Interesting article that shows that the skill level between these two
is closer than many believe, because, among other reasons:
1. Jack faced much tougher competition
2. Jack hit further and more accurate from the tees (adjusting for
equipment)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033001725.html
The Game Deprived of Woods vs. Nicklaus
By Thomas Boswell
Tuesday, March 31, 2009; Page D01
Willie Mays never faced Roger Clemens. Nor did Barry Bonds have to cope with Warren Spahn. I don't mind. I saw them all -- in their own time. I don't want to see Night Train Lane clothesline Terrell Owens. Well, maybe I do, but it doesn't keep me up nights. And I am content to keep Johnny Unitas separate from Joe Montana, each compartmentalized and separate from Tom Brady.
But this thing with Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus is bothering me. In a way that I have never felt with other athletes from different eras, I want them to meet in their primes. But I'm told they can't.
Rocky Marciano, the better Joe Frazier, doesn't have to meet Muhammad Ali. I'd like to see Bill Russell crush the hearts of every NBA center who came after him. However, I can live without it. But Tiger against his boyhood model Jack, what a loss.
At Arnold Palmer's Bay Hill party on Sunday, Woods equaled the biggest final-round comeback of his PGA Tour career, catching Sean O'Hair from five shots back. After he closed the show with a 15-foot birdie putt on the 72nd hole, Tiger celebrated with fist pumps and caddie hugs, but he did it all at three-quarter speed, not gingerly but judiciously. Got to be good to that knee. So he's learned that, too.
Now that Woods has shown that his torn-up knee and broken leg are healed and that, after just three events, he can win again, it's just a matter of wondering how amazing a pain-free Woods will be. Who doubted? But now we know for certain. The man who's won 18 of his last 32 tour events is rested and revved. Next up, Augusta.
In these next few years, Woods is almost certainly going to leave Nicklaus in the major title dust. At 33, Nicklaus had won 11 of his 18 majors; Woods already has 14. That trend implies about 23 pro majors for Tiger. When the time comes, Nicklaus will pass the crown with grace, as Bobby Jones did to him. Jack has said, "If he does break it, I hope I'm allowed to be the first to shake his hand."
As Woods continues to climb the sheer face of Mount Jack, only one question will really be left: If both were the same age, would Tiger really have thumped Jack?
There's no knock on Woods. But there is a caveat. It's just reality. Tiger has faced no contemporary of historic consequence except (wrong-stuff) Phil Mickelson. Nicklaus got all of his major titles in the face of Hall of Famers in their primes. Woods has finished second in a major only five times. Part of the reason is that he knows how to finish. But part of the reason is who he's had to beat.
When Nicklaus finished second (19 times), look who beat him: Tom Watson and Lee Trevino, four times each, Arnold Palmer twice, Gary Player and Seve Ballesteros once each. That's a dozen major titles where Nicklaus finished runner-up to Hall of Fame players, from three distinct golf generations, with better career records than anybody Woods has ever had to beat.
So it's fair to wonder. And I find myself doing it every golf season. Now, after watching Tiger win a 91-hole U.S. Open on a broken leg, I continue to be convinced, as I have been for several years, that Woods is probably better -- but only slightly.
Watching Tiger post his latest statement victory at Bay Hill reminded me of the way Nicklaus used to roar through Florida in March, serving notice that the Masters (still in April, right?) had crossed his mind.
Once, at Doral, probably in '76 when he was player of the year for the fifth time, Nicklaus sank an 85-yard wedge shot for an eagle on Friday, then a day later, faced an almost identical length 86-yard shot on the same hole. Of course, Jack made a wisecrack to his caddie about hitting the shot just a hair harder and he'd make it again. Then he actually did.
</DIV><!-- sphereit end -->
Nicklaus dropped his club in the fairway in disbelief, then spun slowly around in goofy circles like a child trying to make himself dizzy. Afterward he said, "For a second I was starting to believe the stuff you guys write about me."
What would be the quality -- of play or of mind -- that would define a match between Tiger and Jack at their peaks? Pick an opinion. But here's mine. More than anything, Nicklaus won with strength of character. The look on his face did not advertise, but surely contained, his absolute certainty that, generally speaking, he deserved to win. So he probably would. Not always. But his certainty that he merited victory was the core of his authority.
Against Woods, Jack would have understood -- truly appreciated and valued -- that Tiger had worked harder at the sport, sacrificed more to it for more years, and brought a far more adventurous and investigative spirit to the game.
