Who had more competition - Tiger or Jack?

Until very recently, it was accepted golfing wisdom that in the era of Jack Nicklaus (1960s and 70s) there fewer good players than there are now in Tiger Woods' prime (mid 1990s to the present).

This has always coloured the debate as to which is the greatest.

For the first time, this assumption is currently being questioned.

Now, comparing anything across eras, be it the state of the British Newspaper industry or the quality of real ale, is a completely subjective exercise. Let's get that straight immediately.

But it's also enjoyable and entertaining, so let's try anyway.

In Jack's day, there were a handful of true champions, most notably Gary Player, Arnold Palmer and Tom Watson, but we are led to believe the supporting cast was rather thin. In other words, when it came to a Major, there were only a handful of realistic potential winners.

Right now, the next best after Tiger are the likes of Phil Mickelson, Ernie Els and Jim Furyk - Major champions one and all.

I don't think any have yet earned the right to be talked about in the same class as Jack's peers, but beneath them in any given Major are at least another 50 players who, on their day, are capable of winning one of the big ones.

Yet, despite this supposed depth of talent, Tiger continues to have things pretty much exactly his own way.

When Mickelson has a good year, he wins a Major and perhaps two other events. Els the same. Whereas Tiger wins over half the events he enters.

So does that mean that the competition is not as strong as has been suggested? Quite possibly.

My conclusion is slightly different.

I think that Tiger's domination is on a completely different level to that of Jack's.

Because as good as Jack was, I believe Tiger is better. Much better.

I think he's stronger, fitter, more talented and has a better technique. And, crucially, he is the equal of Nicklaus when it comes to dedication, mental strength and thinking his way not only round golf courses but also entire tournaments and whole seasons.

And he is so good just at the moment that there are only two reasons he does not win every event he enters. One is that his driving is variable, despite his incredible recovery powers. The other is that it only takes one performance-of-a-lifetime display from one other competitor in one given week to deny him. And that happens.

These factors mean that I, personally, think the 15/1 price currently being quoted on him winning the Grand Slam represents very poor value.

But as for passing Jack's tally of 18 Majors, well, that is merely a matter of time.

By Dan Murphy

Editor