Tiger Will Never Be the GOAT???

[jamo]

I think it's kind of pointless to compare golf to marathon running. While I love the Boston Marathon (the starting line is about 1.5 miles from my house, I've been to it nearly a dozen times, I've jogged the first half dozen miles several times), you can't compare the nearly 30,000 non-elites to the field of a golf tournament. In Boston, at least, the elites are set off before the regular people. It's not like it's highly unlikely a normal person could win, it's completely impossible, because they're physically separated. [quote name="StephenGSX" url="/t/54927/tiger-will-never-be-the-goat/90#post_671153"] 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! [/quote] The problem is that you're defining "greats" cross-generationally. What a "great" record was 50 years ago is much different from a "great" record today would be, principally because the fields are so much deeper.

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by x129

The premis is a bit flawed in that regional marathons (like london, Berlin, Boston, or NYC)...

Calling the Boston, London , Berlin, Chicago, or NYC regional events is the equivalent of calling The US Open a regional event. These are world class events with very large fields.  Everyone knows who the elite runners are (they have their own start ahead of the crowd) and the rest of the field is there for personal growth or the chance for a personal record (PR). Boston, with the exception of some local charity runners, has a qualifying system that one must qualify for the privilege to run. These runners make the journey from all corners of the globe to run the legendary course from Hopkinton to Boston.  I would consider a regional event one that attracts a limited international field (if any) and has a winning time that may be considered slightly better than regional elite (ie world class being closer to 2:05 versus a 2:35).

Sean, as far as your point about your friends running, they did finish and place even if they were in the masses. It would be like opening the US Open to 5 caps and below and letting 25,000 of them play on the same course for the title. It's a ridiculous proposition, but it is in essence what Boston is. There are only a few contenders that even have a chance, with the rest knowing they can only really compete against themselves.

Back to the arguing...I mean GOAT debate.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

There may be more competition to get into the top 125 now, because the competition back then was to get into the top 60, just to keep your tour status.  Otherwise, you had to Monday qualify at each event each week. You can thank Gary McCord and others for convincing the tour to increase the number of also-rans on tour.

Also, you can't compare today's equipment, balls and course conditions versus back then and somehow say that means today's players are better.  That's like saying today's baseball players are better because they have bigger gloves.

I agree that arguments about absolute level of play are inapt.  Obviously advances in equipment and course conditioning have improved the quality of the golf, but it has done so for everyone.

Originally Posted by StephenGSX

Better equipment to get the same job done implies less talent.

No, what Jack said was that better equipment made it more difficult for the excellent golfer to separate himself from the pack.  Which makes it all the more remarkable that Tiger has distanced himself from the pack more than any other golfer ever has.

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.

Yet Jack said it did.  He said that the exempt players of today had to be as good as the top players in his time and the top players of today had to be as good as the superstars in his day.  And remember, this was all in the context of explaining why there were no more superstars at that time (1996).  And then came Tiger who, despite the "impossibility" of there being any more golf superstars, establishes a superstar level record of dominance never before seen in golf.

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?

Because the list would be far shorter from Jack's time.  If the lists were just as long then there just would not have been enough majors for the Trevinos and Watsons to pile up as many majors as they did.  Which is exactly the point.

[TourSpoon]

So Turtleback, would your theories based on what Jack has stated lead us to believe that Rory's US Open performance was the best performance ever in a professional major given that it was a virtual lapping of the field? Given the strength of the most modern field, with the latest technology, best fitness, it had to be extra ordinary for it to happen last year. Am I following the logic here?

Talking about the strength of Jack's fields, how does Watson's performance at the British at the age of 59 figure into all of this?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

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.

You're more likely to be friends with a PGA Tour winner than a Boston/Chicago/New York/London/Olympics marathon winner. There are, at any given time, perhaps 10 people in the world capable of winning a big marathon. There are  hundreds capable of winning a PGA Tour event.

Qualifying for Boston - a "BQ" in runner parlance - is simply a matter of meeting a certain time for your age/gender category in a certified race. You do that, you get in. But that doesn't mean you've got a chance in heck of winning.

The marathon analogy is DOA.

Originally Posted by sean_miller

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.

FWIW, I agree with all of that.

Originally Posted by x129

In pretty much any marathon run there are at most  20 pros and the rest of the field has zero chance.

QFT.

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

Sean, as far as your point about your friends running, they did finish and place even if they were in the masses. It would be like opening the US Open to 5 caps and below and letting 25,000 of them play on the same course for the title. It's a ridiculous proposition, but it is in essence what Boston is. There are only a few contenders that even have a chance, with the rest knowing they can only really compete against themselves.

QFT also.

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

Talking about the strength of Jack's fields, how does Watson's performance at the British at the age of 59 figure into all of this?

He played really, really, really freaking well. He overcame tremendous odds and, well, he didn't even fully overcome those.

[sean_miller]

Quote:

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?