Nicklaus played a game that was both gargantuan and precise, yet without the creativity and imagination of most champions. The Germanic Nicklaus wanted to hit every fairway and green, lag his long putts dead and sink any putt shorter than a living room rug. "For years, I never felt that I needed a short game," Nicklaus told me. He finally developed one -- at 40. From 27 to 30, he actually lost interest in the game with four (of his five) children, various businesses and even hunting and fishing making him "a legend in his spare time." The death of his father at 56 in 1970 snapped him back, even shamed him a bit.
That neglect of his short game and sand play, as well as any gift for imaginative recovery shots, probably would have doomed Nicklaus to a losing career record against Woods. Jack's advantage, a large one, would have been off the tee, where he was far more accurate than Tiger; and, in his 220-pound twenties, an even longer hitter than Tiger -- adjusting for the equipment of their eras.
Every player, especially in the majors, gets in trouble. That's where Tiger's and Jack's games diverged utterly.
Nicklaus minimized the damage, chipped back from flora to fairway and usually left his short-iron shot a few paces from the flag. Then, damn the man, Jack would study what remained until the puzzle surrendered its secret and he sank the blasted thing for par.
Faced with the same predicament, Tiger might turn the club upside down and backward, hit his shot left-handed, break his club in half on a tree trunk, then dash up the fairway pumping his fist as the ball reached the same living-room-rug length putt as Nicklaus. Tiger, after a similar inquisition of line, speed and grain, would also sink his putt -- but for birdie.
Woods can produce such marvels, without maiming himself, because he has practiced his fabulous lunacy since kindergarten. Nicklaus tried to master the game. Tiger tries to redefine and expand it. He's Mickelson with judgment.
Had they ever met, Nicklaus would have recognized the profound difference between recovery for par and discovery for birdie. That extra Tiger gift would not always have carried the day. But, deep down, Nicklaus would recognize that Woods played a broader, more evolved game and, more often than not, probably deserved to win. So, Tiger would. No athlete ever lets the other win. But all know who merits it slightly more. That weighs heavy.
Once, after he had lost 65-66 in the final round of the British Open to Watson, Nicklaus said it was the greatest contest of his career. He looked almost joyous in defeat. Asked if it was the best head-to-head duel in the history of the sport, Jack said, "I didn't see the first 500 years."
In the long sweep of golf's history, Nicklaus and Woods barely missed each other, Jack winning his last Masters in '86 and Tiger his first in '97.
So close. But, unfortunately for us, much too far.
</DIV>
is closer than many believe, because, among other reasons:
1. Jack faced much tougher competition
2. Jack hit further and more accurate from the tees (adjusting for
equipment)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033001725.html
The Game Deprived of Woods vs. Nicklaus
By Thomas Boswell
Tuesday, March 31, 2009; Page D01
Willie Mays never faced Roger Clemens. Nor did Barry Bonds have to cope with Warren Spahn. I don't mind. I saw them all -- in their own time. I don't want to see Night Train Lane clothesline Terrell Owens. Well, maybe I do, but it doesn't keep me up nights. And I am content to keep Johnny Unitas separate from Joe Montana, each compartmentalized and separate from Tom Brady.
But this thing with Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus is bothering me. In a way that I have never felt with other athletes from different eras, I want them to meet in their primes. But I'm told they can't.
Rocky Marciano, the better Joe Frazier, doesn't have to meet Muhammad Ali. I'd like to see Bill Russell crush the hearts of every NBA center who came after him. However, I can live without it. But Tiger against his boyhood model Jack, what a loss.
At Arnold Palmer's Bay Hill party on Sunday, Woods equaled the biggest final-round comeback of his PGA Tour career, catching Sean O'Hair from five shots back. After he closed the show with a 15-foot birdie putt on the 72nd hole, Tiger celebrated with fist pumps and caddie hugs, but he did it all at three-quarter speed, not gingerly but judiciously. Got to be good to that knee. So he's learned that, too.
Now that Woods has shown that his torn-up knee and broken leg are healed and that, after just three events, he can win again, it's just a matter of wondering how amazing a pain-free Woods will be. Who doubted? But now we know for certain. The man who's won 18 of his last 32 tour events is rested and revved. Next up, Augusta.
In these next few years, Woods is almost certainly going to leave Nicklaus in the major title dust. At 33, Nicklaus had won 11 of his 18 majors; Woods already has 14. That trend implies about 23 pro majors for Tiger. When the time comes, Nicklaus will pass the crown with grace, as Bobby Jones did to him. Jack has said, "If he does break it, I hope I'm allowed to be the first to shake his hand."
As Woods continues to climb the sheer face of Mount Jack, only one question will really be left: If both were the same age, would Tiger really have thumped Jack?
