As much as an opinion can be a fact, it has always been a “fact” that Babe Ruth is the greatest baseball player of all-time. It’s an easy case to make. Nobody led the league in more categories more often than Ruth. His entire statistical archive is seemingly bolded or italicized, denoting league-leader status. He is the all-time leader in OPS+ and slugging percentage. He is the only player in baseball history to hit more than 600 home runs and hit at least .305—and he did it with 756 home runs and a .342 average! His dominance of the 1920s and 30s essentially forced baseball out of the dead-ball era. It would take thousands of words to list out all of the things Ruth did that nobody else did.

The Sultan of Swat is deserving of every alliterative appellation allocated to him and every hyperbolic half-truth that accompanies his name. Without Ruth, baseball would not be what it is today. He is a two-syllable history lesson of America’s pastime. DJ, kindly bring that record to a screeching halt. This is the “but” you were waiting for. Pee-Wee Herman said it first and said it best, “everyone I know has a big but” and this might be the biggest “but” of them all. Babe Ruth was the greatest player of his era, but he is not the greatest player of all-time. To evoke the moody train conductor from The Polar Express, baseball eras are not transferable. While Ruth’s astronomical statistical marks make him the king of his era, they cannot be taken at face value when comparing him to players from other eras. Ruth’s dominance of an 8-team league entirely devoid of black and Asian players, and largely devoid of Latino, Canadian, and Jewish players, requires loads of context. Additionally, Ruth played in a league that was hesitant to embrace the value of the home run, which made him stand out like a skyscraper in DC. It wasn’t that players couldn’t hit home runs, it’s that they literally didn’t realize they should be trying to. This, of course, wasn’t Ruth’s fault, but it sure made it easier to lead the league in home runs and slugging %. Every subsequent era after Ruth saw a league full of home-run chasing sluggers, meaning nobody after Ruth would have it quite as easy.   

The only hitter in MLB history who rivals Ruth in dominance with respect to his era is Barry Bonds. DJ, queue the Death Star theme. Bonds won seven MVP Awards (and should have won two more in 1991 and 2000). That number is significant because, in the history of baseball, no two players have combined to win 7 MVPs. That alone suggests that Bonds is, by far, the greatest hitter since 1931, when the MVP that we recognize today was first handed out. Due to the fact that the MVP didn’t exist from 1915-1921, 1929 (AL), and 1930, and baseball rules prevented players from winning the award more than once from 1922-1928, Ruth’s official MVP count stands at a very unsatisfying, one. With a little voodoo and some retro-prognostication, it is highly probable that Ruth would’ve come close to equaling Bonds’ seven MVPs. MVP voters have historically shown a penchant for spreading the award around to prevent one player from monopolizing it. So, it is unlikely that Ruth would’ve won the MVP every year that he was statistically the best player. In fact, we have evidence of how (un)likely voters at the time were to vote for him. In 1931, Ruth was clearly the best hitter in the American League, but finished 5th in the voting. Although the number of potential MVP awards Ruth could have won likely falls somewhere between 6-11, the outcome probably would’ve ended up on the lower end of that range.

Let’s just say for argument’s sake that Ruth would have won nine MVPs. During Ruth’s career, there were eight teams in the American League accounting for roughly 200 players. Over the course of Bonds’ career, there were an average of 15 teams in the National League accounting for roughly 375 players. That means that it was close to twice as difficult for Bonds to win an MVP than it was for Ruth. That makes Bonds’ seven MVPs more impressive than the nine MVPs we’ve graciously assumed for Ruth, and that doesn’t account for the fact that Ruth only had to compete against white players.

To continue the Ruth-Bonds comparison in earnest, we need to head to the “league leaders” pages at Baseball Reference, while continuing to account for league size and composition. A similar outcome to the MVP comparison unfolds when comparing Bonds and Ruth in two of the gold-standard measures of inter-era comparisons: WAR for Position Players and OPS+. Both Bonds and Ruth led the league in WAR for Position Players 11 times. Ruth led the league in OPS+ 12 times and Bonds did it nine times. Given that it was almost twice as difficult for Bonds to lead the league in any category due to league size, it’s clear that his accomplishments in these two categories are more impressive than Ruth’s. Again, that only accounts for league size and not the significantly less competitive, very homogenized league that Ruth played in.

