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 6

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 #91 of 202

I wonder something different.  We talk about taking the current guys and sending them back in time.....let's turn it around.....

 

 

With the intensity of the training and competition.  Would a Jack or Lee or Arnie or Gary do well if born into and trained into today's generation of pros? 

The stock answer is probably very well, and I agree with that.  But.....

 

 

would the increased and modern training maybe take one or two of them out (shoulder injury, knees worn out, back issues) and they'd just be in 'the pack'?

would the incredibly larger field of competition have held them back from dominance?

 

I believe they showed the ability to take the new learning and new equipment and adapt and learn - they play very well even into old age and with the new equipment.  And, in general, if they wanted it enough, they had the genes to exploit new training and fitness regimens....but it's not an automatic answer.

post #92 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by rehmwa View Post

 

With the intensity of the training and competition.  Would a Jack or Lee or Arnie or Gary do well if born into and trained into today's generation of pros? 

The stock answer is probably very well, and I agree with that.  But.....

 

 

Yes I think there are a few players that no matter when they were born would have been great players. Would Jack have won 18 professional majors if his prime years weren't the 60's-mid 80's? Probably not but I still think he would have ended up winning a bunch and being one of the best players of all time.

post #93 of 202

What a fantastic thread with very informed contributions, however intense the disagreement about the case at stake - you can't read this in a magazine.

 

My own take is that the professionalization of sport in general actually brought about an entirely different phenomenon than 'sport' - yes, it is the same game, yet no, it is not. Whether it is rugby, tennis, hockey, golf, NFL, NBA, NHL - heck, even ice skating - the game has changed. The rules are the same, but the vast difference in opportunities, training, corporate involvement, facilities, material support, exposure, logistics and renumeration, to name just a few aspects, changed 'sport' irrevocably. It has become a mixture of business, politics and what used to be the 'old sport', to the point that the 'old sport' has become unrecognizable to a very large extent. The disparity between the 'old' and the contemporary is huge.

 

I think therefore any attempt to compare fields in the 1960's and 2000's is comparing x and y, not 1x and 2x. That is why I am uncertain that there would be an outcome in this debate that eventually would be acceptable to everyone. I would hold the same position for every sport that has been so intensely professionalized over the past three decades in particular.

post #94 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post


DaVinci knew a lot about a lot of things. But I know so much more than him. Especially when it comes to computers. But I dont claim to be smarter than him.

But that doesn't defeat the argument that more people playing golf means there is probably more talent in the field now, making it harder for any one top player to win.

In DaVinci's day, there were a handful of people in each country who could spend their time thinking about science and engineering.  Now there are a half billion people who can on the planet.  The strength of field for science and engineering is vastly greater now because more people do it.  That is why technology is accelerating exponentially.  Are we smarter, who knows.  Are we far more educated as a population?  Absolutely.

 

Same with golf.  In a major in the 1960's and '70s club professionals could qualify because there were not that many people competing for those spots.  Now there are thousands of players very close in ability to the players in majors who may be capable of qualifying and doing well.  We have two additional professional tours, Champions and Web.com with players capable of competing at a top level in PGA tournaments.  The numbers (scoring averages, etc.) back that up.

post #95 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 

In DaVinci's day, there were a handful of people in each country who could spend their time thinking about science and engineering.  Now there are a half billion people who can on the planet.  The strength of field for science and engineering is vastly greater now because more people do it.  That is why technology is accelerating exponentially.  Are we smarter, who knows.  Are we far more educated as a population?  Absolutely.

 

Same with golf.  In a major in the 1960's and '70s club professionals could qualify because there were not that many people competing for those spots.  Now there are thousands of players very close in ability to the players in majors who may be capable of qualifying and doing well.  We have two additional professional tours, Champions and Web.com with players capable of competing at a top level in PGA tournaments.  The numbers (scoring averages, etc.) back that up.

 

Sometimes I wonder:-P 

post #96 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post

Sometimes I wonder:-P  

Me too!!! a2_wink.gif

Yesterday on the radio they had a contest about which founding father had a certain quote.

First person that called in guessed Abraham Lincoln.

It's probably like athletics. The "smart people" are smarter than ever but the masses don't have walking around sense.

Athletes are better conditioned than ever but the masses can barely squeeze through the door to get their Big Mac and double order of fries. a2_wink.gif
post #97 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

Sometimes I wonder:-P 

Yeah.  I did not say all of us were using that education!  

post #98 of 202

Tiger's success led to an increase in success for golf.  Tournament money increased significantly as did viewership and participation.  I think Jack is one of the GOAT, but golf wasn't attracting the top athletes to play until the twilight of his career, so while his competition was very good, I'm not sure they measure up to the players of today.  This isn't so much a knock on Jack as it is a statement of where the game was when he played.

 

I believe Hogan is one of the GOAT as well, and had he not had his career interrupted by the war and a near fatal car accident he may very well have racked up as many Majors as Jack and Tiger.  If Hogan had won 18 majors how would we rate the field he faced compared to Jack and Tiger?  It seems all sports continue to evolve and overall the athletic ability of those playing improves generation after generation.  We have fond memories of our hero's in the past but with the exception of a very small percentage I doubt they could duplicate their success against the current athletes.

post #99 of 202

This is kind of the same argument people have about Football (Soccer) and the old greats vs the new ones.

 

In the 60s and 70s there was Pele, going into the 80s Maradona, and now there is Messi and Ronaldo. 


Back in the day they smashed everyone and were the greats, but it's accepted that it's harder to dominate like they did, in the modern day.

