Tiger Will Never Be the GOAT???

[iacas]

Originally Posted by StephenGSX

I agree. But a "deeper" field does not make it any more difficult to win today than in the past.

Yes, it does. If the average ability of the field is better, it's more difficult to win.

I might beat a field of 100 consisting of 98 bogey golfers, one PGA Tour player, and myself five times out of 100.

I'll never beat a field of 99 PGA Tour players and myself. Not in a million tries.

You've now taken your position to an illogical, bizarre extreme.

[newtogolf]

Ultimately it's man against the course, but you have to look at how well they played the course in the past compared to today.  In 1980 (earliest year the PGA tracked these stats) there were 2 players with a Scoring Average under 70.0, in 1981 there was 1 and in 1982 there were none.  Compared to 2011 where there 19 (Fowler just missed with a 70.01), 2010 there were 10 and 2009 there were 12.

Originally Posted by StephenGSX

Zipazoid,

I agree. But a "deeper" field does not make it any more difficult to win today than in the past.

[x129]

Care to explain that logic of how having more good players doesn't make it harder to win?

Originally Posted by StephenGSX

Zipazoid,

I agree. But a "deeper" field does not make it any more difficult to win today than in the past.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by StephenGSX

Zipazoid,

I agree. But a "deeper" field does not make it any more difficult to win today than in the past.

Don't know about that. Sure, in the past a Jack Fleck would pop up. But just look at the winners of last year's Majors - Schwartzel, McIlroy, Clarke, Bradley...four dark horses (Okay maybe not so much Rory, but still - 22 years old?). I would argue a deeper field makes it more difficult to win - it's tougher to win when there's 80 potential winners versus 20.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by StephenGSX

I agree. But a "deeper" field does not make it any more difficult to win today than in the past.

Yes, it does. If the average ability of the field is better, it's more difficult to win.

I might beat a field of 100 consisting of 98 bogey golfers, one PGA Tour player, and myself five times out of 100.

I'll never beat a field of 99 PGA Tour players and myself. Not in a million tries.

You've now taken your position to an illogical, bizarre extreme.

What if the average ability is better because the bottom third is now equal to the middle third. Is it easier or harder to win a regional marathon like the Boston Marathon than it is the Olympic marathon because there's no chaff at the Olympics? If the same top runners are there, the top few runners should be the same and the chance is about the same for the top guys. For the guys in the bottom third, the odds of winning the Boston Marathon are pretty much non-existent, but they wouldn't have qualified for the Olympics anyway. It's just harder to get into the event, but that doesn't mean the same guy wouldn't be the odds on favourite to win both events.

I think it's safe to say the best athletes have the ability to perform better than they did in the old days because there's better training, more dedicated fitness and instruction, better diet and better sports medicine. Place someone with Tiger Woods' golf ability as a teenager into 1960 with the instruction and training available at the time and he'd probably have a won a lot of tournaments in the 60s through the early 80s. Possibly more than 20 majors. I'm fairly certain of it. Regardless of where the rest of the pack is now versus then, there are only a few exceptional athletes in any generation. Tiger, Jack, Ben, Sam, Walter, Bobby, etc. They all were better than their peers. Who was the best? Hard to put a number on it,  because in Walter or Bobby's day for example, who knew that some day 18 would be the benchmark?

[StephenGSX]

When one says that the field is deeper, one assumes the ability of the number 50 being able to WIN. This is simply not the case. He is good enough to be there, but not good enough to win. After all, there are 144 spots in the field. How many really have the game to win?

The point being, most of the guys in the "deeper" field have the technical game to be there (to fill the field). Look at how many are out there that have virtually NO regular tour wins, let alone any majors. Can we really pretend that they have a chance of winning a major? In order to win majors, you have to know HOW TO WIN, not just play great golf.

The reason they don't win is not because they are not athletic enough, don't know enough about the swing or the biomechanics, not because they don't eat right to keep themselves in shape. It is because they do not possess the intangible skills that the champions have. Confidence is one of those. To hear tour players say for years "even we play out best, we can't beat Tiger" is evidence of a "deeper" field of golfers that can not be chamipons, in any era.  It does not matter how good the swing is, how fit they are, etc, etc, etc. they will never win.

Jack had to contend with more golfers that truly believed they could win, because they did win. Tiger had to deal with so few (more now that he let them in the door because of his whole mess). Even still, I doubt that any real superstar arises out of any of the current situation on tour.

As far as overall performance on tour (stroke average), they all play the par 4's and 3's the same as back in the 80's. They kill the par 5's and we all know why.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Is it easier or harder to win a regional marathon like the Boston Marathon than it is the Olympic marathon because there's no chaff at the Olympics?

Comparing golf to running - something I'm new to but which I've read a lot about recently - isn't going to cut it. A guy who runs a 2:35 marathon isn't going to suddenly pop off a 2:05. The "Elite" marathon runners all know each other. The favorites almost always win if the list is 5-10 people long.

In golf there are a LOT of instances of a guy who'd previously only run a 3:30 marathon snapping off a 2:05 and winning the thing.

Originally Posted by StephenGSX

When one says that the field is deeper, one assumes the ability of the number 50 being able to WIN. This is simply not the case.

So wrong it's not even funny.

You're now going to illogical extremes in trying to defend your opinion.

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

...Is it easier or harder to win a regional marathon like the Boston Marathon...

