Top 50 players in the world - better now or better when Jack Nicklaus was at his prime?

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by k-troop

Agreed, but your statement "if the available peers get a lot better" is speculation.  (Actually it's a question, but the answer that your question suggests is speculation.)  Trophy counts aren't.

Any comparison between generations involves a degree of speculation.  Hence we adduce evidence and make arguments.

[iacas]

I watched the Feherty "independence" episode last night. Craig Stadler said in the 80s only 15 guys could win on any given week and he says today it's 125 players.

[bwdial]

Originally Posted by iacas

I watched the Feherty "independence" episode last night. Craig Stadler said in the 80s only 15 guys could win on any given week and he says today it's 125 players.

And yet, during the 1980s, only in one year did fewer than 30 different players win on tour.  The average number of different winners was around 34.  So if his estimate is off by over 100%, is it not reasonable to assume that his estimate of current skills might be off by that much as well?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by bwdial

And yet, during the 1980s, only in one year did fewer than 30 different players win on tour.  The average number of different winners was around 34.  So if his estimate is off by over 100%, is it not reasonable to assume that his estimate of current skills might be off by that much as well?

The same 15 players didn't play in every event. Duh.

Anyway, just found his comment interesting.

[brocks]

With everyone always asking about who is better, Tiger or Jack, they always go straight to the Majors. OK fine, but when was it more difficult to win a major? Course conditions aside, who was your competition? Is this current era's top 50 players better or worse than the top 50 when Nicklaus played in his prime?

If you watched Feherty's interview of Peter Alliss, you will see that your question is based on a false assumption, namely that all or most of the world's best players were in the fields of the 1960's majors. Alliss said that he was offered an invitation to the Masters only five times, and accepted it only twice. It was just too far to travel, he said. I looked up his career. Alliss is best known today as an announcer, but he was one of the best players in Europe during the 50's and 60's. He was the leading money winner twice, and played in every Ryder Cup from 1953 to 1969 inclusive, except 1955. In the 1965 Ryder Cup, he was teamed with Christy O'Connor, who also won the European money title twice. Together, they beat Ken Venturi and Don January in the Thursday morning foursomes, and then beat Billy Casper and Gene Littler in the afternoon foursomes. On Friday, they lost to Palmer and Dave Marr in the morning fourball, but won the rematch of the same teams in the afternoon. Then on Saturday, Alliss beat Billy Casper in the morning singles, and Ken Venturi in the afternoon singles. Those two guys happened to be the 1966 and 1964 US Open champs, respectively. In other words, Alliss was a world class player. Yet he played only two majors on American soil. He never played in the US Open or the PGA. His partner, O'Connor, the best player in Europe two years in a row, never played ANY majors other than the British Open. Peter Thomson, who got top tens in the British Open 18 out of 21 years (1951-1971), and won five of them, played one Masters, zero US Opens, and zero PGAs during Jack's pro career. And of course, Jack was one of the very few Americans to go the other direction, and play the British Open every year, because its purse was only about a tenth of the big US events during the 60's. So it doesn't matter whether the top 50 are better today or not. Even if you assume that there were equally numerous and talented golfers then as now, only about half of them showed up at any one major. Few Americans played the British Open, and few international players played the other three. The majors back then were not as strong as today's Players or WGCs, let alone today's majors. Probably not even as strong as the Memorial, or the FedEx Playoff events.

[ghalfaire]

This subject comes up all the time in most sports.  I guess because it makes good conversation and I learn from reading the arguments.  But it is a subject that cannot really be answered.  Just too many changes over the years to ever be able to determine the GOAT in any sport.  But I like reading the arguments as I learn a lot of history.

[ThominOH]

Are the players today better then they are decades ago.. SURE they are..  If you look at the PGA Vardon Trophy history, the average winning scores have been improving.. What I think would be interesting tho if anyone can find the numbers.. Is what is the strength of field?  What I mean by this is that what is the margin between the #1 ranked guy vs. the #50 ranked guy..  I'm only guessing but I bet the field of pro's scoring average was closer decades ago versus today..  How many Vardon trophies did Jack win while earning his wins?  Something to think about..

[reedf]

Originally Posted by ThominOH

Are the players today better then they are decades ago.. SURE they are..  If you look at the PGA Vardon Trophy history, the average winning scores have been improving.. What I think would be interesting tho if anyone can find the numbers.. Is what is the strength of field?  What I mean by this is that what is the margin between the #1 ranked guy vs. the #50 ranked guy..  I'm only guessing but I bet the field of pro's scoring average was closer decades ago versus today..  How many Vardon trophies did Jack win while earning his wins?  Something to think about..

I will disagree on this note. I don't think you can look at all at scoring and stats to compare todays player with yesterdays. It works both directions, but imagine players of old having acces to swing coaches, mental therapists, doppler radar, video, new equipment engineering etc, etc etc. How good could they have been? Take away those things from todays player and what is left? It's like asking who's smarter the guy who wrote the book or the guy who read the book. I would love to see a matchup between Jack and Tiger in their primes, I'll bet it would be one helluva match!