Because the list would be far shorter from Jack's time.  If the lists were just as long then there just would not have been enough majors for the Trevinos and Watsons to pile up as many majors as they did.  Which is exactly the point.

With the number of players who now know the basic forumula for peaking for the majors, the total of major championships won by lesser lights might be greater than in the 50s through the 80s, because there's more potential for a fluke winner nowadays.  I'll give you that.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

So Turtleback, would your theories based on what Jack has stated lead us to believe that Rory's US Open performance was the best performance ever in a professional major given that it was a virtual lapping of the field? Given the strength of the most modern field, with the latest technology, best fitness, it had to be extra ordinary for it to happen last year. Am I following the logic here?

Talking about the strength of Jack's fields, how does Watson's performance at the British at the age of 59 figure into all of this?

Read the whole quote that was posted.  Has there been the kind of significant changes in the factors Jack cited between the 70s and 2000 occurred between 2000 and 2011 to any appreciable degree?  Nope.

As to Watson, how could such a fierce Jack-era hardened competitor lose to a guy with only a small handful of PGA victories?  But seriously, the British Open has always ended up with more idiosyncratoc winners and near winners than the other majors.

[brocks]

To anybody who doesn't think that the bottom third of the field can make it harder to win, look at Tiger's record in the majors. Up through 2009, he won about 28% of them. Not too shabby. Then look at his record in the stroke play WGC's. Their fields comprised the top 70-75 players in the world. Through 2009, Tiger won an incredible 62% of the stroke play WGC's. Same top 75 players in both. But the majors had another 20 (Masters) to 80 (British Open) second-tier players. And those second-tier players cut Tiger's winning percentage by more than half. Any major tour pro (as opposed to the handful of amateurs, legacy champions, club pros, and the like who are invited) who is good enough to play in a major today is good enough to win. Ben Curtis was ranked 396th in the world when he won the Open. The difference between the top ten and the 110th player is not that the latter can't win, it's that he doesn't do it very often. But if he has a hot week, he can look like Hogan and Jones combined. The battle between Bob May and Tiger at the 2000 PGA was every bit as good as the "Duel in the Sun" between Watson and Jack. May broke the record for lowest score in the PGA by shooting -18, a record that still stands, although Tiger has tied it. He played head to head against Tiger that Sunday, and shot a 66, making birdie after birdie on the final nine. He didn't need to "learn to win," he just needed a field without Tiger in it.

[x129]

Obviously he couldn't handle the pressure of being in a playoff for a major. One offs (either way) prove nothing. There is enough chance in golf so that the worse player will beat the better player a significant percentage of the time.

As far as Rory being the best every, some of that is just that it is the most recent dominate performance.  Tigers winning the masters by 12 and the open by 15 generated the same talk.

Originally Posted by turtleback

As to Watson, how could such a fierce Jack-era hardened competitor lose to a guy with only a small handful of PGA victories?  But seriously, the British Open has always ended up with more idiosyncratoc winners and near winners than the other majors.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

So Turtleback, would your theories based on what Jack has stated lead us to believe that Rory's US Open performance was the best performance ever in a professional major given that it was a virtual lapping of the field? Given the strength of the most modern field, with the latest technology, best fitness, it had to be extra ordinary for it to happen last year. Am I following the logic here?

Talking about the strength of Jack's fields, how does Watson's performance at the British at the age of 59 figure into all of this?

I think it says that Rory's US Open performance was one of the most dominant major championship performances in the history of golf.  Surely top-10, possibly top-5.  That doesn't mean he's the best ever, or the most dominant ever.  It means that he had one helluva week, and has a tremendous amount of talent to even be capable of such scores on an Open course.

I think Watson's performance proves Jack's point about equipment being an equalizer.  With equipment and the ball being what they are today, you don't need to be able to rotate your spine at 85+MPH in order to hit the ball 290 yards.  It means that more guys can compete at the highest level.

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by k-troop

I think Watson's performance proves Jack's point about equipment being an equalizer.  With equipment and the ball being what they are today, you don't need to be able to rotate your spine at 85+MPH in order to hit the ball 290 yards.  It means that more guys can compete at the highest level.

That and the value of experience especially at The Open was a factor. Certainly the equipment helped, but his ability to win The Open is well documented and cannot be disputed (although I am sure someone will come up with something).

[Wansteadimp]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Read the whole quote that was posted.  Has there been the kind of significant changes in the factors Jack cited between the 70s and 2000 occurred between 2000 and 2011 to any appreciable degree?  Nope.

As to Watson, how could such a fierce Jack-era hardened competitor lose to a guy with only a small handful of PGA victories?  But seriously, the British Open has always ended up with more idiosyncratoc winners and near winners than the other majors.

The Open has more idiosyncratic winners and near winners than other majors? Really? Compared to the US PGA? Only Lawrie, Curtis & Hamilton possibly Baker-Finch fall into that category since 1960, the jury is still out on Oosthuisen. Compared to Micheel, Beem, Brooks, Grady, Tway, Green, Graham, Mahaffey etc etc.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by k-troop

I think Watson's performance proves Jack's point about equipment being an equalizer.  With equipment and the ball being what they are today, you don't need to be able to rotate your spine at 85+MPH in order to hit the ball 290 yards.  It means that more guys can compete at the highest level.