 

All pretty much the same reasons as this thread too.

post #100 of 202

The way I look at it is this... yes, clubs and equipment have gotten better but courses have gotten longer and more difficult so that's a wash in my mind. Players are now coming from all over the world and in greater numbers and there are more really good players then there were before. That's not to say that there weren't great players in Jack's day, because there were, but the guy ranked at 100 in Jack's day had much less of a chance to win than the guy ranked at 100 now. This year is quite evident of that; look how players like Matt Every have won this year.

post #101 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

Tiger's success led to an increase in success for golf.  Tournament money increased significantly as did viewership and participation.  I think Jack is one of the GOAT, but golf wasn't attracting the top athletes to play until the twilight of his career, so while his competition was very good, I'm not sure they measure up to the players of today.  This isn't so much a knock on Jack as it is a statement of where the game was when he played.

 

I believe Hogan is one of the GOAT as well, and had he not had his career interrupted by the war and a near fatal car accident he may very well have racked up as many Majors as Jack and Tiger.  If Hogan had won 18 majors how would we rate the field he faced compared to Jack and Tiger?  It seems all sports continue to evolve and overall the athletic ability of those playing improves generation after generation.  We have fond memories of our hero's in the past but with the exception of a very small percentage I doubt they could duplicate their success against the current athletes.

 

Hogan probably faced less impressive counterparts than Jack. Probably similar to Arnie, and much less than Tiger. 

 

If Hogan had 18 majors, and Jack had 18 majors, and Tiger had 18 majors. You'd rank Hogans as the least impressive due to the field he played against. 

post #102 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayG View Post

And even today- yes, you get guys from all over the place and crawling out of every mini tour to make a splash on the boards early on. But on Sundays, who shows up? the same top guys that are always around, and THEY aren't exactly chopped liver.

 

 

Another first time winner this week, makes it five of the last eight for first timers and seven overall for the year.

post #103 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

Hogan probably faced less impressive counterparts than Jack. Probably similar to Arnie, and much less than Tiger.

 

If Hogan had 18 majors, and Jack had 18 majors, and Tiger had 18 majors. You'd rank Hogans as the least impressive due to the field he played against.

I agree, and for the same reasons one would argue the strength of the field in Jack's day isn't as impressive as it is today. 

post #104 of 202

At some point in the future, I think Jack will actually have a talk with Tiger and tell him that he (Jack) thinks Tiger is the greatest player of all time......but he will also say that as the game continues to grow and the talent pool continues to deepen, there may be a future golfer that wins 10 or 12 majors that is better than both of them.......Jack will do this because he believes it to be true and he has the class to say it......but also wants Tiger to understand the point he is making

 

my 2 cents

post #105 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by BallStriker View Post
 

At some point in the future, I think Jack will actually have a talk with Tiger and tell him that he (Jack) thinks Tiger is the greatest player of all time......but he will also say that as the game continues to grow and the talent pool continues to deepen, there may be a future golfer that wins 10 or 12 majors that is better than both of them.......Jack will do this because he believes it to be true and he has the class to say it......but also wants Tiger to understand the point he is making

 

my 2 cents

 

Tiger doesn't understand this already? Tiger is also very astute in golf history. There is a reason why he was chasing Jack, and why he wants the Major record. I believe if there is anyone who knows how hard it is getting to win a Major it is Tiger. 

post #106 of 202

This is a great, and never ending debate. (and I have not read the entire thread, but I've glance through it)

 

There are so many differences between the tour then and the tour now - that they are barely comparable.

 

So what has changed?

 - race - Charlie Sifford was the first man of color to earn a PGA card, and that was in 1961. And while there isn't much more diversification there is some.

(full disclosure & csb: Charlie Sifford used to play at a course in Texas while I was there, he is a great guy and can tell a hell of a story)

 

- money - hundreds of guys can make a better living on the tour today than they could anywhere else doing anything else; that was untrue in the 60's and 70's - I'd guess that number would be dozens then. Guys used to leave tournaments to play exhibitions when I was a kid, because they needed the money.

So with the money it means that all the exempt players can focus 100% on their game, and not have to find something to help with the help pay the bills.

2013 to be in the top 125 you had to earn $610,000+

1980 (the first year listed on PGAtour.com) to be in the top 125 you had to earn $19,895 (not sure if that kept your card) but you'd better earn a living beyond that

 

- travel - only the top players traveled by private plane in the 60's & 70's and the bottom 1/2 of the field was likely driving between events, and they were not staying at the Four Season or the Penninsula; hard to quantify the effect but it limits the field week to week over the season.

 

 - sponsorship - guys today are traveling billboards for golf companies, banks, brokers, etc and again 100's earn enough off of that to support their golf habit. Back in Jacks prime, I'd bet maybe the top 10 players earned some decent money though sponsors, and they likely had exhibition requirement to get full $ out of the arrangement.

 

So what does it all mean - same as asking if NBA players are better today, or other sports. Sports change, athletes change - hell in golf equipment changes, and it is more evenly spread out today.

 

So sure more guys can win an event today than in the past - but without Charlie Sifford breaking the barrier then Tiger wouldn't even play, and how would he do, physically, having to ride cars/busses/trains between events?

 

Hogan was the best, Arnie was the best, Jack was the best, Tiger was the best, and soon someone else will take that banner.

 

Argue on!

post #107 of 202

I like your added points @Wally Fairway .

post #108 of 202

Here's a question.  Phil, at a +2.7 you couldn't qualify for any PGA events right now?   I'd think being almost a +3 you'd be making cuts pretty regularly.  Am I way off?

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