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

[reedf]

Originally Posted by turtleback

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.

I think this can also be said about Tiger. Many of his wins have been because he put himself in great position, but in general his competition melted away on Sunday. I think a good stat to see is what the top 5 shot when Tiger was leading on Sunday. Their mental tougness against Tiger has been pitiful. Players have not been able to withstand playing in Tiger's world on Sunday. I doubt Tiger will ever have Jack's 2nd place numbers just due to the fact that when Tiger is leading, no one has been able to consistently challenge him. If he's not leading, I think he starts taking every chance that comes along in an effort to make up a stroke or two every hole. IMO, that's why he doesn't have any come from behind wins. I believe he is so competitive, its win or nothing.

[brocks]

Their mental tougness against Tiger has been pitiful. Players have not been able to withstand playing in Tiger's world on Sunday.

Right, as soon as they even see Tiger's name on the leaderboard, they crumble. And that is the secret of why Tiger has so many come-from-behind wins in majors. Seriously, do you not see the inconsistency in your argument? "If Tiger wins when he's ahead, it's because everybody else chokes. If Tiger loses when he's behind, it's because he has to take chances to make up strokes." The fact is, EVERYBODY has to take chances to make up strokes if they think that the leader is not going to crumble. Other golfers don't catch Tiger when he's ahead for the same reason that he doesn't catch them when he's behind. Actually, they have a better excuse. Tiger is the best golfer of the era, if not of all time. Very, very rarely can anybody give him two shots a side and then beat him, if he's playing well. And if he's leading a major after 54 holes, he's playing well. Watch the replay of the 2000 PGA tomorrow on TGC if you want to see how tough even a journeyman can be head to head against Tiger.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by brocks

Watch the replay of the 2000 PGA tomorrow on TGC if you want to see how tough even a journeyman can be head to head against Tiger.

You love throwing out one anecdote and using it to make a point about the entire world of golf.  Bob May is hardly conclusive proof that golfers are better now than they were in 1970.  He had an out-of-his-mind week at a tournament that tends to put up out-of-nowhere winners.

[brocks]

You love throwing out one anecdote

Absolutely false. I never throw them out. You never know when you might be poisoned.

[preisman]

Originally Posted by brocks

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.

So, if the best players at the time were not playing in the Majors, that would make it easier to win those events. If the top European players were battling Nicklaus for the Majors, do you think he would have won as many? I have not replied to this thread, just reading and taking it all in. There area ton of great points, but this one really makes a good point.

I do not want to say Jack is not as great as he was, but his Major wins would not be as high if the best players in the world would have competed.

[The Recreational Golfer]

We can't even figure out if Jack was better than Tiger. Now we have to figure out if fifty guys who none of you could name off the top of your head are better than the best fifty now. Good luck.