Excellent point.

Originally Posted by Wansteadimp

The Open has more idiosyncratic winners and near winners than other majors? Really? Compared to the US PGA? Only Lawrie, Curtis & Hamilton possibly Baker-Finch fall into that category since 1960, the jury is still out on Oosthuisen. Compared to Micheel, Beem, Brooks, Grady, Tway, Green, Graham, Mahaffey etc etc.

No, I intentionally said winners and near winners.  Which brings in Van De Veldt, 50+ year old Watson, 50+ year old Norman, among others.  And a lot of the guys you put in the PGA list had very solid careers and by no means could be considered idiosyncratic.  Tway had 8 PGA wins, Green had 19 tour wins and a US Open, David Graham had 8 tour wins plus 2 Eurotour wins and 15 Aussie tour wins, Mahaffey had 8 tour wins, Brooks had 7 tour wins.  Even Wayne Grady had a couple of tour wins and Beem had 3.

And yes, Watson and Norman had lots and lots of tour and major wins - just not in their 50s.

[x129]

No one is saying Watson isn't a great player (top 25 on pretty much anyones list and much higher if you devalue some of the early guys) but you can't look at one offs and draw conclusions. He had the same experience and ability to win between 1985 and 2008 and he only contended (assuming top 5 is contending) once. In 09 the stars lined up (he performed up to his potential while the rest of the field was closer to their average) and he contended. There is a reason why it doesn't happen weekly

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

That and the value of experience especially at The Open was a factor. Certainly the equipment helped, but his ability to win The Open is well documented and cannot be disputed (although I am sure someone will come up with something).

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by x129

No one is saying Watson isn't a great player (top 25 on pretty much anyones list and much higher if you devalue some of the early guys) but you can't look at one offs and draw conclusions. He had the same experience and ability to win between 1985 and 2008 and he only contended (assuming top 5 is contending) once. In 09 the stars lined up (he performed up to his potential while the rest of the field was closer to their average) and he contended. There is a reason why it doesn't happen weekly

Quote:

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

That and the value of experience especially at The Open was a factor. Certainly the equipment helped, but his ability to win The Open is well documented and cannot be disputed (although I am sure someone will come up with something).

Watson contended in 2009 because he's one of the best links golfers in the history of the game - quite possibly THE best - and he was playing a course he knows very very well. I'm gonna get roasted for this, but Watson contending at Turnberry is akin to Jack, Tiger, Arnie, and Phil contending at Augusta National. Even when they can't consistently contend anywhere else, they'll always be able to eke out a high finish there if they're healthy and their putting hasn't completely gone off the rails.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Watson contended in 2009 because he's one of the best links golfers in the history of the game - quite possibly THE best - and he was playing a course he knows very very well. I'm gonna get roasted for this, but Watson contending at Turnberry is akin to Jack, Tiger, Arnie, and Phil contending at Augusta National. Even when they can't consistently contend anywhere else, they'll always be able to eke out a high finish there if they're healthy and their putting hasn't completely gone off the rails.

You give no credit to the equipment?  I get that the course suits his game, and he's better at that game than anyone--but you really think he would have been in a playoff if he was playing with persimmon, steel, and balata at 59-years old?

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by k-troop

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Watson contended in 2009 because he's one of the best links golfers in the history of the game - quite possibly THE best - and he was playing a course he knows very very well. I'm gonna get roasted for this, but Watson contending at Turnberry is akin to Jack, Tiger, Arnie, and Phil contending at Augusta National. Even when they can't consistently contend anywhere else, they'll always be able to eke out a high finish there if they're healthy and their putting hasn't completely gone off the rails.

You give no credit to the equipment?  I get that the course suits his game, and he's better at that game than anyone--but you really think he would have been in a playoff if he was playing with persimmon, steel, and balata at 59-years old?

Would everyone else in the field have to play with persimmon, steel, and balata too?

There are horses for courses and Watson at Turnberry is but one example. He probably would have made the cut at any Open that week, just like he did at the Open last year (2011 - two out of 3 ain't bad). His use of hybrids over a 2-iron is proof of what exactly? That he took advantage of the same technology as most of the other players in the field? If using a fairway wood or hybrid is proof that a player can only win because of technology, then most of the LPGA tour players are frauds.

[Ernest Jones]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Watson contended in 2009 because he's one of the best links golfers in the history of the game - quite possibly THE best - and he was playing a course he knows very very well. I'm gonna get roasted for this, but Watson contending at Turnberry is akin to Jack, Tiger, Arnie, and Phil contending at Augusta National. Even when they can't consistently contend anywhere else, they'll always be able to eke out a high finish there if they're healthy and their putting hasn't completely gone off the rails.

This.