It’s rare that the biggest “What if?” in the history of a sport also just happens to come from one of the greatest players that sport has ever seen. This is the weird intersection where Mario Lemieux’s resume exists. Lemieux missed four full seasons due to lymphoma, and large portions of several others as a result of a litany of physical ailments. He played in just 64% of Pittsburgh’s games during his playing career. However, what he did in that 64% is quite literally the highest level of play that hockey has ever seen. It’s fair to say that Lemieux’s relatively meager games total keeps him from being a serious challenge to Wayne Gretzky on the GOAT throne. Gretzky isn’t just the greatest hockey player of all-time, he’s the greatest athlete in the history of team sports. Joining Gretzky ahead of Lemieux is Alexander Ovechkin, who led the NHL in goals a record nine times and has the most goals in the history of the NHL. Throw in the fact that both Gretzky and Ovechkin played close to 600 more games than Lemieux and it becomes pretty hard to argue they are not the two greatest hockey players of all-time. That third spot, however, is a tight race between Lemieux and Gordie Howe. Bobby Orr had a remarkable peak, but he’s just not a strong candidate for the third spot, having played only 657 games in the weakest era in NHL history. It’s hard to begrudge anyone for going with Howe in the third spot given his longevity, but he played in a league with just six teams, and never produced the high-end seasons that Lemieux did. As astonishing as it might seem, Lemieux–even playing just 64% of Pittsburgh’s games–seems to have done enough to lock down the 3rd spot.
The most telling statistic to convey Mario Lemieux’s historical magnificence is the fact that he won six Ross Trophies (league scoring titles) and three Hart Trophies (league MVP) while playing smack dab in the middle of Gretzky’s prime. Unbelievably, he did this despite playing 65+ games in a season just six times in his entire career. In the 13 seasons from 1984-85 to 1996-97, Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux each won six Ross Trophies. During this same span, Gretzky won four Hart Trophies while Lemieux won three, and it should’ve been 4-3 in favor of Lemieux had MVP voters not lost their collective minds by awarding Gretzky the Hart following the 1988-89 season in which Lemieux outscored Gretzky by 31 points. Almost immediately after Lemieux entered the NHL, Gretzky’s stranglehold on league dominance ended. It was Lemieux who not only ended Gretzky’s run of eight consecutive Hart Trophies, but also his seven consecutive Ross Trophies.
While Lemieux’s greatest achievement was playing a stalemate with the greatest athlete who ever lived, the statistics that he compiled to do so are, unsurprisingly, out of this world. Gretzky holds the NHL record with a hilariously scalding 1.92 points per game. Lemieux is right on his heels at a similarly sizzling 1.88 points per game. No other retired player in the history of hockey even reached 1.50 points per game. Even more impressive, Lemieux is actually the record holder for most adjusted points per game (1.68), which attempts to equalize all NHL players based on competition level and playing conditions. Furthermore, consider there have been 13 seasons in the history of hockey that resulted in 160+ points. Gretzky has nine of them, Lemieux has four, and the rest of the players in NHL history combined have zero. Lemieux put up 199 points in the 1988-89 NHL season which is 45 more than any non-Gretzky player in NHL history. Lemieux even has Gretzky beat in career goals per game and goals created per game. While Lemieux’s regular season exploits are a marvel–and it’s definitely easy to lose hours of your life falling into the rabbit hole of Lemieux’s statistical greatness–it’s unlikely that his regular season output alone would be enough to claim the third spot in a sport that is built on the legacies of playoff immortals. If you don’t know if Lemieux is one of those immortals, well, this is Mario Lemieux we’re talking about.
Entering the 1990-91 NHL season, the Pittsburgh Penguins had not won a single playoff series in franchise history. Then Super Mario happened. Lemieux not only led the Penguins to their first ever series win, he brought the Stanley Cup to Pittsburgh on the heels of a virtuoso playoff performance. Lemieux scored 44 points on his way to the Conn Smythe Trophy (playoff MVP). Lemieux’s 44 points were the second most in the history of the NHL playoffs behind only–you guessed it–Wayne Gretzky. Lemieux would go on to lead the Penguins to a second consecutive Stanley Cup in 1991-92, and once again took home the Conn Smythe, becoming the firstskater ever to win back-to-back Conn Smythe trophies. Lemieux’s 78 points over two consecutive NHL playoffs are the second most in history behind only Gretzky (82 points in ‘83-84 and ‘84-85). He is second all-time (behind Gretzky) in points per game and goals created per game in the playoffs.
Eddie Vedder once sang, “I know I was born and I know that I’ll die…The in between is mine.” Mario Lemieux’s career left the hockey world wanting more, so much more. Injuries and health scares derailed what could’ve been the greatest career in the history of sports. Still, what Lemieux accomplished in between is so magnificent that it is very difficult to make the case that more than two players in NHL history deserve to be rated ahead of him on the all-time list. Le Magnifique gets the nod at three.
It’s hard to say whether Tony Parker is underrated by every demographic, or just the one that does a surface level check before rendering a verdict. Judging by career accomplishments, it would be easy to assume that he was a fairly nondescript role player for a championship level franchise. First, it would be unfair to Parker to call him a role player. He finished in the top 10 in MVP voting four times, and garnered MVP votes in seven different seasons. He was also a six-time all-star selection. Just from his regular season output alone, Parker has a strong case as a top-100 player of all-time. When we add in the fact that he’s one of the most decorated playoff performers in NBA history, it’s not a question of if he’s a top 100 player, but how high on the list does he go.
Parker helped lead the San Antonio Spurs to five NBA Finals appearances, including four NBA Championships. He was the leading playoff scorer for the Spurs on the 2014 title team, and was named the Finals MVP in 2007. He is one of only three point guards since 1960 to win four NBA Championships with a career scoring average of at least 17 points. The other two are Magic Johnson and Steph Curry. He’s also one of only two point guards in history with four NBA Championships while holding at least a 49% career field goal percentage. Magic Johnson is the other. Parker has played the 6th most playoff games in NBA history, and is one of only five players to play at least 220 playoff games with a career scoring average of at least 17 points. The others are LeBron James, Tim Duncan, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Kobe Bryant.
Parker’s playing style was truly one-of-a kind for point guards. He probed and broke down defenses in a way the league had never seen before and has not seen since. In truly one of the more remarkable stats in NBA history, a whopping 34.8% of Parker’s field goal attempts came from within three feet of the basket. Even more remarkable, his field goal percentage on these shots was a mind-blowing 64.8%. To put that in perspective, both of those percentages are higher than Hakeem Olajuwon’s, who just happens to be one of the top-5 centers the league has ever seen.
The number of point guards who have been the focal point of multiple NBA Championship teams–let alone four–is few and far between. The point guard position has historically not been the straw that stirs NBA dynasties. Outside of Magic Johnson and Steph Curry, it just hasn’t happened, which is a testament to how unique Tony Parker’s career was.
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.
