🔴 WATCH NEXT: Gary Player LIFESTYLE Is NOT What You Think ▶ kzfaq.info/get/bejne/sNKdjc6C1Z6ofKM.html

With the same equipment / Ball hands down Jack !

The mistake you make in percentages is including all the years Jack continued to play when he was no longer the best - Tigers fall from the top has been steep with very few starts since his problems began.

Bobby Jones..... Entered a total of 11 US Opens - 4 wins (tied with Nicklaus and Hogan), 4 seconds, one 5th, one 8th. Entered the Open Championship 4 times, won 3 (tied with Nicklaus and Woods). The amateur championships were also considered majors in those days: US Amateur - 13 entries, 5 wins, 2nd twice, lost in the semi-finals twice. Amateur Championship (aka British Amateur) - 3 entries, 1 win. Never won the PGA because he was an amateur. Never won the Masters because he didn't start the tournament until after he retired from regular competition. From 1923, when he was 21, until his retirement at 28, Jones entered the 4 tournaments he was eligible to play 21 times, winning 13 times and finishing second 4 times. That's what dominance really looks like. Oh, yeah, he also won all 4 of them in 1930 - the Grand Slam. And for influence on the game, he founded Augusta National and started the Masters. Plus he issued a series of instructional films in the 1930s that helped spread the game.

Jack finished first or second in 37 majors. Tiger Woods finished first or second in 22 majors. Sorry, but 37-22 is sort of a blowout. If you make it top 5 finishes Jack leads 56-31. Tiger was great but Jack was otherworldly.

I think Butch Harmon said it best when he said "Nicklaus is the greatest champion, but when he was playing his best, I think Tiger was the best golfer I’ve ever seen."

They are both equally great. Jack had serious competition from far greater players.

19 runner up and 18 Majors there's no comparison regardless of what ever narrative you try to build. Jack is miles ahead of him

Since this is a solo sport we can only judge GOAT by majors, nothing else. Jack has18 with 77 top 10 majors finishes and not only that never went more than 5 years without winning a major up until his final one in 1986. Tiger is the greatest of this generation but Jack is the greatest of all time.

Tiger placed first or second 22 times in 87 majors or 25%, Jack placed first or second 38 times in 164 majors or 23%, but Jack played in his last major when he was 65 years old!!! Unless Tiger plays until he’s 65 and passes Jack I’d say we have to give the GOAT award to Jack.

Let me be clear up front - Jack and Tiger are definitely the two greatest golfers of all time. For various reasons, some will favor Jack and some will favor Tiger. Having said that, I have trouble with some of the analysis in this post. You can't compare Jack's lifetime percentages to Tiger's percentages to age 46. Jack played in so many tournaments after his prime that his percentages would certainly drop. A few years ago, I compared performance between the two to age 43 (meaning just before they turned 44). Tiger had the higher win percentage, 22.6% to 15.8%. Jack had a higher percentage of top 3 finishes, 37.8% to 36.6%. Jack had a significant lead in top 10 finishes, 65.5% to 55.0%. Both were phenomenal at making cuts, but to age 43, Jack's rate for making cuts was an astounding 95.2% while Tiger's was 90.5%. I think changes in training methods and fitness regimes is irrelevant. In either time period all players had whatever resources were available in that era. As a result, we cannot say that Tiger's competition is tougher than the competition Jack faced. Tiger has the same access to resources as does his competition. The same is true of equipment. All players had access to whatever was available in the era. Speaking of competition, in his career Jack regularly played against 3 golfers who were are in the top ten for career wins. Tiger played against two in the top twenty, Phil at #8 and Vijay at #14 (It must be noted that Vijay's last win was in 2008). However, I think that each week through all of Tiger's career, there were likely more competitors who had a realistic chance of winning than there were in Jack's career. For Majors, we all know that Jack has 3 more wins that Tiger. For 2nds and 3rds, Jack's numbers are far higher than those of Tiger, 19 to 7 for 2nds and 9 to 4 for 3rds. If we look at Majors to age 43, Jack played 96 events to Tiger's 83. Since Jack won at age 46, he had only 17 wins to age 43. Tiger had a slightly higher winning percentage, 18.0% to 17.7%. From then on, it is always Jack in the lead - for 2nds 19.8% to 8.4%, for 3rds 9.4% to 4.8%, for top five 57% to 40%, for top tens 69.8% to 49.4%. In any consideration of greatness, the length of a career is important. Tiger accumulated more wins earlier in his career than did Jack. Jack had more staying power. I think that between ages 33 and 43, Jack had 20 wins and Tiger had 10. I can't conclude that one is better than the other. In case you couldn't tell, overall, I favor Jack as the GOAT. Tiger has been better at winning outside of the Majors. In events overall, it is a tossup on top 3s, but Jack has a significant lead in top 10s. In the Majors, it is a tossup on wins but Jack has a dramatic lead in 2nds, 3rds, top 5s and top 10s. Frankly, I have been blessed to have been alive to watch both of them as they proved they are the best, well ahead of those behind them.