Both players led their respective leagues in OBP 10 times. Bonds led the league in walks 12 times, while Ruth did it 10 times. As lauded as Ruth is for his batting average, Bonds led the league in batting average twice, while Ruth did it once. Remember, Bonds simply being close to Ruth in these comparisons is a win given it was nearly twice as difficult for him to lead the league, but Bonds is actually beating Ruth in some of these comparisons. Ruth’s biggest advantage over Bonds comes in slugging percentage where he led the league 13 times compared to Bonds’ seven. Even when it appears Ruth has a significant feather in his cap, the comparison results in a virtual stalemate. It was roughly 1.88 times as difficult for Bonds to lead the league in a category than it was for Ruth, and Ruth led the league in slugging percentage 1.86 times more often than Bonds. That’s about as close to a dead-heat as we’re going to find. Again, that only accounts for the size of the player pool and not the exponential increase in talent that flooded MLB after integration. It also doesn’t account for the fact that leading the league in slugging % was much easier for Ruth given the league was largely ignorant of the value of a home run. Bonds, on the other hand, played in the most competitive home run era in MLB history.

In order for Ruth to stake a claim as the greatest baseball player of all-time, he’d need to come close to doubling-up Bonds in these comparisons, and it hasn’t even come close to playing out that way. Adjusting for league size and composition, Bonds’ achievements are more impressive than Ruth’s, and it’s hard to argue that it’s not by a significant margin. Ruth was an accomplished starting pitcher for the first five years of his career which is certainly notable, but Bonds was an outstanding defensive player and an exceptional base-stealer, while Ruth was not. Let’s call that a wash. 

There is no debating Ruth’s dominance or his impact on the sport. He ushered in an entirely new era of baseball by redefining what it meant to be a productive hitter. Bonds’ abrasiveness and PED-use (not factored in the rankings and here’s why) make it virtually impossible that he will ever be universally—or even lightly—embraced as the greatest player of all-time. Heck, he can’t even get into the Hall of Fame. Most lists place Ruth as the greatest player of all-time, and most lists will continue to place Ruth as the greatest player of all-time. People aren’t necessarily interested in changing their minds on this, especially when the beneficiary would be Barry Bonds. The goal of this list is not to rank the most likable good players (here’s looking at you, Griffey), rather it is to rank the greatest players of all-time using two overarching themes: dominance within their era and the competitiveness of their era. To go all Married… with Children, “you can’t have one without the other.”

With all due respect to the Lebron-MJ debate, the closest greatest-of-all-time (GOAT) race in all of sports is at the top of the golf list. Sure, the Jack fanatics would disagree with that notion, but the dynamics involved in comparing Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus are as convoluted as it gets. There is very little doubt that Nicklaus had the most consistently great career in history. Woods, on the other hand, dominated his contemporaries more historically than any golfer in history.  Who you anoint as the golf GOAT depends entirely on whether you choose to emphasize dominance or consistency. 

The Jack/Tiger debate must begin with acknowledging how difficult it was to succeed in their respective eras. While Nicklaus won more major championships, the competition level during the 1960s and 70s wasn’t remotely as strong as it has been in the decades since. Of the 11 golfers in history who won at least seven major championships, 10 were born before 1950. The other is Tiger Woods (b. 1975). This underscores the danger of placing too much of an emphasis on Nicklaus’s major total. The list of the golfers with the most major championship is top-heavy with players from 50-100 years ago because it was easier to win back then. Golf is more difficult now than it has ever been. Consider that Phil Mickelson, Brooks Koepka, Rory McIIroy, and Jordan Spieth are the only active golfers with more than two majors. High major totals are a relic of the past. Contrary to the zeitgeist that prevailed as Woods’s major total began to climb, he never needed to beat Nicklaus’s major record to stake his claim as the GOAT. That was a standard set by people who don’t understand how “competition level” factors into sports. Had Woods reached 18 majors, the debate wouldn’t even be a debate. Since he ended up with 15, the debate will rage until the end of time. 

