• Announcements

    • iacas

      GAME GOLF Ryder Cup Contest   09/22/2016

      Join our GAME GOLF Ryder Cup Challenge to win an autographed GAME GOLF, a Pebble Steel watch, and many more great prizes!
Phil McGleno

Strength and Depth of Field in Jack's Day and Tiger's Day

0   17 members have voted

  1. 1. Loosely Related Question (consider the thread topic-please dont just repeat the GOAT thread): Which is the more impressive feat?

    • Winning 20 majors in the 60s-80s.
      13
    • Winning 17 majors in the 90s-10s.
      92

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

380 posts in this topic

Y'all keep talking about strength of field in Jack's day and Tiger's day so I thought I'd make a thread to talk about just that part. If I can figure out how to make a related poll I'm gon' do that too. I think Tiger winning 14 against modern Tour pros is way better than Jacks 18 and Ive been alive for both of them. Even played against Jack a few times in events I qualified for-Couldn't dream of qualifying even playing my best today or even in 1995. Was a whole different ball game back in the 60s and 70s and even 80s. This isn't a "Jack versus Tiger" thread but the poll asks that question because its related-This is a "strength of field" thread and I hope discussion can talk about that.-Analysis of scoring spreads, players average finish positions in majors, whatever. And yes I'm counting U.S. Ams because Jack did until Tiger got one more than he did.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

I picked the second one, and I don't think it's even particularly close.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I picked the second one, and I don't think it's even particularly close.

I would tend to agree.

Just one look at the size of the potential field should tell you almost all you need to know. The 10 best players at anything from a town of 10,000 is highly unlikely to be better than the 10 best players from a town of 1,000,000. I'm not saying golf's grown 100x from the 60s to the 00s… but it's grown quite a bit. Especially when you include the growth of the game outside of the U.S. - Europe, Asia, etc.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I picked the first one and don't think it's really close......

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I picked the first one and don't think it's really close......

Just to clarify, you're saying that the fields as a whole are weaker now (late 90's to now) than they were in the 60's-80's?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I picked the first one and don't think it's really close......

No way. The strength of field has risen astronomically since 2005 or so. The average pro now is so much better than the average pro from Jacks day it's not even funny. Note that I'm not saying the greats from yesteryear weren't great, they were. But players ranked #10-100 now would DESTROY the similarly ranked guys back then.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Just to clarify, you're saying that the fields as a whole are weaker now (late 90's to now) than they were in the 60's-80's?

This is a tricky question.  Because how far down do you go before it stops mattering?  I remember having a discussion last year about the strength of field of the PGA being so much stronger than the Masters.  I suspect the answer to that one falls right at about the point where it's impossible for a person to win the thing.

For example, if I was added to the Masters field, and you or Erik were added to the PGA field, then there is no question that the PGA field "strength" was increased by a ton compared to the Masters field strength.  However, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't make a hill of beans difference because none of us are winning either of those tournaments, and in fact, none of us are finishing anywhere except dead last. (No offense ;-) )

So, if the cutoff is the last player with a chance to win, then there can really be no doubt that fields are stronger today.  There are waaaaay more players with at least an outside shot of winning nowadays than in the 60's or 70's.

But perhaps it's more complicated than even that?  What if I were to just use ratings.  If you rated all golfers on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being Tiger and Jack, 9 being your Phil Mickelsons and Tom Watsons and Gary Players, and let's set 5 as the low number for major winners.  (I'm thinking of you, Shaun Micheel and Michael Campbell)

There is no question that nowadays there are way more 5's than there were back then.  But are there more 8's and 9's?  What if Jack had to compete against twenty 8's and 9's, and Tiger only competed against five 8's and 9's but also fifty 5's and 6's?  I don't know that the answer is that obvious.


I didn't vote in the poll (yet) but I'm leaning towards 17 today being tougher - but not by too much.  I would certainly say without a shadow of a doubt that Tiger's 20 (if and when that ever were to happen) would be greater than Jacks 20, but I'm not totally sure 17>20.