Tiger won more in less time with many more injuries. I think that says a lot. Bobby Jones only played a few years and won percentage wise much more. Plus the grand slam, that no one has ever matched, before retiring from golf.

Who do you think is the GOAT? Jack Nicklaus -or- Tiger Woods Let us know below ⬇️

How many times Jack came in second is almost more amazing than his 18 major wins

Jack is the GOAT and Tiger has no chance to catch him. It's not just about wins. Where did you finish when you didn't win? Were you still right there? Jack usually was. Tiger was not, and it's not close. Jack's major record just dwarfs Tiger's overall. And then you have to remember Jack faced a who's who of HoF players in his careers, legends. How many of those did Tiger face? A few, but really...is that close at all? Look at the Major record for both: Jack: 18 wins, 19 Seconds, 9 Thirds, 56 Top 5's, 73 Top 10's, 85 Top 25's 131 Cuts Made Tiger: 15 wins, 7 Seconds, 4 Thirds, 33 Top 5's, 41 Top 10's 59 Top 25's 75 Cuts Made If you brought back Tiger of 10 years ago and let him play 5 more years in good health, he still wouldn't come close to that.

As a whole, Jack Nicklaus must be considered the overall best player to ever play the game. However, if Woods had played during that era, Jack would not have won as many majors. Saying that, Jack Nicklaus and the way he carried himself and represented the game of golf, cannot be disputed. As opposed to Woods's reputation away from the course has greatly diminished his character as a man (sic). Perhaps golf played a joke on Woods letting him see the finish line (19) but denying him his dream to be considered the so-called GOAT.

In the world of golf - Tiger is admired but, Jack is truly loved. Jack was, by far, the best because his performances in the Majors far outweighs Tiger in terms of Top 3 finishes, the opposition Jack faced was far superior and the way Jack played the game was far more gentlemanly. For me Jack is one of a very small band of people who make up The Greatest Sportsmen EVER list and is a shining example of how sport should be played.

One cannot forget about Bobby Jones. He only golfed as an amateur, because professionals had an unsavory reputation at that time. But, had they all been professionals at the same time, with the same equipment, it would be a constant and very close battle for numbers 1A, 1B and 1C. Debating is always fun unfortunately we will never truly know.

Jack had better competition and more consistent. Tiger has the higher peak but Jack is still goat

I'm old school! Jack was playing at Augusta National when I lived there and I am SUCH a fan! Jack all the way!

Jack was faithful to his wife, had class, didn't get car crashes or use prostitutes.

This is ridiculous when you are including tournaments Jack has entered over the past 30 plus years when discussing winning percentages! When you are as great as these guys you have life-time invitations to all major and other tournaments! Also, when you play against the likes of Palmer, Trevino, Player and Watson I think that is tougher than a bunch of one-time winners!

It's Jack. You can't change the definition of GOAT because you want someone else at the top. It's all about the Majors. When Tiger ties or passes Jack then he will be the GOAT.

You just cannot get around the number of majors. Jack is the best golfer.

Jack's 19 silver medals at the majors has to count for something and put him over the top as the greatest ever.

Jack oozed considerably more class both as a golfer and a person.

The topic that seems to come up the most is the number of Majors. In that regard, not only does Jack have the most major wins, but he has the most 2nd place finishes in majors with 19. The next from there is Mickelson with 11. Tiger is down the list a bit with 7. So if Jack would have won just a few of those, we would not be having this discussion.

Jack had serious competition Tiger has not

Jack with those 19 2nd place finishes in majors is awesome. He could have won 37 majors! Tigers injuries and other self-inflicted life events cost him time and possibly more wins and majors. Jack, although not injury free, was able to continue playing and never really missed a beat. For me, it's Jack as the GOAT, but Tiger gets honorable mention with an asterisk....what could have been had he been healthy.