The debate itself involves a Rubik’s Cube of nuance. There is plenty of ammunition on both sides to get your bias on, or to simply give up due to analytical exhaustion. Typically, I reach a level of serenity at the end of GOAT comparisons. Whether it’s Lebron vs. MJ, Ruth vs. Bonds, or Brady vs. Rice, statistical analysis with an emphasis on degree of difficulty almost always yields a clear-cut winner. Spoiler alert: There will be no serenity here. This GOAT debate is a (golden) bear. In fact, alternating each at the top spot every other day is looking like a welcome resolution. Nonetheless, let’s make the best argument for both and see which is the most compelling. 

Jack Nicklaus

Let’s start with Nicklaus and the angle that gives him the best shot at victory in this debate: longevity. Since Nicklaus holds the all-time marks for major championships, major championship runner-ups, top-five major finishes, and top-ten major finishes, it would be easy to assume an advantage over Woods not just in longevity, but dominance as well. However, that would be misguided, and we’ll discover why in a bit. Nicklaus’s argument must lean on the raw totals that resulted from his extraordinarily long peak. His record 18 majors have been well-documented, but his 19 second place finishes and nine third-place finishes deserve top billing as well. Both are records. In fact, Nicklaus’s 37 top-two finishes at majors are 15 more than anyone else. His 46 top-three finishes are 20 more than anyone else. His 56 top five finishes are 23 more than anyone else, and his 73 top ten finishes are 25 more than anyone else. Those margins are astonishing.

Nicklaus’s record consistency is best on display when looking at the most successful ten-year stretch of his career. From 1971-1980, he played in 40 major tournaments and finished in the top-10 a remarkable 35 times. Tiger’s best ten-year stretch saw him achieve the top-10 in 26 out of 40 major tournaments. Even more impressive is Nicklaus’s 29 top-five finishes during this stretch. Woods reached 22 top-five finishes over his best stretch. 

Another area where Nicklaus excelled and Woods didn’t is at the Ryder Cup. Nicklaus’s Ryder Cup record is a robust 17-8-3, while Woods compiled a disappointing mark of 13-21. However, it is worth noting that five of the six Ryder Cups that Nicklaus played in were under the U.S. vs. Great Britain (or Great Britain and Ireland) format. These competitions were blowouts in favor of the U.S., and the caliber of opponent that Nicklaus faced was nowhere near what subsequent U.S. Ryder Cup teams would face. The format changed to the U.S. vs. Europe in 1979, which turned the Ryder Cup from a biannual U.S. coronation to a one-sided affair in favor of the Europeans (Europe is 10-4 in the last 14 Ryder Cups). Woods’s record is disappointing considering his standing as the greatest golfer of his generation, but it’s fair to speculate that his Ryder Cup record would look like Nicklaus’s had he been able to feast on the overmatched Great Britain teams of the 60s and 70s. 

There really isn’t much more to Nicklaus’s GOAT case than his epic run atop the major leaderboards, and there might not have to be. He was, of course, the #1 golfer in the world for over a decade and he had the lowest scoring average on the PGA Tour for eight years. He also won three Players Championships (aka the TPC, The PLAYERS, or the unofficial “fifth major”). However, there isn’t much separation from Woods on those points. Woods actually led the tour in scoring nine times and was the #1 golfer in the world for 683 weeks. Woods also has the lowest single-season and career adjusted scoring averages in PGA Tour history, and he won two TPCs and had a second place finish. If you’re arguing for Nicklaus, the argument really needs to focus on his leaderboard success at the majors because Woods matches or exceeds him everywhere else.

Tiger Woods

With Tiger Woods, the track to GOAT status is all about his dominance over the most competitive era in golf history. Perhaps the most telling statistic on Woods’s resume is the fact that since he turned professional in 1996, he has won as many majors (15) as the next three highest major winners over that span combined [Phil Mickelson (6), Brooks Koepka (5), and Rory McIIroy (4)]. Read that again: over the last 30 golf seasons, Tiger Woods has as many majors as the next three most successful major winners combined. Among players born since 1975–the year he was born–Woods has three times as many major championships as anyone else. For all of Nicklaus’s greatness, he doesn’t come close to matching that level of superiority over his contemporaries.  

