In a sports column I read today on the Masters, beginning today at Augusta, Georgia, Jack Nicklaus is referred to, casually, as the “best golfer who ever lived”. There are a few points of interest: (1) I agree and would doubt if many would disagree; (2) this can be said about very few sportsmen or women; (3) the distinction between peak years and full career; and, (4) relatedly, the unique character of the sport of golf.

Over his career Nicklaus is incomparably the best golfer who has ever played, allowing for era, equipment etc.. Good cases can be made that several golfers have had “purple patches” as good or superior to Nicklaus’ best periods, Watson, Hogan and Woods, in particular. I think that, from roughly1997 to 2002, Tiger Woods treated golf fans to the best golf ever played. The issue is whether in twenty years we will be able took back and say he was the greatest. On a straight-up comparison, he stacks up well. Nothing to choose on driving and irons – perhaps an edge to Nicklaus in the mid-irons – but Tiger has a better short game than Nicklaus ever had. Mentally, the key part of the game at their level, both seem about the same, which is to say, astonishing. The sheer will of Woods at the last hole in near-darkness in last year’s Presidents Cup in draining a tough 15 footer to stay square with Els was something to behold. Yet, this may be where, in the long run, the Golden Bear outdistances even Tiger. The way he maintained concentration on every shot and sustained it for all those years will take some beating. Even Gary Player, a man of no small achievements, will or determination, was in awe of Nicklaus’ ability to blot out everything once he addressed the ball.

Bradman is the only other sportsman of whom such a clear claim may be made. Except that, in his case, no-one has ever bettered his peak years either. Bill James makes a great case for Babe Ruth, as hitter and all-round player (including pitching) but some good statistical reasoning is needed to buttress his case. Not so either Nicklaus or Bradman. Unlike cricket, though, golf achievement is all of a piece; there’s no meaning in “best putter” or “best driver”. Was Bradman, though, the best cricketer ever or “merely” the best batsman?

The only possible challenger, in my view, is Sobers. Even if bowlers are somehow to be weighted as more valuable than batsmen, there is no bowler for whom the claim may be made about undeniable superiority. Indeed, it isn’t easy to say whether, say Marshall (who I regard as the greatest fast bowler) was a greater bowler than O’Reilly or, in his peak years, Laker. On these grounds alone, Bradman deserves to be regarded as greatest cricketer. In fact, I believe that individual batsmen should be valued slightly higher than bowlers. Great batsmen, when on top form, have always been able to thrash the best bowlers of their era.

How do we assess the contribution of an all-rounder like Sobers? Future posts will go into this in more detail but let me observe that as a batsman alone, Sobers has a very strong case to be regarded as the next best to Bradman. Playing in many more tests than Bradman, Sobers averaged 60, against great bowling and scored runs everywhere with almost equal ease. But 60 isn’t 100. So, the issue is: is there some weighting scheme that equalizes that 40 point gap on the basis of bowling and fielding? We shall see.

Finally, let me compare and contrast great batsmen and great golfers. Both have almost in human concentration that has to be sustained for many hours. There is an element of combat, too. Batsman vs bowler; golfer vs the course. But golfers are the true “warriors”. They also play each other. One of the striking features of golf is the obvious respect with which the really good ones view each other. Batsmen respect bowlers who test them and vice versa, as do tennis players and pitchers and hitters but golfers are on another plane.