So many stats are available now such as avg drive distance, greens reached, fairways reached, etc. that it isn't that difficult to compare some old time golfers to the current crop. Just remember that redesigned, longer courses come into play often today. Even with new equipment it is debatable if Hagen, Jones, Hogan, Snead or Nelson could hit the ball far enough to make up the difference. The only true way to compare old/new is how much better than contemporaries an individual performs. Woods is to golf what Ruth was to baseball or Gretzky to hockey.

This is a very tough issue that no matter how it's argued can not be answered. Maybe Tiger can't hit the ball with the equipment they used back in the day. Then again, maybe Tiger is just so good that he makes the other competitors look like they are that bad. Throw in the ever-changing courses and there are just too many variables to know for sure. Maybe we should just ask Jack or Arnold who they think the best is? If they say Tiger, let it be.

Good final point, WP. Maybe he has dominated the sport in such a way that he has demoralized them all to rubble. I can see that easily comparing to other teams in the 90's playing Michael Jordan played. It seemed like he too would demoralize teams into a such a rutt that they almost believed they couldn't win before they even played him and the Bulls.