or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Strength of Field in Jack's Day and Tiger's Day
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Strength of Field in Jack's Day and Tiger's Day - Page 9

Poll Results: Loosely Related Question (consider the thread topic-please dont just repeat the GOAT thread): Which is the more impressive feat?

 
  • 14% (10)
    Winning 20 majors in the 60s-80s.
  • 85% (59)
    Winning 17 majors in the 90s-10s.
69 Total Votes  
post #145 of 202
Thread Starter 
Yeah just cuz youre too dumb to do it doesnt mean it cant be done. With your attitude wed have never landed on the moon.
If could be done in any sport its golf as players are playing against the course not against each other.-Even in tennis you have a direct opponent. Golf is entirely under your control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post

Can't do it. Different eras, different players, different equipment, different course conditions, different levels of perks, different training, etc. In the end, it's all subjective and we are all allowed an opinion. My opinion is that the best players were more competitive back in the day because their livelihood depended on it. Today's players finish in the top 50-60 and they are flush for life. A lot of them are happy with that.
And again if you want to go into opinions Jack disagrees with you and says today's players are far, far better than the ones in his day,up and down and sideways.-And I lived it and will tell you the same.

None of y'all can even offer anecdtotal "evidence"
post #146 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post
 

 

Can't do it. Different eras, different players, different equipment, different course conditions, different levels of perks, different training, etc. In the end, it's all subjective and we are all allowed an opinion. My opinion is that the best players were more competitive back in the day because their livelihood depended on it. Today's players finish in the top 50-60 and they are flush for life. A lot of them are happy with that.

 

JMO.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by misty_mountainhop View Post
 


With you on that one.


I don't get it. Have you viewed what some of the players make in these tournaments who finish that low? They're not set for life, not even 1/100th of "set for life". Here's the payout for 1-10 from the 2013 U.S. Open, included below:
 

1 Webb Simpson $1,440,000
T-2 Michael Thompson $695,916
T-2 Graeme McDowell $695,916
T-4 Jason Dufner $276,841
T-4 Padraig Harrington $276,841
T-4 David Toms $276,841
T-4 John Peterson $276,841
T-4 Jim Furyk $276,841
T-10 John Senden $163,594
T-10 Kevin Chappell $163,594
T-10 Casey Wittenberg $163,594
T-10 Retief Goosen $163,594
T-10 Lee Westwood $163,594

 

Here's what #55 paid:
 

55 Dustin Johnson $22,561


I don't think many people realize just how often these guys need to finish in the top 20 and on a consistent basis to have a luxurious and care-free lifestyle. Keep in mind, this was a major as well with an obviously inflated purse. The professionals today need to win just as much as they did "back in the day" as it is their livelihood also. I have no idea how anyone could come to the conclusion that winning was more important and thus more competitive back then. Who the hell doesn't rely on their job for a paycheck?

post #147 of 202
Spyder stop making sense.
post #148 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGleno View Post

Yeah just cuz youre too dumb to do it doesnt mean it cant be done. With your attitude wed have never landed on the moon.
If could be done in any sport its golf as players are playing against the course not against each other.-Even in tennis you have a direct opponent. Golf is entirely under your control.
And again if you want to go into opinions Jack disagrees with you and says today's players are far, far better than the ones in his day,up and down and sideways.-And I lived it and will tell you the same.

None of y'all can even offer anecdtotal "evidence"

 

Yeah. As that's the way to 'win' an argument...

You played at the top in Jack's prime? And today's? Impressive. You'll say the same based on data analysis and stats...or on your impressions?

Surely Jack's conclusions are based on in-depth stats and data analysis then? No?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyder View Post
 

 


I don't get it. Have you viewed what some of the players make in these tournaments who finish that low? They're not set for life, not even 1/100th of "set for life". Here's the payout for 1-10 from the 2013 U.S. Open, included below:

 

[deleted for space...]