There's no knock on Woods. But there is a caveat. It's just reality. Tiger has faced no contemporary of historic consequence except (wrong-stuff) Phil Mickelson. Nicklaus got all of his major titles in the face of Hall of Famers in their primes. Woods has finished second in a major only five times. Part of the reason is that he knows how to finish. But part of the reason is who he's had to beat.
When Nicklaus finished second (19 times), look who beat him: Tom Watson and Lee Trevino, four times each, Arnold Palmer twice, Gary Player and Seve Ballesteros once each. That's a dozen major titles where Nicklaus finished runner-up to Hall of Fame players, from three distinct golf generations, with better career records than anybody Woods has ever had to beat.
So it's fair to wonder. And I find myself doing it every golf season. Now, after watching Tiger win a 91-hole U.S. Open on a broken leg, I continue to be convinced, as I have been for several years, that Woods is probably better -- but only slightly.
Watching Tiger post his latest statement victory at Bay Hill reminded me of the way Nicklaus used to roar through Florida in March, serving notice that the Masters (still in April, right?) had crossed his mind.
Once, at Doral, probably in '76 when he was player of the year for the fifth time, Nicklaus sank an 85-yard wedge shot for an eagle on Friday, then a day later, faced an almost identical length 86-yard shot on the same hole. Of course, Jack made a wisecrack to his caddie about hitting the shot just a hair harder and he'd make it again. Then he actually did.
</DIV><!-- sphereit end -->
Nicklaus dropped his club in the fairway in disbelief, then spun slowly around in goofy circles like a child trying to make himself dizzy. Afterward he said, "For a second I was starting to believe the stuff you guys write about me."
What would be the quality -- of play or of mind -- that would define a match between Tiger and Jack at their peaks? Pick an opinion. But here's mine. More than anything, Nicklaus won with strength of character. The look on his face did not advertise, but surely contained, his absolute certainty that, generally speaking, he deserved to win. So he probably would. Not always. But his certainty that he merited victory was the core of his authority.
Against Woods, Jack would have understood -- truly appreciated and valued -- that Tiger had worked harder at the sport, sacrificed more to it for more years, and brought a far more adventurous and investigative spirit to the game.
Nicklaus played a game that was both gargantuan and precise, yet without the creativity and imagination of most champions. The Germanic Nicklaus wanted to hit every fairway and green, lag his long putts dead and sink any putt shorter than a living room rug. "For years, I never felt that I needed a short game," Nicklaus told me. He finally developed one -- at 40. From 27 to 30, he actually lost interest in the game with four (of his five) children, various businesses and even hunting and fishing making him "a legend in his spare time." The death of his father at 56 in 1970 snapped him back, even shamed him a bit.
That neglect of his short game and sand play, as well as any gift for imaginative recovery shots, probably would have doomed Nicklaus to a losing career record against Woods. Jack's advantage, a large one, would have been off the tee, where he was far more accurate than Tiger; and, in his 220-pound twenties, an even longer hitter than Tiger -- adjusting for the equipment of their eras.
Every player, especially in the majors, gets in trouble. That's where Tiger's and Jack's games diverged utterly.
Nicklaus minimized the damage, chipped back from flora to fairway and usually left his short-iron shot a few paces from the flag. Then, damn the man, Jack would study what remained until the puzzle surrendered its secret and he sank the blasted thing for par.
Faced with the same predicament, Tiger might turn the club upside down and backward, hit his shot left-handed, break his club in half on a tree trunk, then dash up the fairway pumping his fist as the ball reached the same living-room-rug length putt as Nicklaus. Tiger, after a similar inquisition of line, speed and grain, would also sink his putt -- but for birdie.
Woods can produce such marvels, without maiming himself, because he has practiced his fabulous lunacy since kindergarten. Nicklaus tried to master the game. Tiger tries to redefine and expand it. He's Mickelson with judgment.
Had they ever met, Nicklaus would have recognized the profound difference between recovery for par and discovery for birdie. That extra Tiger gift would not always have carried the day. But, deep down, Nicklaus would recognize that Woods played a broader, more evolved game and, more often than not, probably deserved to win. So, Tiger would. No athlete ever lets the other win. But all know who merits it slightly more. That weighs heavy.
Once, after he had lost 65-66 in the final round of the British Open to Watson, Nicklaus said it was the greatest contest of his career. He looked almost joyous in defeat. Asked if it was the best head-to-head duel in the history of the sport, Jack said, "I didn't see the first 500 years."
In the long sweep of golf's history, Nicklaus and Woods barely missed each other, Jack winning his last Masters in '86 and Tiger his first in '97.
So close. But, unfortunately for us, much too far.
</DIV>
Last edited by a moderator:
hno: 
