Well, what a kindergarden party this thread has turned out to be, and here I was thinking we were all mature individuals. Ho hum.
For what it's worth I voted for Sir Jack. There's never been a batsman like him - the stats tell the story, or just part of it. Technically he was streets ahead of everyone else in the game, including his great friend Herbert Sutcliffe. Sir Jack was fully deserving of the soubriquet 'The Master', since that is precisely what he was; a genius, even, and most certainly the best batsmen on a sticky dog - a fact that has always been accepted. You don't score 3 shy of 200 tons if you're simply diddly-squat at the game. He was also a total gentleman, and would be shaking his head in utter disbelief at the behaviour of some modern international cricketers.
Some of you have argued about whether batsmen of Hobbs' era would have been so successful in the modern game. I really believe that is a ridiculous comparison. However, I have to say that the very best from the 20s and 30s - Hobbs and Sutcliffe, Patsy Hendren, Eddie Paynter, Frank Woolley, Les Ames plus the likes of Sir Len Hutton, Denis Compton, Bill Edrich and Peter May from the 50s would have still cut it a damned sight better than many modern cricketers do. Class, you see - if you have it you can do it in any time or era.
Oh, and by the way, I'm no whingeing Aussie, but what Jardine did was, yes within the Laws, but only just. He bent them somewhat and certainly had no respect for the spirit of the game. I have actually found some of the footage from that series quite sickening. I have every respect for Bill Bowes, who refused to do what Jardine wanted because he did not believe it was right to play the game in that way. And quite right too. Play hard, bloody hard, with a degree of sledging, but play fair, and there're many, many people who believe to their souls that Jardine did not play fair.
Just my two penn'orth.
Peter