 

I don't think many people realize just how often these guys need to finish in the top 20 and on a consistent basis to have a luxurious and care-free lifestyle. Keep in mind, this was a major as well with an obviously inflated purse. The professionals today need to win just as much as they did "back in the day" as it is their livelihood also. I have no idea how anyone could come to the conclusion that winning was more important and thus more competitive back then. Who the hell doesn't rely on their job for a paycheck?

Good point.

post #149 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyder View Post
 

I don't think many people realize just how often these guys need to finish in the top 20 and on a consistent basis to have a luxurious and care-free lifestyle. Keep in mind, this was a major as well with an obviously inflated purse. The professionals today need to win just as much as they did "back in the day" as it is their livelihood also. I have no idea how anyone could come to the conclusion that winning was more important and thus more competitive back then. Who the hell doesn't rely on their job for a paycheck?

I posted it about a week ago - but I don't think you realize how sparse money was back in the days before Tiger drove the purses up.

 

Using pgatour.com as a reference - here is the top money earner from 2013 and from 1980, and number 125 (picked because that is where you need to finish to keep your tour card in 2013, I really can't remember how that worked in 1980 or before)

 

Top earner and 125th on the money list

2013 - Tiger Woods - $8,553,439, 125 - Peter Hanson $610,178 (1st place up 16X, 125th up 30X)

 

1980 - Tom Watson - $530,808m 125 - T John Adams & Jaime Gonzalez - $19,895

 

44 players in 1980 made over $100,000, in 2013 82 players made over $1,000,000.

 

So yes, I do think there are many more players today that have earning way above the point of having to rely on a weekly paycheck. (and this is not even taking into account the sponsorship $$$'s that have grown as well).

 

The game is much more global, especially when looking at the European Tour (europeantour.com) -

2013 - Henrik Stenson 4,103,796, 100th  - Mark Foster 275,872 (1st place up 39x, 100th up 131x)

 

1980 - Greg Norman 104,761, 100 -  Gary Harvey 2,104

 

so not only is the winners stake up but the top 100 finishers are way up - IMO, meaning more players can spend full time playing the tour and not having to go to sponsored outings or play customer golf (or play money games)

post #150 of 202

Ah well. Just goes to show you shouldn't look too deeply into the numbers (as far back as PGA site goes)....

 

Top of the shop in 1980: Trevino, stroke average: 69.73, # players within 2 strokes: 40 (to Dan Pohl @ 71.71)

 

Top of the shop in 2013: Stricker, stroke average: 68.945, # players within 2 strokes: 87 (to Kevin Chappell @ 70.927)

 

I'll grudgingly buy the thesis that today's field as a whole is stronger then. Still not sure I think that, all other things being equal, today's best would beat the likes of Nicklaus, Trevino, Watson, Miller, Palmer, Player, Snead etc at their best. Maybe that's the rose-tinted specs though.

post #151 of 202

If todays' players are sooo much better-why did a 59 year old Tom Watson come within a stroke of winning the Open?  Had he been in his prime he would have won by 20- against the so called deeper better field.

post #152 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerryleal View Post
 

If todays' players are sooo much better-why did a 59 year old Tom Watson come within a stroke of winning the Open?  Had he been in his prime he would have won by 20- against the so called deeper better field.

 

 

Because he has won the British Open 5 previous times and really knows how to play on those courses.  That course was not about distance, but about strategy and experience.  This, BTW, is what is called an outlier.  And, he lost to an average Pro golfer, not a multi-major winner. So we can flip your argument and say an average Pro from today beat a 5 time Open Championship winner from the last generation.

post #153 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerryleal View Post
 

If todays' players are sooo much better-why did a 59 year old Tom Watson come within a stroke of winning the Open?  Had he been in his prime he would have won by 20- against the so called deeper better field.