Woods’s dominance doesn’t just extend to major championships. His 82 career PGA Tour titles are tied with Sam Snead for the most all-time. The difference between Woods and Snead (and everyone else for that matter) is that Snead played in an era where a lot of players won a lot of tournaments. The same can’t be said for Wood’s era. Of player’s born since 1975, Woods’s 82 PGA titles are more than the next four highest totals combined [McIIroy (27), Dustin Johnson (24), Justin Thomas (15), and Adam Scott (14)]. This would be the capstone statistic for every other golfer who ever lived with the possible exception of Nicklaus, but even something as spectacular as that statistic gets lost on the mountain of superlatives that have defined Woods’s career.

Woods’s 82 career tournament wins were buoyed largely by his success at marquee golf tournaments. Starting in 1999, the PGA tours across the world created three new tournaments (and later a fourth) called the World Golf Championships. These new tournaments were added to bring more high-profile events to the schedule. While not quite as prestigious as the four major championships and The PLAYERS (TPC), these tournaments carried considerable clout. From 1999-2023 (the tournaments disbanded in 2023), Woods won more World Golf Championships (18) than the next five most successful winners combined [Dustin Johnson (6), Phil Mickelson (3), Rory McIIroy (3), Geoff Ogilvy (3), and Darren Clarke or several others (2)]. All told, Woods won 38 marquee tournaments (15 majors, 18 WGCs, 3 Tour Championships, and 2 Players Championships). Nicklaus wasn’t around for the WGCs, but no other golfer born since 1975 has even won eleven marquee tournaments.  

It should come as no surprise that Woods has been the #1 ranked golfer more often than anyone else. What should surprise is the fact that since the first Official World Golf Ranking was released in 1986, he has been ranked number #1 for a remarkable 683 weeks, which is more than the next three highest marks combined [Greg Norman (331), Dustin Johnson (135), and Scottie Scheffler (126)]. This, despite the fact that the rankings have existed for nearly 40 years. Woods’ place atop the year-end golf rankings a record 12 times was due, in large part, to his status as having the lowest single-season scoring average and the lowest career scoring average of all-time. In fact, he owns the six lowest single-season adjusted scoring averages in history. 

One of the more impressive measures of Woods’s dominance is his margin of victory at the biggest tournaments. Since 1896, nobody other than Woods has won a major by more than nine strokes. Woods won majors by 15 and 12 strokes, respectively. Since WWII, he holds the largest margin of victory at the U.S. Open (15 strokes in ‘00), the Masters (12 strokes in ‘97), and the Open Championship (8 strokes in ‘00). Even Jack Nicklaus never won a tournament by more than nine strokes, let alone a major. Woods won 12 tournaments by at least seven strokes. Nicklaus managed that just four times. Phil Mickelson–the greatest golfer of the past 50 years who isn’t Tiger Woods–has just one career tournament win of 7+ strokes.      

From 1998-2005, Woods made an unthinkable 142 consecutive cuts at PGA tournaments. Byron Nelson has the second longest streak at a relatively meager 113. Even more impressive is that Woods won 22.8% of the tournaments he entered which is the highest winning percentage in history. That he accomplished such a robust winning percentage in the most competitive era in history makes it all the more impressive. In fact, he could lose 304 consecutive tournaments and still have a higher career winning percentage than Nicklaus. The list of extraordinary feats on Wood’s ledger is simply too innumerable to fit it all in. Like George Costanza trying to fit one more item into his wallet, I have no choice but to shove additional superlatives into random places. Like right here: Woods owns the tour records for consecutive holes without a bogie (an unfathomable streak of 110 holes) and consecutive rounds at par or below (an equally unfathomable streak of 52 rounds).   

Woods put together dominant winning streaks on the PGA Tour that are simply hard to believe given how competitive the tour has been in the 21st century. He won seven consecutive PGA Tour events between 2006 and 2007, six consecutive events between 1999 and 2000, and then another five consecutive between 2007 and 2008. To put this in perspective, nobody in history has won five consecutive tournaments multiple times, and he did three times. Nobody else since 1953 has even won four consecutive tournaments. Woods’s seven consecutive tournament victories are the most in history among non-wartime PGA Tour seasons*. 

Then there’s Woods’s greatest feat which is his eponymously named “Tiger Slam.” Of course, this refers to his record streak of winning four consecutive majors from 2000-01. Nobody has ever held the championship of all four major tournaments at the same time. Only two golfers, Ben Hogan and Jack Nicklaus, have even won three of the four majors, consecutively.  Woods won consecutive majors five times in his career. Ben Hogan and Jack Nicklaus (both twice) are the only other golfers to do it more than once since the fourth major (The Masters) was added in 1934.     

