‘Jack Had The Better Career, Tiger Was More Dominant’ – Brandel Chamblee Gives Verdict On Golf’s GOAT Debate

The notion that the debate over the greatest player of all time is between two players, Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods, is rarely disputed. However, it’s another story when it comes to determining who is the best of the two.

A quick glance at the list of victories each accumulated helps illuminate why, as Nicklaus amassed 73 PGA Tour wins with 18 Major victories, with Woods claiming three fewer wins in the big four tournaments but a total of nine more on the PGA Tour overall – and that’s before delving into the long list of additional record-setting stats each racked up at their peak.

One leading figure who has his own thoughts on the debate is Golf Channel analyst Brandel Chamblee. The American was interviewed by Rocco Mediate on SiriusXM PGA Tour Radio and detailed where he stands on the long-running debate.

Chamblee began by reeling off some jaw-dropping stats on Woods at his peak, arguing that a period where the host almost beat him, in the 2008 US Open, was a more impressive time for him than his much-vaunted earlier years.

He said: “That period from ’99 to 2002, as miraculous as it was, he won 34% of the time. I think undervalued, and it is where you run into him, in 2006 to 2009. In that period of time, Rocco, he won 46% of the tournaments he played in. 

"He won 25 of 54 and the scoring average over four years, think about this. Four years on the PGA Tour his scoring average was 67.9. That’s adjusted, it’s important to adjust it because he’s mostly playing in the toughest tournaments with the best fields.”

But how did Nicklaus’ best years stack up? Very well, argued Chamblee, but not with the dominance Woods had. He continued: “Jack’s level of dominance, his best years were ’65 and ’73. He was three-quarters of a shot better than the next-best player in scoring average.

"Jack could have won the Vardon Trophy nine times but never played enough rounds to officially get it. So you’re talking about somebody who was twice as dominant as the game’s greatest player. So, whenever I get that question you know, ‘who was better, Tiger or Jack?’ I always say, ‘well, Jack had the better career, Tiger was more dominant - he played the better golf.”

Woods, of course, isn’t done yet and thinks there are more wins in him before he has to call it a day. Speaking ahead of his latest comeback from injury, at the Hero World Challenge, he said: “There will come a point in time, I haven't come around to it fully yet, that I won't be able to win again. When that day comes, I'll walk.”

Whether whatever Woods has left in him will be enough to settle the debate once and for all remains to be seen. However, while Chamblee offers compelling evidence that Woods beats Nicklaus' efforts for dominance, his overall verdict suggests each can stake a claim to being the greatest there has ever been – just in different ways.