SI golf writer and author of Tiger & Phil, Bob Harig's Tiger v. Jack, an examination of the greatest argument in golf--who was better--exploring the records, rivalries, statistics, and context of their illustrious careers, including the intangibles that made them both icons.
When Jack Nicklaus stunningly won the 1986 Masters for his 18th major championship victory, it was a reminder of the greatness of a golfer who had done so much. The major title - six years after his last - brought into focus again the dominance of his career. At the time, nobody was close to him in major wins, and the idea of anyone getting within miles of Nicklaus' major record, let alone match or overtake him, seemed, frankly, preposterous.
And yet, there was a kid who was just 10 years old when Nicklaus won that last major. Tiger Woods was already thinking about Jack. He would put his accomplishments on a wall by age and try to beat those feats. Eventually, he put Nicklaus' 18 major titles in his sights, and for the better part of a decade was on pace to match or exceed the record, a remarkable thought itself. The fact that he came up short doesn't diminish the chase.
In
Tiger v. Jack, Bob Harig explores and compares the two legends in a lively examination of the greatest argument in golf--who was better, Jack Nicklaus or Tiger Woods--exploring the records, rivalries, statistics, and context of their illustrious careers, including the intangibles that made them both icons. They both had their moments of brilliance and dominance. What we've seen from Nicklaus and Woods is likely to never be duplicated, all the more reason to celebrate it.