[ThominOH]

Originally Posted by reedf

I will disagree on this note. I don't think you can look at all at scoring and stats to compare todays player with yesterdays. It works both directions, but imagine players of old having acces to swing coaches, mental therapists, doppler radar, video, new equipment engineering etc, etc etc. How good could they have been? Take away those things from todays player and what is left? It's like asking who's smarter the guy who wrote the book or the guy who read the book. I would love to see a matchup between Jack and Tiger in their primes, I'll bet it would be one helluva match!

HUH?  I think you misread what I wrote.. I'm NOT comparing today's players with yesterdays.. What I stated was comparing the generations within themselves only.. What I was suggesting was I think it would be interesting to see how the top 10 of each generation stands up against the 40-50th ranked players of the SAME generation.. See how big a gap is between the two.. This gives you an idea how tight the field (generation) is.. This is like Stricker winning 3 John Deere's in a row.. Is he all that great of golfer, or is that the tourney traditionally has a weak field.. Or which is more impressive a player that travels and plays 25 tourney's a year with a 69 average, wining twice.. or a man that only goes to 15 events a year winning 3 times with a 68 average....

[reedf]

I guess I should have pared down the quote a little bit and been more specific. This is the part I disagreed with.

Originally Posted by ThominOH

Are the players today better then they are decades ago.. SURE they are.. If you look at the PGA Vardon Trophy history, the average winning scores have been improving..

The rest of what you said I do agree with. I think it would be especially hard to compare the field depth since the americans and europeans didn't play together nearly as often as they do today.

[GatorCallaway]

Gimme Ben Hogan with 2 good legs and 2 good eyes and you can have anybody you want. Old clubs, new clubs, Tom Morris' clubs I don't care. New balls, old balls, Scotty Cameron putters, it makes no difference to me. Hogan was God.

[brocks]

I'm NOT comparing today's players with yesterdays.. What I stated was comparing the generations within themselves only.. What I was suggesting was I think it would be interesting to see how the top 10 of each generation stands up against the 40-50th ranked players of the SAME generation.. See how big a gap is between the two..

That *would* be interesting, but I don't know if those stats are available. The scoring average records on the PGA website only go back to 1980, when Jack was already 40. For what it's worth, the difference between #6 and #50 in 1980 was 1.08, and in 1981 it was 1.01. It was 0.88 in 2011, and 0.69 in 2010. Someone with more energy than I have might want to make a graph of the entire 32 years we have stats for. There are all kinds of caveats, though. The biggest problem is that you are comparing players who did not all play the same events. If I'm not mistaken, the adjusted scoring average compensates for the strength of the field relative to par, but NOT for par itself, i.e. if a player only plays events on par-70 courses, other things being equal, his average will be two points lower than if he played only on par-72 courses. Also, the PGA stats are (duh) for PGA events, and I don't think anyone would dispute that there are more strong international players, who may not play many PGA events, now than there were then.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by ThominOH

Are the players today better then they are decades ago.. SURE they are..  If you look at the PGA Vardon Trophy history, the average winning scores have been improving.. What I think would be interesting tho if anyone can find the numbers.. Is what is the strength of field?  What I mean by this is that what is the margin between the #1 ranked guy vs. the #50 ranked guy..  I'm only guessing but I bet the field of pro's scoring average was closer decades ago versus today..  How many Vardon trophies did Jack win while earning his wins?  Something to think about..

FWIW, Jack never won a Vardon.  In some cases it was circumstantial, i.e., in his early years he was not a "Class A" professional and hence was not eligible (same reason he didn't play Ryder Cup in his early years - thankfully those ridiculous rules are gone for good).  In later years he did not play enough qualified rounds.

I don't think there is really doubt that in *absolute* terms today's players are better.  But I don't think that really signifies much.  What really matters is that today's field is drawn from a much larger universe of aspirants.  This is due to a number of factors including the rise of international players (just look at the difference in Ryder Cup results), the rise in money which has induced more athletic types to go with golf as their sport (Hale Irwin was a bit of an anomaly as an athletic golfer, as were Jack and Arnie).  And equipment has made golfers better, not just in absolute terms but in bringing up the game of the middle level players more than it does the game of the top players.  Would Hogan have played better if he had today's equipment?  Absolutely.  But it wouldn't have helped him as much as it would have helped players 5-100.  The equipment would have closed the gap, hence making it harder for Hogan to separate himself.

[cwebbie]

Hmmm.  Maybe on the course.  But Jack has gotten himself in trouble with his mouth on more than one occasion.  Try reading his 1996 autobiography and you'll  see.  And, of course, his worst faux pas was when he said something that most people would consider outright racist: [URL=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_n4_v56/ai_18501026/]http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_n4_v56/ai_18501026/[/URL] Maybe it is  just me but that doesn't seem all that classy.

