Only Emmett "Doc" Brown can solve the Tiger Woods vs. Jack Nicklaus greatness debate

I’m scrolling through some comments left on this week’s WorldGolf.com newsletter column, where I suggest it isn’t Tiger’s lack of competition - rather the selection of golf courses that is to blame for his dominance on Tour.

I’m getting comments from “You’re 100% right” to “Dumbest category article ever", with dozens in between.

My argument is flawed, I admit, but no more so than any other theories as to why Tiger is so superior - or why Jack had it rougher.

Here’s the problem: you simply can’t compare different generations of sports. It doesn’t matter if it’s Tiger versus Jack, Tom Brady vs. Joe Montana, Wayne Gretzky vs. Gordie Howe, Shaq vs. Bill Russell, etc.

There are too many variables. So why do we always get so hung up in the “best ever” argument? Why are superlatives so necessary for sports talk? Why can’t we be satisfied with “the best during his time” and leave it at that?

I think it’s because we all fantasize about one day being that old man in a rocking chair, telling our kids “Sure, ‘Knuckles Magoo’ has won 48 majors, but you shoulda seen this Tiger Woods feller…”

Our only hope for any closure is for Emmett “Doc” Brown to save the day. Yeah, “Doc” from Back to the Future. Send Doc in his flying Delorean to pick up Tiger and Jack (both at age 32, since that seems to be both of their primes), juice up the flux capacitor and bring them to 1988 - when the equipment was getting better but not ridiculous, and courses hadn’t been “Tiger-proofed” yet.

Let them play a full PGA Tour season against each other with a full field at each event. We can even send Phil Mickelson, Vijay Singh, Tom Watson and Gary Player back with them to see who had moer formidable competition (sorry Johnny Miller, you’re stuck in the booth).

Until modern science can achieve this technology, and I guarantee if it will eventually (though with a more eco-friendly Ford Focus with Sync System), I’m tapping myself out of the “Greatest Ever” debate, in all sports, because it’s an argument that’s either 100% right, entirely ignorant, or somewhere between.