old vs. new

[nevets88]

For equivalence, wouldn't you have to give the group in the old era access to the same training technology in addition to equipment? Plus nutrition, current knowledge of staying healthy, etc... Wonder it you could even take travel time into account. Although airports were less congested, wonder if all those past champions had their own private jets? Less time traveling, more time playing, practicing (or not ).

[mfgorilla]

For me the rationale to apply is this, are swimmers faster than they used to be? That is the one sport where there have been no changes. Yes today's swimmers are faster, therefore today's athletes are better, therefore, Tiger wins.

No changes, other than those new full-body swimsuits that broke every record at the last summer Olympics?

[saevel25]

I think Jack said it once, it was at last years memorial tourniment, the skins game before it started. Jack was saying that he was a better driver of the ball, and a better putter. But tiger had a better iron game and short game. He said he was a better putter because the greens today are perfectly rolled and jack putted on less than perfect greens. But i find it interesting that Tiger is in a major slide lately. Making me wonder if he will catch Jack's record.

[RC]

While this is an old versus new thread, there have been comparisons of Nicklaus and Woods mingled in. And, the above post mentions a possible slide by Woods lately. The one statistic I find interesting about Woods was that last year from 15 to 20 feet, he ranked 139th on tour. That is not a strength. Since he was a young player, I always thought that putting was one of the weaker areas of his game, however, when he is feeling it and gets hot, he can putt with the best of them. Just think how dominant he would be if his intermediate putting statistics were higher. Jack is right to point out old era greens. Those that do not remember spike marks late in the rounds have no idea how tough they could be on soft greens. Putting took on a very different technique with slower, bumpy greens, and spike marks were able to deflect putts routinely.

[IcemanYVR]

For me the rationale to apply is this, are swimmers faster than they used to be? That is the one sport where there have been no changes. Yes today's swimmers are faster, therefore today's athletes are better, therefore, Tiger wins.

Just a comment as a former national level swimmer, the sport has changed, and the records have dropped considerably in the last 20 years.

The pools are faster, desinged so there are less waves in the water when swimming, less current, deeper pools, wave breaks on the sides and ends... even lane markers that direct the waves downward and not back into the lane. This all plays a part in creating what is called a "fast" pool. Bejing's pool is a prime example. And the swim suits, 20 years ago, we were just wearing speedo's (or whatever manufacturer sponsored your team). Now we have full body skinsuits that are computer designed to aid flotation and gliding through the water... so much so that some of these suits have become illegal becuase they provide too much benefit. I'm pretty sure that any sport, has seen improvements that aid performance, either in equipment of playing field.

[Dr. Strangeclub]

It would be interesting to see our modern champs duel it out on a classic venue using early gear on Thursday from the late 1800's, Friday from the 1930's, Saturday from the 1970's and Sunday with their modern gear.

Great idea! I think it would be a hit in the "Silly Season"! No doubt the clubmakers could provide facsimiles for the tournament. Might cost a few million in set-up expenses, but who cares? One single member of Augusta National could fund the entire operation out of pocket change.

Jack is right to point out old era greens. Those that do not remember spike marks late in the rounds have no idea how tough they could be on soft greens. Putting took on a very different technique with slower, bumpy greens, and spike marks were able to deflect putts routinely.

On nice courses, where they mow a lot or where the greens are firm, the spikeless shoes don't pose much of a problem, but on your standard public course, they cause more problems than you might imagine. Rather a spike mark than those little waffle indentations from spikeless!

The spike mark problem all started because of "slow play" fixing them. It was perfectly legal to repair them until -- hmmm -- 1958? Started after I was playing for sure. I say bring back the rule that says you can tamp them down and let the spikes come back! I slip in spikeless, like most of the light weight people I know. I don't slip in spikes. And I'm not talking just the swing, but walking up wet slopes too!

[TigerWoodz]

This does show how dam good Jack was...fair enough Tiger is raining Jacks record in,but none of todays other pro's are any where near Jack,even with todays so called advances in Technology..

[Dr. Strangeclub]

Various other comparisons say the drivers of today are 27 to 29 yards longer. This says nothing about Tiger and Jack, but I find it interesting.

The average height has gone up about 2 inches during that time, not to speak of golf becoming more of a sport and less of game. In the 60s and 70s, they spent a lot more time in the clubhouse bar than in the fitness trailer, too.

[Doctorfro]

Padraig Harrington did the experiment. It was in one of the golf magazines within the last couple years.

update: Here's the Article

[sean_miller]

Padraig Harrington did the experiment. He went out with old clubs and scored just about the same. It was in one of the golf magazines within the last couple years.

Use modern equipment and a vintage ball - that would be the real test.

[Shanks A Million]

Who cares about equipment? The players of each era use the same equipment as the others in that generation, so there's no argument there. Tiger Today plays guys using the same type of ball, clubs, and in the same conditions as his peers. Jack used the same balls, clubs, and under the same condition his peers did.

Did you guys think only Tiger got to use the newfangled ball and clubs? Cause that's not how it works. In fact, Tiger uses less equipment than most, opting for blades and a smaller driver, while using the new grooves before they were required. To make the argument that Tiger is aided by modern technology is just juvenile.

And to answer another question, we should look at pure odds. The odds that there just happened to be a dozen great players there to face Jack are low. Tiger's peers aren't weak, he's strong. He dominates like Jack never even dreamed of. Jack was a great player, but Tiger is almost other-worldly. To miss just 6 cuts in 15 years is astounding. To claim that somehow all the other players got weak, and Tiger was the only good one left is silly.

It's the same argument that it was a kinder, simpler time back when (insert time here). What you'll find is that time always perfectly coincides with when the person saying it was young. Everyone sees the world as kinder and gentler when they were a kid, because they were a kid. To me, the 80s were a kinder, simpler time, when things weren't so crazy and people just didn't act like they do now. Of course, that's all bullshit. The 80s were nothing like that. And for guys to say the 50s were better, well, the 50s were even worse. There were nuclear attack drills, and women were treated like crap.

So never make the mistake of thinking that it was a better time back then, because it's only your perception.

[Randy4h]

And to answer another question, we should look at pure odds. The odds that there just happened to be a dozen great players there to face Jack are low. Tiger's peers aren't weak, he's strong. He dominates like Jack never even dreamed of. Jack was a great player, but Tiger is almost other-worldly. To miss just 6 cuts in 15 years is astounding. To claim that somehow all the other players got weak, and Tiger was the only good one left is silly.

I didn't read the post where someone claimed that today's players are weaker than previous generations. Today's players are bigger, stronger, better conditioned, etc. no question.

An argument could be made, however, that with today's purses, one doesn't have to win anything and can still live a million dollar lifestyle. For those players, being in contention to win tournaments, especially majors, is not comfortable. We have seen this happen in years past with Mickelsen, Garcia, Westwood, Love, Couples and many others. When it came time to make a shot to win, many times they didn't perform. In Mickelsen's case, that has now changed. But I bet the other names mentioned would agree that they let tournament slip away that they shouldn't have. What has set Tiger apart from the others is that he has, for the most part, not let tournaments slip away when he had the lead. The same could probably be said of many pros in Jack's era as well, but there did seem to be a number of players who could stare down Jack and win. Certainly Watson and Trevino come to mind immediately, but there were others like Billy Casper, Gene Littler and Hale Irwin. When they were in the mix on Sunday afternoons, they rarely folded. Whether that was due to their internal makeup or whether they needed to win in order to cash a big check is up for discussion. In any event, it's good to see some of today's players starting to step up to challenge Tiger. Certainly makes for more interesting TV viewing.