I had not read that about Nicklaus. So, I did some research about his character off the course. I found out that while he never officially apologized for that quote, he clarified it by saying black kids tended to grow up in environments geared to sports that required more athleticism than typically attributed to golf. He went on to add that golf would benefit greatly from more ethnic and socioeconomic diversity. He said all this before Tiger won his first Masters. More important than his words are his actions. I learned that Nicklaus has always insisted on nondiscriminatory selection policies at any county club in which he controlled, something they are still having trouble living up to at Augusta National. Moreover, as most of us know, Nicklaus has continued throughout its exisitence to be deeply involved in The First Tee. There isn't a golfer around who does more than Nicklaus for an organization aimed at exposing an expensive game to those that otherwise couldn't afford it. Thus, Jack is doing what he can to make sure the next generation's next top 50 will be better than the players of today. I'd say that's pretty darn classy.

[cwebbie]

I am going to have to disagree with most everyone to some extent. While i dont think the top 50 golfers back in jack's day are better than the top 50 today and there however i think that the top 10 players back then at a given time are better than the top ten today without a doubt. Excluding tiger the top ten guys in the world today have a combined 3 major victories that is a joke. The reason i think the top ten guys were better during Jack's era is because the 50-100th ranked guys couldn't afford to just play golf for a living. Now if your 100th on the moneylist you are a multi- millionarie after sponsors. This has two effects. The first is since you dont have to be one of the best players to make a ton of money people golfers don't have the passion they did back then and they are content with just playing for a living. There has been a different major champion the last 17 as many of you know. Did you know that is the longest streak in the history of golf. The second streak came after jacks era and went until tiger's second major which was 16. Now i know many of you will say thats because Jack dominated. That is only partially true Jack went over 20 majors without winning. Back in his day guys like watson, trevino, ballsteros, palmer, player, stockton, casper,zoeller competed and won many majors. There have been 3 guys who won more than one major between tigers first and last and 11 guys who won majors most more than two between jacks first and last. While the 50th guy might not of been as good Id take the top ten back then over the top ten today in a heart beat!

I agree 100% i think the thing that is so hard to measure is the ability to handle pressure. I don't buy the notion that Mickelson would have won 10 majors had he played in Jack's era, although he'd probably have a bunch more regular tour wins. There are a lot tour pros today that have enough faith in their games to win a tour event but there are fewer pros that have enough confidence to say, close out a major after leading the first 63 holes. One of my biggest frustrations as a diahard golf fan is the amount times Ive watched these great players fail to play their best when it matters most. When Nicklaus was in his prime the fields were certainly weaker as a whole, but you can look at the hole by hole scores in the majors back then and see that his small group of rivals were more than capable of standing up to the pressure of not only winning a major championship but of beating the best player along the way. I'm not saying that sometimes that doesn't happen today. It does. But in my opinion the clutch factor is going to account for the idea that no matter how much better your swing is over the players of yesteryear, if you make bogey on the final four holes your probably going to lose the championship of 25 years ago every bit as often as you lost it last Sunday.

[brocks]

... you can look at the hole by hole scores in the majors back then and see that his small group of rivals were more than capable of standing up to the pressure of not only winning a major championship but of beating the best player along the way.

Well, either you or Jack is remembering it wrong, because Jack often said that his strategy was to let the other guys beat themselves. It didn't work with Watson or Trevino, but it worked with most of his opposition. But I would be delighted to look at their hole by hole scores, and see if they never faltered. Where can I do that?

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by cwebbie

One of my biggest frustrations as a diahard golf fan is the amount times Ive watched these great players fail to play their best when it matters most. When Nicklaus was in his prime the fields were certainly weaker as a whole, but you can look at the hole by hole scores in the majors back then and see that his small group of rivals were more than capable of standing up to the pressure of not only winning a major championship but of beating the best player along the way.

I lived through the Jack era and this is simply not true.  Jack was the recipient of more than a few gift majors.  And he folded on occasion himself.  To give a couple of examples, Jack was gifted his first St. Andrews Open (his second overall) when Doug Sanders missed a tap-in.  Jack folded in the US Open playoff against Trevino at Merion when he twice failed to get out of a bunker - and they were not torturous bunkers or bad lies - he just blew it.  Norman bogeyed 18 at the '86 Masters to miss a playoff.  Seve buried himself in the same event by putting his ball in the water on one of the par 5s.  Jack shot a great final round, but without those collapses he never would have won.

If you listen to the best players they all say that the key to winning majors is putting yourself in position to win,  Then you win some and lose some, but putting yourself in position is the key.  And so it played out with Jack.  Because of the relatively weak fields Jack was able to put himself in position a LOT. SO much so that he finished second far more times than anyone else ever has, in the majors.  He put himself in position way over 40 times.  Some say that is an indication of his greatness, and to a degree it is.  But it also a testimony of the weakness of the fields of those times.

[brocks]

I lived through the Jack era and this is simply not true.

I lived through the Rory Era, and it wasn't true then, either. :-)