This conversation starts when Tiger matches Jack’s major win record. Tiger’s great and I thought he’d surpass Jack but his personal baggage hurt him. Jack is still the GOAT. Or maybe Young or Old Tom?

Jack is the GOAT. It's not only that he won more Majors. It's he finished Second even more times!

We mention all of the surgeries that Tiger has had as evidence of his health issues, but another way to look at it is modern medicine helping to provide an advantage where players from earlier eras may not have had that luxury at any price. The irony of Woods' dominance is that it was primarily his unprecedented work ethic. He was so much better because he worked so much harder, and it was interesting to see him drag a large chunk of the field, especially up-and-coming players way closer to his level over several years until it wasn't quite as easy for him to win as it had been early on. He has the ability and has maintained physical fitness to win majors into his 50s. (Even Watson came within a putt of an open at 59). The question is if he can match his own standard of effort, just to close that 3-major gap. I predict he'll win one more in the next couple of years but that will be it.

Jack was the best in his era and Tiger in his. Jacks character was and is the finest. It would have been wonderful if the same could be said about Tiger.

Jack had more first, second and third place finishes in Majors than Tiger. Almost double when added together. Moreover you cannot compare Tiger's competition with Jack having to compete against Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson and Ballesteros.

Both are/were amazing. One piece of the puzzle not touched on are the purses in the Tiger years. The money he made through winnings and endorsements allowed him to pick and choose when to play. Jack had to play more often to make a living. I wonder if Tiger had been forced to play as much as Jack, if his body would have broken down quicker. Also, I don’t think we can discount the differences in equipment. This is an impossible debate. Both are great champions.

Very good analysis. The one thing to consider is Tiger could’ve done it with the equipment from Jack time. Tiger would’ve had to play a more controlled game with that equipment.

Tiger's winning percentage only goes south from here as he is pushing 50 years old. Jack was rarely competitive at the same age, and you've already baked this into Jack's numbers but have yet to include it in Tiger's numbers. It's likely Tiger will not have another top 5 at a major, and this makes Jack's dominance in most wins at majors, most top 2s, most top 3s, most top 5s and most top 10s at majors will not be challenged. Jack's the man!

There simply is no debate. 18=GOAT.

Jack also had the most second place finishes which means he was alway in it for a good chunk of his career.

Tiger did not face a top 10 all time great, unless you count Phil. Jack faced the end of Hogan's career {and Snead who almost won the 1963 Masters that Jack ended up winning} Palmer in his prime, Player in his prime, Trevino in his prime, and Watson in his prime. Plus Casper, Floyd, Seve, and Faldo. Finally the comeback against all odds defiantly counts. Jacks 1986 Masters comeback was the greatest of all time. Tiger never came from behind to win a major and was chased down by Y E Yang. And for the final measure 18 beats 15. Jack is the best!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Personally I'd say Jack. Although the numbers do favor Tiger most of the time. I loved Jack for his conduct and sportsmanship. He would be the one I'd want my kid to aspire to.

Tiger Woods turned par 5's into par 3's... He was raised and groomed from a young age to do what he has done, Mr. Clutch in his day... Close but I think Tiger has an edge.

Another great video. Valid arguments to support both. Keep it up 🔥💯'

Like in most sports, it's difficult to compare players from different era with different competition. I'm just lucky to have seen both in my life time.

I think if you focus on the Majors (forgetting Ryder Cup and regular Tour events), it's easy to make the case for Jack. Consider it like the Olympics in terms of medal counts for the Majors: Gold, Silver and Bronze. In the professional Majors, Jack has 18 Gold, 19 Silver and 9 Bronze for a total of 46. Tiger in comparison has 15 Gold, 7 Silver and 3 Bronze for a total of 25. By this one metric, it's not even close.

Would love too have seen these guys playing each other in their prime. It's all about the majors. Jack's got the edge.

very useful and interesting, thanks for sharing...!!

Man i wish they would factor in the condition of the courses meaning how bad/thick the rough and fairways were.