While I don't disagree with the premise to your point I would hardly call Boston a regional event as it the golfing equivalent of a major. Similar to the US Open in that anyone of a certain talent level can try to qualify and run but akin to The Master's with its rich traditions and the level of prestige it carries in the running community worldwide.

Back to golf...

[zipazoid]

Quote:

When one says that the field is deeper, one assumes the ability of the number 50 being able to WIN. This is simply not the case. He is good enough to be there, but not good enough to win. After all, there are 144 spots in the field. How many really have the game to win?

What was Schwartzel's ranking before the Masters last year? Clarke's before the British? Bradley's before the PGA?

The 50th (or worse) ranked player wins often. Daly won as a ninth alternate at the 1991 PGA. Y.E. Yang at the 2009 PGA was waaay back in the rankings.

Ooosthuizen at the 2010 British...Glover at the 2009 US Open...Immelman at the 2008 Masters....Zach Johnson at the 2007 Masters...

Shall I continue?

[zipazoid]

Okay I will...

Graeme McDowell, Shaun Micheel, Ben Curtis, Todd Hamilton, Michael Campbell, Geoff Ogilvy, Rich Beem...

All Major winners since 2002.

[deasy55]

McDowell was around 36th in the world when he won the US Open. Geoff Ogilvy was even better (can't find the actual ranking but it would have been top 30ish anyway). I definitely wouldn't lump these players in with the rest in that particular post.

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Okay I will...

Graeme McDowell, Shaun Micheel, Ben Curtis, Todd Hamilton, Michael Campbell, Geoff Ogilvy, Rich Beem...

All Major winners since 2002.

[deasy55]

29th

Originally Posted by zipazoid

What was Schwartzel's ranking before the Masters last year?

[zipazoid]

Oh. Well. That certainly shreds me of any credibility. 29th & 36th instead of 50th.

Keep fact-checking. Lemme know what you find for Curtis, Micheel, Campbell, Hamilton & Yang.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Okay I will...

Graeme McDowell, Shaun Micheel, Ben Curtis, Todd Hamilton, Michael Campbell, Geoff Ogilvy, Rich Beem...

All Major winners since 2002.

How does a modern list of one-offs and "who dats" change anything other than to mirror a similar list from Jack;'s era?

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

...Is it easier or harder to win a regional marathon like the Boston Marathon...

While I don't disagree with the premise to your point I would hardly call Boston a regional event as it the golfing equivalent of a major. Similar to the US Open in that anyone of a certain talent level can try to qualify and run but akin to The Master's with its rich traditions and the level of prestige it carries in the running community worldwide.

Back to golf...

And yet it is. I have friends who've run in the Boston Marathon. Not likely anyone I've ever played with is going to qualify for a golf Major. Did my friend's place in the Boston Marathon? They finished which is more than I could do, and that's great.

Seriously though, why would people compare current athletes to ones of the past when talking about all time greats? Until they invent a time machine, all anyone can do is go against his peers. And when someone dominates his peers to the point where he sets amazing records, he sets the bar for a future generation. Jack set the bar for Tiger. Tiger may or may not surpass Jacks major championship record. I doubt anyone will approach either player's final total, because as many Tiger supporters have continued to point out, there aren't too many elite players nowadays. Certainly nobody with the potential to dominate for a decade plus. A lot of great swings, but the brains of chokers and posers. imvho of course.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

How does a modern list of one-offs and "who dats" change anything other than to mirror a similar list from Jack;'s era?

For one, it really doesn't mirror Jack's era. Feel free to research if you wish. I recall Orville Moody & Dave Marr offhand...but not nearly as long a list.

For two, the point was made by another poster that guys around 50th don't win. Obviously untrue.

[StephenGSX]

Why don't they win more? Too hard to win twice, thrice, ....? You are just proving my point that they are all the same, no greats!

[x129]

The premis is a bit flawed in that regional marathons (like london, Berlin, Boston, or NYC) can be harder to win than the olympics. Why? Because they can have deeper fields.  Imagine if the golf majors only let in 3 golfers from each country in the world. Going off the world rankings, the following guys wouldn't be playing in the next major: Kuchar, Watney, Mickleson, Rose, Mahan, Bubba Watson, Bil Haas, Keegan Bradely and so on.  Don't worry though I am sure Ignatius Mketekete will make up for it . In pretty much any marathon run there are at most  20 pros and the rest of the field has zero chance. This hold true even for the olympics.  Obviously the prestige of the olympics is higher and there are more opportunities (every 5 or so every year versus every 4).  Marathoning is a prime example of what you call a low depth field where the gap between players is huge. It would be like having 20 pga pros and 20k 20 handicap guys play a tournament. Those 20k guys don't matter.  At the other extreme you have something like poker where the best player hardily every wins a 8k man tournament. The skill difference isn't high enough to offset the variance of 1 guy being absurdly lucky. Right now in the PGA the gap between the best and worst players is somewhere around 4 shots. Ask yourself how often a 4 handicapper beats a scratch one? Not every day but over a hundred rounds it happens a good deal.

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

While I don't disagree with the premise to your point I would hardly call Boston a regional event as it the golfing equivalent of a major. Similar to the US Open in that anyone of a certain talent level can try to qualify and run but akin to The Master's with its rich traditions and the level of prestige it carries in the running community worldwide.

Back to golf...