummate sportsman. I’m not really old enough to remember much about Jack in his prime, but I just finished the book “Arnie & Jack.” One of the things I came away with was that Jack wasn’t always the gracious winner/loser that he is today, or became later in his career. He was cold, somewhat terse, and a bit “prickly” when he was younger — certainly compared to the affable Arnie. He really only cared about playing the game and beating his opponents. It’s why the public rejected him at first (and because he was dethroning Arnie, their hero), but also part of what made him so great.

I see today’s Tiger in a similar light. I didn’t view his post-round Masters interview as rude or unsportsmanlike, just very, well, cold, terse, and a bit prickly. Phil, on the other hand, I think is a lot like Arnie was. And I think, frankly, that it was one of the reasons Arnie had so much trouble beating Jack after about 1962 or ‘63. He wasn’t as focused as Jack was (nobody but Tiger ever has been, as far as I can tell). His charm helped him win fans, but not tournaments.

I think a very strong case can be made that Phil’s cheery demeanor is a “symptom” (for lack of a better word) of his focus problems, or his lack of drive, if you will. Tiger just *wants* it a lot more than Phil does, and it shows. That’s one of the big differences between them.

The major point of the “Arnie & Jack” book was that each was a little jealous of the other, and that’s what fueled their rivalry, on and off the course. Jack wanted the love Arnie got; Arnie wanted the victories Jack got. Today, Jack gets plenty of love, but he’ll never be *beloved* the way Arnie was and continues to be.

I think Tiger will become more gracious and open as he matures (having kids will help), and I hope that Phil can squeeze out a couple more majors before he’s through. But I think that 25 or 30 years from now we’ll be thinking about Tiger and Phil in much the same way we think of Jack and Arnie today: One as the greatest golfer ever; the other as one of golf’s greatest ambassadors.

I think Tiger is probably the best golfer ever. When you match him up with Jack, the only part of the game in which Nicklaus really surpasses Tiger would be in long irons. Tiger beats Jack in putting, short game, and “trouble” shots.

In terms of greatness, I think Nicklaus has a leg up not only because he’s ahead in majors, but because he’s had an additional 30+ years in which to grow his legend. In the same way no team is going to suddenly eclipse the Yankees as the greatest team in baseball history, it SHOULD take more than 15 years for Tiger to displace Jack at the center of golf’s pantheon.

I think there are two arguments to this. Best of All-time and Greatest Champion. Nicklaus is the greatest champion, which cannot be argued until Tiger passes him.

As for Best of All-Time, that is harder to tackle. I look at this as a argument of if two players played 1000 rounds together under the same conditions, who would win more. For me, it is hard to look at the way Tiger played last season or 2000-01 and say that any golfer has ever been more talented than him.

As for personality, I would be careful making judgments about them based on what they say to the press. I think it is pretty clear that Tiger/Phil have carefully crafted media images and are probably completely different when not in the spotlight.

Thanks for your kind words.I appreciate your taking the time to express your viewpoint. Yes, the ultimate determinant of who is the greatest will be decided on the course. But if the number indicate that the contest is very close, then sportsmanship would become more important. As Grantland Rice said :…it’s how you play the game.”

Phil, as a regular reader of your blog, I feel like nearly every entry offers some new reason or insight as to why Tiger Woods is, at best, a weak candidate for the title “Greatest Golfer of All Time.” I’m curious to know two things:

First, would you agree that Tiger is at least the SECOND greatest golfer of all time, or do you put him lower down on the list?

Second, what would it take, in terms of career majors (or some combination of majors and regular PGA wins) in order for him to move into the top spot? I guess what I’m asking is, what objective achievements must Tiger attain in order to convince you, by the end of his playing career, that Tiger is indeed the Greatest Golfer of All Time?

I think these are worthwhile questions to address. For what it’s worth, I think Tiger’s 14 professional majors on top of his incredible amateur career place his well ahead of the rest of the contenders for golf’s second-greatest golfer. On the other hand, he hasn’t reached Jack’s level of 18 majors and may never do so. If he ends up with 18 or even 19, then I think Jack would still have a case, but 20 or more would make it very hard to justify calling Nicklaus the greatest ever. Anyway, what do you think?

Also, I think you are being unfair in characterizing Tiger’s relatively (compared to Phil) terse demeanor in a post-round interview as an example of poor sportsmanship. When I think of poor sportsmanship, I think of someone who refuses to show respect for his opponent’s accomplishments, calls into question the legitmacy of the outcome, or otherwise exhibits “sour grapes.” Tiger did none of those things. It’s plain as day that any anger or disappointment he was feeling during the post-game interview was directed at himself.

I give credit to Jack for conducting himself so magnificently throughout his career. I give credit to Phil for his levity Sunday in discussing what must have been a crushing disappointment. But tipping my cap to these guys in no way implies that Tiger did anything during that 47-second interview to undermine his claim to the title of golf’s “Best Ever.” In any case, that’s a distinction that should be decided based on how someone plays golf, not how well he performs in interviews.