Jack is the GOAT. He didn't chase after anybody's records. He set out to win as many majors as his mind and body would allow. Tiger has chased Jack's records his entire life and has not reached them. In his current condition, it is extremely unlikely that he will win ANY more majors - much less four more that he would need to surpass Jack. Jack did not chase Sneed's tournament wins record; he was focused exclusively on winning the majors. Imagine how many tournaments Jack would have won if he had prioritized chasing Sneed's record rather than on winning as many majors as humanly possible! If you ask Tiger about this - even in private where you're more likely to get an honest answer - I am sure that he would name Jack as golf's GOAT.

Jack was more prolific, however, Tiger won in more dynamic fashion and had millions of eyes on him for every shot. Tiger also has had to deal with multiple injuries Jack never had.

I don't think there is an answer to the question. Let's be grateful we got to see both ,in our life time . I did learn one thing of Jacks , that's stuck with me ,a life time , the aliment set up he used .It never fails my game .

Excellent recommendations of the hard truth about the GOAT debate, very useful and interesting, thanks for sharing...!!

Jack played against a far superior level of competition than Tiger faced during his career, 18 majors and 19 seconds gives the nod to Jack.

Golf will always be remembered through Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus, they're two superb players who emphasize excellence in the sport. In my eyes, they're both great and I don't think anyone should declare one over the other.

I think Jack had the greatest career, but Tiger played the best golf. 19 seconds and 54 plus top 5s in majors is something Tiger hasn’t. One close to. So, it depends on how you define the GOAT. If it’s who played the best, it’d have to be Tiger. If you compare careers, it would have to be Jack. Another factor not considered is that Jack had a full family life, and only played some 15 tournaments a year in his prime. Tiger played much more per year.

I imagine the tech differences would have a huge effect on the game compared to the old days. That on top of tiger now can’t make the cut pretty much and he is only 2/3 the length of playing dominantly.

Jack and Tiger are definitely the two best golfer legends of all time. Enjoyed how this video compared their golfing careers and accomplishments.

Both GOATs from different generations 👍🏼

Compared to today, Tiger's era was very weak. The rookies coming on tour now are better than the average veteran pro in the 90's. I'd love to see what all the previous greats could achieve if only they had Trackman.

Jack played with better top players Player 9 majors Watson 6 Palmer 7 Seve 6 Trevino 6 Tiger has played at a little higher level imo but it's also a different era. They're both great and won when they had to more times than not.i think jack is the goat

Jack is the GOAT. Many reasons. Everyone knows he has more majors, but he also finished 2nd many more times - playing against Hall of Fame guys Palmer, Player, Watson, Trevino, etc. The man’s personal character counts, too, for me. Jack was a great sportsman and role model on and off the course. Don’t get me started on Mr. Woods character!

The record says it all! Jack is the man! Tiger moved the needle unlike ever before. Sam Snead and Byron Nelson have some incredible records in that group too.

FOREIGN COMPETITION is the decider IMO.. (see the details below) Jacks 19 second place finishes is remarkable. Tiger's consecutive cuts made is remarkable...142 Many of Snead's wins would not be considered PGA tour events today. NOT MENTIONED...foreign competition taking careers like this....Jack from 1962 to 1986, Tiger from 1997 to 2019 Tiger went up against much more foreign competition than Jack did Only 5 different foreign players won majors in the US (Masters, PGA, US Open) during Jack's career (as defined above) (Player, Jacklin, Langer, Seve, David Graham) Number of times US Majors won by foreign players between 1962 and 1986 .........10 19 different foreign players won US majors during Tiger's career (as defined above) Number of times foreign players won majors in US between 1997 and 2019..........27 Tiger faced much more competition than Jack....much deeper fields Tiger is the answer

Nobody compares to Jack. He's the goat among goats. Almost everything tiger did was official and in competition. Tigers career is purely on the green. But Jack was a jaw dropping legend on and off the green and he's taken countless jaw dropping shots that didn't count for anything except fun.

Tiger stated himself when he was younger , "Judge me by my majors" , thats what matters in the end. If Tiger had 18 and they were tied, you can give it to Tiger, but as long as Jack has more majors, hes the Goat. No body remembers your regular tournaments, they remember how many majors you won.

Jack was good. Tiger was great. This is a hard choice but I would choose Tiger any day. At least he was in the golf era I know of. Not too bad 😁

I have to go with Bobby Jones....Jones' problem was that he played a 100 years ago and had a very short career but I think he changed the game mire than anyone. Nicklaus and Woods are about even in my book as far they their performance. However the tipping point for me has been Nicklaus and his embrace of the racist alt right. That tarnished the man's reputation more than anything

I like the topic, it is quite interesting what we can achieve, thanks for sharing it, I will be attentive to your channel.

