Now that Tiger is done, can we acknowledge Jack is the GOAT?

Each week, we ask our panel of writers, PGA members and golf industry experts to weigh in with their views on the hot topics of the day.

The U.S. Women’s Open kicks off this week at Riviera Country Club in Los Angeles. Nelly Korda and Jeeno Thitikul are dominating the news as two of the compelling storylines from this championship but there are plenty of others too. Which storyline intrigues you the most? 

Jim Deeks, Fairways Magazine (@jimdeeks): Anything involving Brooke Henderson retains my interest. She has clearly faded from the heights over the last two years, but I keep hoping she’ll return to form and I’ll find her name in the top 10 when I check leaderboard status each week.  But not only is she not there, she seems to have been shorn of her first name on the LPGA website’s leaderboards (she’s been listed as “Mackenzie Henderson” for several weeks.). Anyway, go Brooke!  Another storyline I find intriguing is my old friend Chella Choi, who has returned from maternity leave (maybe two years ago) and is back playing, and making cuts.  I wish her well, she’s a very nice person.

Craig Loughry, Golf Ontario (@craigloughry): Beyond Korda and Thitikul, I’m most intrigued by Riviera itself hosting a U.S. Women’s Open for the first time. It’s an iconic track, strategic course with firm conditions that should reward and help identify a great Champion. I can’t wait to see if the 10^th hole causes them as much havoc as the men. And in general, how top players adapt—and whether a veteran vs. a rising star solves it best will be part of the story by weeks end.

Michael Schurman, Master Professional / Hall of Fame Member, PGA of Canada: The main story for me is about the four Canadians who have qualified. Brooke Henderson is the most decorated but seems to be riding along in mid-pack. Can she elevate her game to contend? She’s done it before. The other three are just developing. Anna Huang has had success on the Ladies European Tour at just 17. Amateurs Lauren Kim and Aphrodite Deng show great potential but a US Open may be too big a hill to climb at this stage of their development but a great learning experience. They’ll be fun to watch.

TJ Rule, Golf Away Tours (@GolfAwayTJ): I think Nelly is the story this week, seeing if she can re-assert herself as the clear World No 1 by winning, and I like her chances with her current form.  The other storyline I’ll be following closely is Canada’s best player – and no I don’t mean Brooke for the first time in years!  I’m intrigued to see how Anna Huang plays, coming off her third LET victory at the ripe age of 17!  She’s an exciting young talent and has yet to make a cut in her two previous major starts, but I think that changes this week.

Hal Quinn, Freelance Writer, Vancouver: Without question, the storyline — commissioner after commissioner after commissioner — is how in the freakin’ world does the LPGA Tour keep flunking Marketing 101? Why was the women’s US Open not played last week? What was the competition? The Charles Schwab Challenge!  Wow, friends and relatives glued to their TVs. This week, what’s the competition? Jack’s Memorial featuring the best of that Tour’s stars. Golf fans around the world glued to their sets and streaming devices. Who cares who wins the Open? The LPGA Tour doesn’t seem to care if you notice.

Peter Mumford, Fairways Magazine: Nelly and Jeeno certainly are the main event and a head-to-head battle between the two would be amazing, but it rarely works out that way. Someone else usually has a say about it. However, the ongoing question that won’t be thwarted, is how the women will deal with Riviera. We see the course each year on the PGA Tour and are familiar with all its challenges. I’m intrigued to see if the women are faced with the same hurdles. We know the course will play long and the rough is deeper and thicker than most LPGA events. It should be a very tough test for the ladies.

Let’s assume Tiger Woods’ competitive career is over. (I can hear the howls of protest already. And Elvis is still in the building too.) The GOAT debate has been raging ever since Tiger began to surpass or beat some of Jack Nicklaus’ records. Now that the stats are final for both players, what’s your vote for either as the Greatest of All Time and how much do you weigh non-playing issues in your consideration?

Deeks: Strictly on the basis of most majors won (and number of second place major finishes added), I say Jack is the GOAT, followed by Tiger.  But most dominating and intimidating player of all time? Tiger, hands down, followed by Jack — although Bobby Jones’s name should always be mentioned in these conversations.  Most honourable and sportsmanlike champion of all time?  Jones, followed by Nicklaus.  Ben Hogan’s name should also be included in these discussions, but he never quite makes the top on any of those three criteria, in my view.

Loughry: I lean Tiger Woods. Peak dominance, win rate, field depth, and cultural impact tip it for me despite Jack’s 18 majors. Tiger’s sustained No. 1 stretches, and intimidation factor were unprecedented. Non-playing issues matter to legacy but don’t outweigh competitive achievement; they’re context, not the primary metric for “greatest player.” But with 18 Majors, Jack should always be part of the conversation.

Schurman: Non-playing issues have no weight with me at all. This issue has one ingredient: “Who did you beat”? Every endeavour, sports or otherwise, requires performance at the highest level, under the greatest pressure. In golf, the main opportunities are the Majors and the Ryder Cup. There are peripheral milestones like those gained over time and those that show supreme dominance, but the Majors are the true test. Nicklaus won 18 majors; more than any other person. He also finished second 19 times and holds the record of 73 top ten finishes with the next closest at 25 (Sam Snead). He also holds the record for the most top 5 finishes at 56. Other contenders include Tiger, Hogan, Bob Jones, Walter Hagen, Harry Vardon. Tiger’s record can compare to Nicklaus without adjustment, but earlier players all require some kind of balancing formula. Jack Nicklaus is the GOAT without question.