What did he do before and after that? You might be inadvertently making a case for the depth of today's field being deeper than those of the past. 

post #154 of 202

there are none so blind as those who will not see......a 5 time winner from another generation-WHO WAS 59 years old at the time !!! and who beat all the top players except for one guy playing over his head. what does it mean to say-"he's experienced in that type of course"- a tough course on a windy day that tests every conceivable aspect of your game! You speak of strategy and experience-like they're minor things that don't really count.

By the way, an 'outlier' is a statistical abberation- it's not an abberation when a great player plays great- it only appears to be an abberation to someone who picks and chooses data based on whether or not is supports his own theories. That's called  'fudging'.

The real point is that there is no data to support or deny an impossible experiment. Aren't we really asking if Jack or the other greats would be so great against today's fields- and isn't that by definition impossible to test- so anyone that picks and chooses the bits of data or statistics to defend or support their opinion- is missing the point-and anyone who's looking for data is really missing the point. This is all about opinion.

Go and find data to support whether or not Superman would beat the Flash in a race. It's fantasy not science, and statisticians who think that statistics will answer the question are way off base.

post #155 of 202
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post
 

 

Can't do it. Different eras, different players, different equipment, different course conditions, different levels of perks, different training, etc. In the end, it's all subjective and we are all allowed an opinion. My opinion is that the best players were more competitive back in the day because their livelihood depended on it. Today's players finish in the top 50-60 and they are flush for life. A lot of them are happy with that.

 

JMO.

 

Originally Posted by Spyder View Post
 

 


I don't get it. Have you viewed what some of the players make in these tournaments who finish that low? They're not set for life, not even 1/100th of "set for life". Here's the payout for 1-10 from the 2013 U.S. Open, included below:
 

 

I'm talking about the money list, not a particular tournament. There are a lot of guys content to ride the money train with a few top tens and just stay exempt. Top 50-60 on the money list makes you a millionaire and if you do that for 5-10 years (not even including all the sponsorships, pension money, Fedex Cup money and other perks), yes, you are set for life.

A guy in the top 50-60 on the money list in 1970 had almost no guarantees going forward, even if he won a tournament. If he didn't finish in the top 60 he had ZERO guarantees.Those guys were fighting for their lives.

 

Again, JMO.

post #156 of 202
I would just like to point out that a 59 year old almost winning a major IS a statistical anomaly. Regardless of who it is, old guys generally don't win. The current record for the oldest winner of a major hampionship was the 1968 PGA Championship, where a 48 year old won. When you take someone eleven years older and have him compete, I'd call that most definitely a statistical anomaly compared to past results.
post #157 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerryleal View Post
 

there are none so blind as those who will not see......a 5 time winner from another generation-WHO WAS 59 years old at the time !!! and who beat all the top players except for one guy playing over his head. what does it mean to say-"he's experienced in that type of course"- a tough course on a windy day that tests every conceivable aspect of your game! You speak of strategy and experience-like they're minor things that don't really count.

By the way, an 'outlier' is a statistical abberation- it's not an abberation when a great player plays great- it only appears to be an abberation to someone who picks and chooses data based on whether or not is supports his own theories. That's called  'fudging'.

The real point is that there is no data to support or deny an impossible experiment. Aren't we really asking if Jack or the other greats would be so great against today's fields- and isn't that by definition impossible to test- so anyone that picks and chooses the bits of data or statistics to defend or support their opinion- is missing the point-and anyone who's looking for data is really missing the point. This is all about opinion.

Go and find data to support whether or not Superman would beat the Flash in a race. It's fantasy not science, and statisticians who think that statistics will answer the question are way off base.

 

It's an outlier.

 

There, we'll exclude any and all of the facts given about how that course at that time favored more than distance (which Watson lacks compared to others). Tom Watson's run was an outlier.

 

Consider that he beat Tiger Woods, after all (heck, Tiger MCed). Yet he's not a better golfer than Tiger Woods.

 

It's an outlier.

 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post
 

Again, JMO.

 

It is, and this thread is not about opinions.

post #158 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

It is, and this thread is not about opinions.

What IS this thread about - because I'm confused.

