Yes, that is the argument in my opinion, since that is the only reason anyone would brain up club pros of jacks time!

**Golfingdad**

No idea. But I got into the office a little early today and was curious so this is what I came up with:

I took the entire stretch of Tiger's majors (1997 through 2008), and compared it to a similar stretch of Jacks (1962 through 1975). To make it a little more even, I omitted 1968 and 1969 from Jack's side; two years in which he didn't win any majors. That left me with a 12 year stretch for each of them, in which they both won 14 majors and they both lost 34 majors. I wrote down all of the other major winners over that span to see how many different winners there were. The hypothesis would be that there should be more unique winners during Tiger's stretch than during Jack's stretch since we know that the field is stronger.

In Jack's case, there were 24 unique winners of those 34 majors, and in Tiger's case there were 25 unique winners.

Soooooo .... my hypothesis seems to be false. If more players are CAPABLE of winning now then shouldn't more players ACTUALLY be winning as well?

For the record: If I added Jack's two drought years back into the total and then added two years to Tiger's total to even out the numbers, it starts to skew a little bit in Tiger's favor. Adding '68 and '69 gives us 4 more unique major winners in Jacks 14 year span, bringing the total to 28, and adding '95 and '96 to Tigers span gives us 8 more unique winners, 33 total. Or adding '09 and '10 to Tigers span would give us 6 more unique winners (31 total). Splitting the difference and adding '96 and '09 gives us 7 (32 total).

Anywhos ... thoughts???

Bibliography: Wiki-fricken-pedia.

You have a lot of time at work ;)

That was the assumption that was being made and the numbers you have prove that assumption wrong in my opinion!

When we talk about who are the best 20 of all time, how many do we mention from jacks era and around it and how many do we mention from tigers era and around it?

I really don't care about the no names and the ones that win once every blue moon... I care about the guys that put their fingerprint on the map of golf, like jack did and like tiger did! That is where the conversation should be and not what are the chances of the 120th player of the field at winning... That "regular joe" at the open, did he have a chance?? (Yeah, I don't want to talk about him either). ;)