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 12

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% (61)
    Winning 17 majors in the 90s-10s.
71 Total Votes  
post #199 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Fairway View Post

2000 - Tiger 67.79, players under 69.80 is 7 that's right SEVEN

2001 - Tiger 68.81, players under 70.81 is 64 (big change year-to-year)

2002 - Tiger 68.56, players under 70.57 is 34

 

1980 - Trevino 69.73, players under 71.73 is 40

 

So I'm not sure if there is a huge difference or not -

 

using pgatour. com stats - scoring average

I do believe that Tiger absolutely dominated in his early career, which is what those statistics show. I think we're talking about the more recent majors (within the last five to ten years) where more and more players with talent have cropped up as a response to the surge in golf that Tiger created. Around 2006 or so it became more evident that the fields were tougher 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Fairway View Post
 

I understand your comment about players being within 2 shots of the leader in scoring average, but I do not understand why you are using last year  - nobody dominated the majors last year, not sure if that proves it was harder or not.

But go back to when Tiger was winning a bunch of majors 2000-2001, the number of players within 2 strokes of Tiger were (since the poll deals not with last year but with when it was easier to win multiple majors):

 

2000 - Tiger 67.79, players under 69.80 is 7 that's right SEVEN

2001 - Tiger 68.81, players under 70.81 is 64 (big change year-to-year)

2002 - Tiger 68.56, players under 70.57 is 34

 

1980 - Trevino 69.73, players under 71.73 is 40

 

So I'm not sure if there is a huge difference or not -

 

using pgatour. com stats - scoring average

While I do concede that it has only been closer recently, I would also like to point out that (excluding the three years, 2008, 2010, and 2011 where Tiger was excluded from the scoring average rankings on the PGA website for some reason) that Tiger has never placed lower than second in scoring average at the end of a year. Jack Nicklaus, in 1980, was placed 14th. Perhaps Tiger was more dominant on the whole? I'm not exactly sure what to make of it though, as there are missing years on the PGA website from before 1980 and for three years in Tigers' career.

 

The one thing to note about the 2000 scoring averages is that in 2000 Tiger set a PGA record for the lowest ever season scoring average, meaning it was likely an outlier. I do see your point though, in that Tiger was miles above the field most years in his career. Looking at the statistics it almost surprises me that he hasn't won a major since the 2008 US Open, but I would bet that part of it is a huge mental barrier. I don't know though, just because nobody but Tiger really does.

post #200 of 202

Give the top 100 today clubs. Balls and training technology from the 60s and 70s. Now take the top 100 in Jack's day give them modern golf tech and the benefits of 30 or 40 more years of golf history to learn from. I think the comparison is not a valid one. Tiger back in Jack's day would still be Tiger, wouldn't be anymore or less accomplish ed than he is in his own day.

My opinion.

post #201 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by madolive3 View Post
 

Give the top 100 today clubs. Balls and training technology from the 60s and 70s. Now take the top 100 in Jack's day give them modern golf tech and the benefits of 30 or 40 more years of golf history to learn from. I think the comparison is not a valid one. Tiger back in Jack's day would still be Tiger, wouldn't be anymore or less accomplish ed than he is in his own day.

My opinion.

 

That's not the topic.

 

And virtually everyone agrees that the equipment has hurt Tiger's ability to separate himself on his skill. Tiger might have 20+ majors if they had the same equipment as they had in the 60s. The equipment has helped the players close the gap.

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

 

That's not the topic.

 

And virtually everyone agrees that the equipment has hurt Tiger's ability to separate himself on his skill. Tiger might have 20+ majors if they had the same equipment as they had in the 60s. The equipment has helped the players close the gap.

 

Correct we're talking strength of field, not Jack vs Tiger, already got a thread for that.

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