* Byron Nelson won 11 consecutive tournaments in 1945. However, many of the best golfers in the world did not compete in these events due to wartime obligations. Ben Hogan and Jimmy Demaret only competed in one of the 11 events each, and even then both were coming off a multi-year hiatus due to military service. While Sam Snead competed in seven of the 11 tournaments, he too was coming off a multi-year hiatus prior to the ‘45 season. 

The Verdict

Conventional arguments regarding the golf GOAT are often superficial. For some, the thought process doesn’t go further than “18 is greater than 15.” However, there is so much more to this comparison than raw numbers. For instance, even with the help of modern advancements, Nicklaus almost certainly would have won fewer than 18 majors had he played in the loaded fields of the 2000s. In the 95 major events that took place between Nicklaus’s first and last major victories, 80% were won by Americans. In contrast, just 58% of the 89 majors that were won between Woods’s first and last major victories were won by Americans. Golf is more accessible than ever before and, as a result, the competition level has never been greater. Additionally, Woods was actually more successful at major tournaments than Nicklaus despite winning fewer overall. In the 24 years between Nicklaus’s first and last major victories, he won 18 of the 96 (18.75%) majors he entered. In the 22 years between Wood’s first and last major victories, he won 15 of 75 majors (20%). 

The debate really comes down to one question: does Woods’s dominance offset Nicklaus’s longevity? Interestingly, the golf world is almost in universal agreement that Bobby Jones deserves to be rated ahead of rivals Walter Hagen and Gene Sarazen on the all-time list despite the fact that Hagen and Sarazen had a massive advantage over Jones in both longevity and raw totals. Almost nobody has a problem deferring to Jones’s dominant run. Yet, many of these same people get tripped up on Woods for the exact same reason. I deferred to dominance in the Jones vs. Hagen/Sarazen comparisons, and I’ll do the same in the GOAT debate. There is plenty of ammunition to make the argument for Nicklaus, but he doesn’t come close to the mind-blowing statistics that Woods compiled. That list is so long that it is impossible to include them all, but here’s one more: From 1997-2013, Woods was 126 below par at major tournaments which is 251 strokes better than the next best golfer over that span. Tiger gets the top spot by a whisker.   

There seems to be some disconnect regarding whether Robert Lewandowski has been one of the top players of his generation, which is staggering considering the evidence is everywhere. Being mesmerized by Messi and Ronaldo can do that to people. Let’s get the notion of Lewandowski’s relevance out of the way now: He is one of only four players in history to win both the FIFA World Player of the Year and World Soccer magazine’s World Player of the Year twice each. The others are Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, and Ronaldo (R9). Where anyone chooses to rate Lewandowski comes down to personal choice, of course, but there is no doubt that he is one of the most accomplished soccer players in the history of the sport.

There should be little question that Messi and Ronaldo are the two greatest footballers of all-time. Their accomplishments are in a different stratosphere than anyone who has ever played the game considering their competition level. Pele, of course, was a word-class player who was the long serving GOAT following his legendary exploits on the pitch in–and for–Brazil, but it’s difficult to compare Pele and the other great players of his era like Eusebio, Garrincha, and Alfredo Di Stefano to the juggernauts that are Messi and Ronaldo. Domestic league competition in the mid-20th century was considerably more diluted than what we see today. Pele did his cooking in a Brazilian state league, which is similar to LeBron James playing all of his games in the Mid-American Conference (MAC). While Pele’s star has been surpassed by the two mega-stars of this era, the player who joins Pele as Messi and Ronaldo’s closest galactic neighbor is Robert Lewandowski. There’s no question that Lewy is a known commodity in the soccer world, but his resume is much, much more historically significant than most realize. In fact, when it comes to doing things that had previously never been done before in a Big 5 domestic league, he’s the closest to Messi and Ronaldo that we have ever seen. 

