Top 50 players in the world - better now or better when Jack Nicklaus was at his prime?

Just to give some idea where I am coming from with this question.

With everyone always asking about who is better, Tiger or Jack, they always go straight to the Majors. OK fine, but when was it more difficult to win a major? Course conditions aside, who was your competition?

Is this current era's top 50 players better or worse than the top 50 when Nicklaus played in his prime?

Just to add, right now number 50 is Kevin Na. Take away is mental issues, he is a really good player that I think could have won a few times in the 60s.

The game has advanced so much.  Today's players have so much technology and science (Physics, Physiology) behind them; they would destroy the players of yesteryear IMO.  Not even touching on the advancement of golf equipment... These are some major advancements which have better prepared todays elite golf professional:

1.) Fitness (Advanced cross training excercises, routines and equipment - and means of measuring the effects of those workouts are far superior to the past)

2.) Nutrition (Bioengineered nutrients and suplements to feed the current athletes is far superior than the meal plans of the past)

3.) Swing Mechanics (ie: Trackman has advanced instruction of the game immensely)

And as another poster eluded... The sport is growing beyond the US and Europe and is being adopted by countries where new golf athletes are born.  Unrelated, but I heard a stat that there are like 25 or 30 women in the top 50 or 100 in the world rankings from South Korea.  Just a few decades ago... There was one.  That shows how the game is expanding to international borders... Which is going to increase the level of competition... Thus putting more weight on the items 1, 2 and 3 that I mentioned above.  Guys are going to become super athletes which will make the sport even tougher in the future.

This is the same for almost every single sport, players now are better than players 20 or 50 years ago.

For example in (real) football: Maradona is regarded as one of the best players of all time, but if you watch videos of him, you can clearly see that he would have no chance today.

But that is not a fair comparison, because there is much more money and technology in the sports today. Therefore I don't see the point in comparing different eras. The modern best guys are always better than the previous eras' best guys.

This is really the only top 50 official comparison that can be made:

Most recent top 50:

Top 50 after the first issue of the Sony rankings in 1986, one week before Augusta:

Which top 50 would get your vote?

Edit:  i know it's not when Nicklaus was in his prime, however, he won his last major that year.

FWIW...

Top 50 Scoring Average - 2012: 70.0726 - so far

Top 50 Scoring Average - 2011: 70.0636 - full season

Top 50 Scoring Average - 1980: 69.8866 - full season

Based on stats from the PGA Tour website.

Interesting, huh?

There are a lot of major winners in that 1986 list.  I thought Jack, Tom, and the like won them all?

This thread has already touched a little on the advancements in technology... Those advancements also play into how the grass lengths can vary (fairways, intermediate rough and rough), bunkers, and green complexes are all managed.  The fairways of today are mowed like the greens of yesteryear.  And the greens are mowed/rolled much faster than anything which was found back in 1980.  Therefore, the changes in the complexity of the courses - may have helped keep the scoring averages in check?

I think it should probably be noted that the European Tour was only founded in 1972, in the middle of Nicklaus' prime years. Until the tour's creation, there really wasn't much money to be made as a professional golfer in Europe, and as such the level of talent playing across the Atlantic was far lower than what was seen in America at the time, or even in Australia and South Africa. The European Tour is the reason why the state of the game changed from one where Tony Jacklin was the only European player of note for the entire quarter-century after World War II, to where Europeans held the top three positions in the first World Rankings.

This was talked about last night on the Feherty special with Craig Stadler and Gary Woodson. Stads said that back in the day 15 guys would be potentials to win any given week whereas now there are 125 guys any given week who could win. He also said that he only had a caddie and Woodson said that he has a caddy, swing coach, mental coach, traveling therapist shared with 8 guys, strength coach, etc. The game is not the same given all the advances already mentioned and that has to be appreciated as those guys paved the way for the current tour to even evolve into what it has today.

It's like anything else, athletes today have more available to them then they did 30 years ago. Even the soccer moms with their personal trainers could knock-out the aerobic moms from Jack's era even if the soccer moms wore the same leg warmers and tacky leotards from that era and had to dance to the oldies with Richard Simmons. Plus they only had two flavors of Gaterade back then, Lemon-lime and Orange...everyone knows that endurance athletes really took off when they brought in the Blue flavor. Gerard Cote, won the Boston Marathon in the 40s with a time of 2:28. Bill Rodgers won with a 2:09 in the late 70s, then in 2011, Mutai blistered the course in 2:03:02 for the fastest marathon ever. All because of advancements in how far athletic training, recovery, etc. has come, addition of prize money, etc. Cote in his prime would now be considered a local elite, but then again they didn't even have Gatorade back then!

Hilarious.  And true.

There really is no comparison when you talk about the athletes of a few decades ago. The "Perfect Season" Miami Dolphins of 1972 would have been destroyed by the "Worst Ever" 0 for 16 Detroit Lions of 2008. My favorite example is Johnny Weissmuller, who played Tarzan in several movies made in the 1930's. At the time he was, by far, the greatest swimmer who ever lived. He literally never lost. He had something like 65 world records, and a bunch of Olympic gold medals. And today, his world record times have been beaten by girls in junior high school.

Eh, that may be a bit of a stretch, but your point is still valid without having to try to analogize the golf situation to other sports.

I knew some pros when I was younger, we're talking like the mid to late 70s, and they basically were, well, lazy party dudes. Thier attitude was their talent would be good enough to make a decent living...and many of them did. Today, that attitude just wouldn't cut it. Whether it's due to playing for far more money (thereby attracting more players to the sport), or the far greater dedication guys today seem to have, I think it's pretty obvious that today's tour is far, far more competitive. Number 50 on today's tour would me a multiple winner if he were somehow grafted into the tour of the 60s & 70s.

You think so? I don't have it handy, but I looked it up a couple of years ago when I was using the same analogy in a different forum, and IIRC the D-Line of the 72 Dolphins averaged around 260 pounds, and the O-line a bit less. Guys that small would have trouble getting a scholarship to an SEC school today. And there would be no comparison in strength. There were still guys back then who thought weights should be avoided, because they made you "musclebound."

We understand what you are saying but you shouldn't dis on the 72 Dolphins...it's all we have...well except for half of the PGA Tour.