 

Is it about strength of field

 

or

 

Is it about winning more majors in the 60-80's vs fewer majors in the 90's - current

 

because those are different questions - related, maybe, but different

 

IMO this is just another way to ask the Jack vs Tiger question that already has a million reply thread......then again what would we discuss if there was a definitive correct answer?

post #159 of 202

It is about whether the strength of field today makes winning a major tougher versus in the 60s and 70s.

 

Here is a similar example.  Who is faster Usain Bolt or Thomas Burke, Jim Thorpe, Jessie Owens, Bob Hayes or Carl Lewis?  By shear numbers, Usain Bolt.  But then all the semantic arguments come in and people say, "Well if Jesse Owens had today's nutrition, track, shoes and training methods, etc...."

 

But ask the question, who has won against a deeper field of 100 meter runners who could qualify for the Olympic 100 meters and the answer is by far Usain Bolt.  When Thomas Burke won the first Olympic 100 meters, the only runners were wealthy Harvard and Yale folks for the US.  By Jim Thorpe's time, high schools were starting the have Track and Field.  Each generation, more and more people were running.  Now it is global.  The list of runners who could come within 1 second of Bolt are in the thousands world wide.

 

Golf is the same.  When Old and Young Tom Morris won the Open, how many people actually even knew what golf was?  Each generation, more and more became involved with the game.  But still, by Jack's time it still was less accessible to the average person.  Now it is by far more accessible and therefore attracts far more excellent players.

 

You can have the semantic argument all you want about Jack vs. Tiger, but the average pro in a major now is far better than in Jack's day.  The scoring average data presented above validates this assumption.

post #160 of 202

NONSENSE!!!  The scoring data validates nothing since the courses are played with different balls and different clubs. What does Tiger shoot with ballata and hickory? It sure isn't a 62- and of course he hasn't spent a lifetime practicing with it-which is my point - the comparisons are flight of fancy that are fun- but to confuse them with physics or topics that can be proven is and remains NONSENSE!! 

post #161 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerryleal View Post
 

NONSENSE!!!  The scoring data validates nothing since the courses are played with different balls and different clubs. What does Tiger shoot with ballata and hickory? It sure isn't a 62- and of course he hasn't spent a lifetime practicing with it-which is my point - the comparisons are flight of fancy that are fun- but to confuse them with physics or topics that can be proven is and remains NONSENSE!! 

 

Yet Jack wasn't playing with hickory either. You seem not to get that golf is a game that has a floor to it. Its right around 59 it seems. This means that even with technology, GOLF is hard to play. Courses have gotten harder as well. Also people seem to forget that Tiger woods played golf before the tech boom in the early 2000's. He demolished the 1997 Master. In 1998 his set of clubs where, 

 

975D Titleist driver,

Titleist Tour Blade irons

Scotty Cameron Putter

 

Blade irons in the late 90's are not the blade irons of today. They look a lot like the blade irons of the 1970's. So, don't give me this crap about tech. Tech wasn't helping Tiger when he demolished the field in the late 1990's. It sure didn't seem to improve his game in the late 2000's. All it seem to do was make those around him better. Which was already pointed out that technology does not improve the best golfers, it raises those who struggle more often. So tech doesn't hurt the argument for today's players it helps the argument that playing against today's field and win is much harder to do. 

post #162 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerryleal View Post
 

NONSENSE!!!  The scoring data validates nothing since the courses are played with different balls and different clubs. What does Tiger shoot with ballata and hickory? It sure isn't a 62- and of course he hasn't spent a lifetime practicing with it-which is my point - the comparisons are flight of fancy that are fun- but to confuse them with physics or topics that can be proven is and remains NONSENSE!! 

Would you say courses are more difficult now than they were in the 60s?

 

Would you say technology of the equipment has improved?  (I know you would)

 

Would you say the current course difficulty more or less balances out the technological improvement in equipments?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tour Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Strength of Field in Jack's Day and Tiger's Day