Rule: I don’t weigh non-playing issues when considering best player, as much as that is possible to ignore.  I think it’s almost two separate questions.  Tiger was the GOAT for his prime years, and I don’t think there is any debate about that.  Some of the records he holds over that 10–12-year span are ones that will never be touched.  He was so dominant.  That being said, there is something to be said for longevity and consistency over many decades, and Jack holds the advantage there.  I would still vote for Tiger as my GOAT, but it’s not a slam dunk.  And yes, I’ve finally admitted that his competitive PGA Tour career is indeed over, sadly.

Quinn:  Golf and tennis are the most individual of important sports — sorry billiards, badminton, darts, and all those pseudo-Olympic events. And so, personality matters. McEnroe and Conners were tennis’s prototypical Ugly Americans. Roger Federer was the opposite. Jack was golf’s Federer — once he was forgiven for dethroning Arnie — gracious in victory and defeat –Duel in the Sun, anyone? Off the course? The idealized version of the American family. Eldrick? From day one it was his father and Nike doing the guiding. On the course, astounding. Off the course, an American tragedy. Personality and character matter.

Mumford: An old Seinfeld episode had the cast arguing which was better: #1 Dad or World’s Greatest Dad. Their conclusion? “World’s Greatest is better than #1.” So too with sports. Lots of players can be #1 in statistical terms (victories, majors, money earned etc.) but to be the greatest involves more than their playing resume. Hard to fault Jack’s legacy of family, philanthropy and course design while Tiger’s legacy lurches from one self-induced disaster to another. Off course matters for sure. Jack is the GOAT!

We’re not sure if the PGA Tour is floating trial balloons about their future schedule or if they really just don’t know. We’ve heard about shortened schedules, a big increase in Signature events, cuts, no cuts, a two-track tour and varying max field sizes. If you were in charge of overhauling it, how would you design the Tour schedule going forward? 

Deeks: Call me a dinosaur if you wish, but I’d take the Tour back about twenty years, before the FedEx Cup finale, which I still don’t fully understand (apathy on my part, I admit.)  But I would add a proper, annual, final Tour Championship in mid-to-late September, comprised only of Tour event winners of the season (which would start in Hawaii in January.)  Get rid of Signature events, no cuts, FedEx… just keep it simple, and competitive.  (And for that matter, I’d bring back the CBS Golf Classic matches from Firestone.)

Loughry: Trim the number of events (too many right now); anchor 5-8 Signature events (no-cut, limited fields). Schedule should be built AROUND Majors. Maintain regular full-field events with cuts for pathways. Create a clear “promotion/relegation” ladder with the Korn Ferry Tour. Provide regional swings to ease travel (and even attract fans to maybe catch 2-3 events in that region. Cap the fields to 120 to help with pace/delays, etc. Penalize SLOW players, get it out of the events in whatever form possible. Penalty strokes help, as that hursts their pocketbook most and embarrasses the players too (I think this is the only way it materially changes).

Schurman: Modernization has caused many problems for the TOUR. The incredible wealth available for the top layer is beyond belief. Players own their own jets. Combined with sponsor requirements, high value events (points and cash), appearances, family obligations, personal well being (exercise, practise, meals) etc. The entire schedule would require massive planning and scheduling. Playing any event requires an in-depth organization including time to rest. Given the TOUR’s desire to reduce the schedule and create more high-profile events, I would construct a fixtures list that allowed for 3 consecutive events followed by one week off. The TOUR would begin in Jan and end with the FedEx in August. The Fall and winter would be filled with a second-tier tour filled with match play, Parent/Child, men vs women, team events and other interesting challenges.

Rule: I’ve said it over and over, I like the idea of full fields and cuts, to give as many guys the chance to make a living and realise a dream come true as possible.  That doesn’t mean there isn’t space for the odd signature or limited field event, but let’s keep those to a minimum.  Perhaps I’m too much of a “traditionalist” but I prefer the way it was years ago, although you would need to convince the top players in the world they don’t call all the shots, and that’s the biggest challenge.

Quinn: Seems that hiring an NFL wunderkind was just one of many LIV-induced knee jerks. All the current machinations seem to be driven by two misconceptions:  LIV is still a threat and the Tour needs fixing. Just a couple of years ago fans loved the Tour, sponsors were writing checks (US), and loyal venues were still part of the party. The Tour did not need a re-do (other than explaining to its members where all the millions were stashed, and why). The Tour — ignoring the new commish — has to remember its roots, admit it ain’t the NFL money machine, and just play.

Mumford: I’d keep it simple and easy to follow. Schedule 32 events that start in late January and end in August with Saturday finishes for any event opposite the NFL playoffs. Each tournament except the majors and Players have max fields of 120 and a second-round cut. There are no Signature events. There is no Track 2 – that’s like another Korn Ferry Tour. Move all the opposite field events to the Fall. Eliminate the playoff format. The Tour Championship is a 32-player match play event for tournament winners and the highest ranked non-winners vying for some ludicrously large purse. That’s it. Take a breather. See you next January.