I'd have to go with Tiger, Jack had a great career but Tiger really pushed it to the limits

So hard to choose a GOAT, especially when it's hard to compare the periods of history. With better equipment, it makes it even harder

Tiger and Jack are both GOATs. But they played in different eras. Jack had weaker competition, but he played with greatly inferior equipment. The size of the sweet spot on Jack's clubs was as thin as a dime! It would be so cool to put the two of them, in their primes, each at the height of their powers, on the greatest courses in the world, like Pine Valley, Pebble Beach, Beth Page Black, Augusta National, etc., with the equipment of Jack's era and that of Tiger's, and have a multi-round shootout. Who would win? I'm not sure, but it would be thrilling. And if you think you're sure, you don't know what you're talking about.

I find it hard to pin Jack as the “greatest of all time.” The reason is because I find it hard using wins to define the goat. For example, It is mostly accepted that Muhammad Ali is labeled the greatest boxer of all time. However, Sugar Ray Robinson has the most wins at 174 and Floyd Mayweather hold the famous 50-0 record. The reason why Muhammad Ali is considered the greatest boxer and athlete of all time is because of the legacy he left behind after his career. Ali was not only a prolific boxer but also played an important role in civil right movements for African Americans during one of americas most controversial periods. Michael Jordan is the goat in basketball. But Bill Russel has almost twice the NBA championships as Michael and Kareem (at the time of this writing) has the most points in a single career. It’s because of Jordan’s impact on basketball that makes him the goat. Similarly, tiger woods not only was the most dominant golfer to ever play the game (during the 2000s) but he also broke racial barriers as a middle classes African American in a dominantly white upper-class sport. He single handedly opened the sport to the middle class population and racial minorities across the globe. Jack never had a impact like tiger had on the world and sports as a whole. Although jack has the most majors, tiger woods has more wins and the highest winning percentage of any person of all time. Every course in the world had to redesign to make it more difficult for tiger to win because he made it so easy and entertaining to watch. Tiger has rightfully solidified himself not only as the greatest golfer of all time but one of the most influential athletes of all time. Goats are not only defined by wins and achievements but also their impact and legacy they leave behind once they’re gone.

Honestly, I can't make this decision. I truly love them both, they are both amazing at the sport. They both gave it all and had extremely successful careers. But they both had their time to shine, and they definitely did when given the chance! Although, If I absolutely had to choose, I would most likely side with Tiger this time. Thanks for sharing!

I don't care what anyone says, Tiger Woods is the GOAT 🐐

Jack played against better golfers who won multiple majors. During his run, how many players did Tiger play who two or more majors?

Jack concentrated on majors, the Championships. That's the winner. Hello!!!!

I leaned toward Jack because of his 19 second place finishes. After seeing this video the numbers don't lie. Tiger beats you on percentages and more often than not straight up numbers. I still tell people that he ruined all of my excuses for not being good at the game. I would hit my ball in the woods just like Tiger. But that meant a double bogey if I was lucky. Tiger was still making birdies.

Tiger will always be the greatest of all time.

It is difficult to compare sports performances from different eras....too many variables. Woods is a wonerful golfer who domjnated his era and deserves acolades, but Nicklaus won 3 more majors and many senior titles....he also had 12 more 2nd place finishes in majors, 23 more top fives in majors, and 32 more top 10s in majors. Given Tiger's physical challeges it is very doubtful that he will be competetive for very much longer. Jack remains the most dominant in any given era....if that's a "goat" , then Jack's the goat😊😊

Here's the difference, Tiger has the 3rd most wins in the history of the European Tour. He won 42 tournaments on that tour, Jack won events 9 in Europe. In most other measures, they are close with maybe Jack holding a slight edge. Tiger's dominance in Europe shifts the balance for me. He's the GOAT.

As great as Jack was (and he was incredible) he just wasn't as great as Tiger. Tiger won 3 USGA junior amateurs and then amateurs in a row. That is unprecedented. Nobody has ever come close to that or ever will. Frankly it's absurd. He won 9 times in a season and 4 majors in a row, both things Jack never did. He won the US Open by 15 shots, again something Jack never came remotely close to doing. He has 9 more wins than Jack and did it faster. Literally the only thing Jack has on him is the 4 majors and that's only because of Tiger's health issues. Tiger is the GOAT.