The argument for Lewandowski is as easy as they come. He’s one of only four players in history to win the FIFA Player of the Year award in consecutive years. The others? Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, and Ronaldo. He has led a Big 5 domestic league in goals a record eight times. Not even the great Cristiano Ronaldo can say the same. He scored at least 10 goals in four different UEFA Champions League seasons (UCL). Only Messi and Ronaldo have duplicated that feat. He scored 41 goals for Bayern in 2020-2021. Only Messi and Ronaldo scored more in a single Big 5 domestic league season. He scored 15 goals in the 2019-2020 UCL season. Only Ronaldo scored more in a UCL season. He scored at least 13 goals on two different occasions in the UCL. Only Ronaldo did it more often. Lewandowski has 105 career UCL goals. Only Messi and Ronaldo scored more. Lewandowski’s UCL goals per game ratio stands at .79. Among players with at least 50 UCL goals, only Messi has a better ratio. Lewandowski has 381 (and counting) Big 5 domestic league goals. Only Ronaldo and Messi have more. Lewandowski has 13 Big 5 domestic league seasons with at least 27 goal contributions (goals + assists) and 11 Big 5 domestic league seasons with at least 29 goal contributions. Only Messi and Ronaldo have more. He has five Big 5 domestic league seasons with at least 30 goals. Only Messi and Ronaldo have more. Lewandowski scored a hat trick in the UCL for three different clubs. Nobody has ever equaled that feat and it’s possible nobody ever will. Lewy has six UCL hat tricks. Only Messi and Ronaldo have more. 

Keep in mind that while Lewy’s Bayern Munich club never hurt for talent, he didn’t have the luxury of playing with Xavi, Iniesta, Luis Suarez, Neymar, and Mbappe like Messi did, or Benzema, Toni Kroos, Luka Modric, and a prime Gareth Bale like Ronaldo did. It’s not hard to imagine Lewandowski’s goal contributions inflating in a lineup featuring some of the greatest players the sport has ever seen. It’s also not hard to imagine his raw statistics inching even closer to the land of the absurd had he the benefit of a 38-game schedule like Messi and Ronaldo had in La Liga. The Bundesliga–where Lewandowski played for 12 seasons–is the only Big 5 domestic league that plays a 34-game schedule. That amounts to a 48-game deficit over the course of his career compared to rivals from the other Big 5 domestic leagues.     

It’s pretty clear that Lewandowski’s domestic league and Champions League production are more impressive than any non-Messi, non-Ronaldo footballer who has ever taken the pitch. Where he would appear to fall short are his contributions on the international stage, but looks can be deceiving. Lewandowski’s home country of Poland has not been an international force since the late 70s/early 80s. Poland’s typical roster looks nothing like the loaded rosters that Messi and Ronaldo have had the luxury of playing with for Argentina and Portugal, respectively. Messi has achieved massive acclaim for his country. He led Argentina to one of the great international runs as La Abiceleste emerged victorious at both the 2021 and 2024 Copa Americas as well as the 2022 World Cup. Add in a 2nd place finish at the 2014 World Cup and Messi is clearly one of the great international performers of all-time. Ronaldo doesn’t have the trophy case to match Messi’s, but his international run with Portugal has been impressive in its own right. Ronaldo won the 2016 UEFA Euros, finished 2nd in 2004, and reached the semi-finals at both the 2006 World Cup and 2012 Euros. Ronaldo (138) and Messi (112) are, far and away, the top international goal scorers of all-time. 

However, given the talent advantages that Ronaldo and Messi have had with Portugal and Argentina, Lewandowski’s contributions with Poland should not be overlooked. Prior to Lewy joining the Polish National Team, Poland had qualified for the Euros just once in its history. Since 2012, Poland has qualified for four consecutive Euros including its best ever finish (5th) in 2016. Lewandowski also helped Poland qualify for back-to-back World Cups in ‘18 and ‘22 for only the second time since 1986. His 85 international goals are the 7th most in history.

It’s doubtful that Lewandowski will be universally recognized as a top-3 or top-5 player of all-time due to factors outside of his control. He doesn’t have the same marketability or name recognition as many of the great players of his era.  Poland is not a soccer powerhouse which means his status as a national icon is somewhat muted in a way that players like Messi, Ronaldo, and Mbappe will never be. The Bundesliga does not get the same attention as the Premier League or La Liga, nor does it have a 38-game schedule. However, the numbers, accolades, and the degree of difficulty are there to justify his standing as the greatest non-Messi, non-Ronaldo footballer of the last 50 years.  

All statistics are through 6/28/2025.