Great video outlining all the angles - gotta go with Jack Nicklaus

The scoring average is a joke. Better ball, better conditions, better clubs.

I see a lot of comments about what Tiger would have done if not for injuries. Was it not mentioned that Jack played with a bad hip most of his career. Personally I couldn’t pick between them. Both amazing in their respective eras.

I think Jack held himself to a higher standard in his personal life which for me, puts him over the top. Nicholas is the overall 🐐.

Jack won 18 majors. Tiger won 15 majors. Jack has finished second 19 times at majors. Tiger finished second 7 times. Jack had much tougher competition than Tiger did when he played. The measure of a true goat is the most championships in really big events. Result. JACK IS THE GOAT. END OF STORY👏👏👏

If you look at the top major champions, Jack had far more in his era than did Tiger. Watson and Trevino alone stole a carload of majors from Jack, and Jack could have had his own "slam" of sorts in 1972 but for Trevino chipping in at the Open (Jack was already the US Open, Masters and PGA champion at the time). Jack's dominance in the 1965 Masters was up there with any of Tiger's dominant wins, and that was over Player and Palmer, 2 more all time greats. All that said, the sport advances and Tiger is the best of his era and the better golfer of the 2, but I rate Jack's record overall over Tiger given so many great champions Jack was up against.

thanks for breaking it down, these guys are the undisputed top 2. There's good arguments for both but at the end of the day, it was a pleasure to watch both of them!

Tiger at his peak is no doubt the greatest player that ever swung a golf club. Jack had a better major career and his peak was much longer.

Numbers are one thing, but who you are on and off the course are another. Jack triumphs over Tiger in so many respects, especially when it comes to conduct (Jack was not running around on his wife with multiple women). Tiger also bent to rules on more than one occasion to his advantage. Jack also played with far inferior equipment, course conditions, and traveling conditions to get too and from events. There is more to being the GOAT than numbers.

Would like to shed some light on Bobby Jones and Hogan - Jones winning 44% of all the majors he entered more than doubles Tiger, but Hogan won 31 tournaments (including 3 majors) the 3 years prior to his accident - fate can be cruel but I wonder what his record would be minus that Greyhound.

Re-calculate those win percentages after Tiger plays deep into his 50s. That’s a nothing stat.

Excellent high-quality information, you have an interesting video with useful content, which my friends should listen to, I will share it.

This is another stellar video from Golf Plus and this video addresses one of the biggest questions in Golf - who is the GOAT? I would probably vote Tiger on sheer athleticism. Nicklaus was incredible too though! Maybe we should think of each as great works of art - incomparable and to be appreciated without trying to rank them?

Both are absolute pinnacle of golf, but being a person of colour, I can't help but to take into account his background and the common ground that I have with him. Even Michael Jordan, one of the GOATs of basketball said that if he grew up with Tiger around playing pro golf, he might not be playing basketball because he would be too busy trying to be like Tiger. There's another comment saying that it's pointless to say which is the other, and I definitely agree - both deserve to be remembered for their absolute astonishing achievements and feats.

Largest 4 day crowd to watch Jack win a Major is approx 120,000. Largest for Tiger approx 295,000. Tiger and Jack played golf under different conditions

Jack had more starts but many of them were ceremonial when Jack was no longer capable of winning. That winning pct. point is kind of lame. One other point conveniently forgotten is that Tiger had $65 million from sponsors Nike and Titleist before he ever teed it up on tour. Jack started from scratch and never made $65 million in his whole career.

This is, essentially, the same debate that rages in boxing forums trying to compare the greats from different eras. Same for NFL, and so forth. The bottom line is that everything changes over time (and hopefully, for the better). Today's athletes have better equipment, better nutrition, better analysis tools, better training, and an entire science discipline dedicated to their success. Then again, so do their competition. I prefer to enjoy greatness for what it is, regardless of when it happened. It's not always just the numbers.

15 consecutive years finishing inside the Top 6 at the Open - 37 1st and 2nd place finishes at Majors - these 2 stats alone are enough to finish any debate

There will always be debates on who is best, but ultimately, they are all good players and deserve the attention.