Follow up question for @jamo , et. al. ... I'd be curious to know where the "break even" point of majors nowadays vs. majors in Jack's day would fall.  15?  10?  5?  Are Phil's 6 more impressive than Jack's 20?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I wasn't aware that Jack stopped counting the US amatuers as majors once Tiger had 3 to his 2 interesting.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at it this way, in 1980 there were 40 players within' 2 strokes of the best scoring average on the tour.  In 2013 there were 86 players within' two strokes of the best scoring average.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I've got to go with the talent pool size and "17 Majors in the 90s-10s".

It's like recruiting players from a 1A school to recruiting players from a 5A school. You don't even really know what you are looking at when you see somebody dominate a 1A game. They might not even make the team at the 5A school.

The big fish in a small pond is a shrimp in the ocean.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the poll might make the poll the topic but I still hope it can be about discussing the strengths of the fields, not the poll question specifically.-Though if 17 wins over 20 that says a lot about what people feel about the strengths of field.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I thought the poll might make the poll the topic but I still hope it can be about discussing the strengths of the fields, not the poll question specifically.-Though if 17 wins over 20 that says a lot about what people feel about the strengths of field.

I don't know about that. Look at Jack and the number of times he finished 2nd. Just a few things go his way and he could easily gotten 3 more majors. Just saying, 3 isn't that large of a spread when considering the strength of the field. Now go with a question like 15 or 20, now that is a tougher one to answer.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I don't know about that. Look at Jack and the number of times he finished 2nd. Just a few things go his way and he could easily gotten 3 more majors. Just saying, 3 isn't that large of a spread when considering the strength of the field. Now go with a question like 15 or 20, now that is a tougher one to answer.

Who is to say a few things didn't go his way to get to 20? He could have just as easily gotten three more as gotten three fewer, no?

I think the point of the thread, and @Phil McGleno can correct me if I'm wrong, is not to focus on the actual numbers, but to discuss and try to put a value or assign some values or meaning to the strengths of field, regardless of what they were.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Who is to say a few things didn't go his way to get to 20? He could have just as easily gotten three more as gotten three fewer, no?

I think the point of the thread, and @Phil McGleno can correct me if I'm wrong, is not to focus on the actual numbers, but to discuss and try to put a value or assign some values or meaning to the strengths of field, regardless of what they were.

That might be true :whistle:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Follow up question for @jamo , et. al. ... I'd be curious to know where the "break even" point of majors nowadays vs. majors in Jack's day would fall.  15?  10?  5?  Are Phil's 6 more impressive than Jack's 20?

That's a good question. I don't really know the answer. I would lean to Jack over Phil. I think the break-even point is probably close to 12 if we're counting U.S. Ams.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

There's no doubt the fields are deeper in 2014. You've got guys coming left and right out of South Africa, Australia, Europe, and even South America. I think it's really picked up the last 5 years. I don't know if I would say the fields were all that strong around 1995 and 2000, but it's really exploded since '05 with a influx of young talent. I think there's a huge difference between the field in 2014 than say 1997 when Tiger first came on the scene, though. A huge difference. I do not think Tiger wins a Masters by 12 shots or a US Open by 15 with the 2014 field, although he still prolly wins.

It's hard to say, though, that the top-5 or top-10 now is better than the top-10 then. That's pure opinion. Is Jack better than Tiger? Phil better than Watson? McIlroy better than Player? Day better than Trevino? Bubba better than Floyd? I don't know. Anytime you compare eras you can argue about the competition but it's hard to argue about individual talent unless they really go head-to-head against each other.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no doubt the fields are deeper in 2014. You've got guys coming left and right out of South Africa, Australia, Europe, and even South America. I think it's really picked up the last 5 years. I don't know if I would say the fields were all that strong around 1995 and 2000, but it's really exploded since '05 with a influx of young talent. I think there's a huge difference between the field in 2014 than say 1997 when Tiger first came on the scene, though. A huge difference. I do not think Tiger wins a Masters by 12 shots or a US Open by 15 with the 2014 field, although he still prolly wins.

And I think the fields were way, way, way stronger in 1997 than in 1967.

The difference… I think the numbers back up my opinion. You seem to be guessing.

It's hard to say, though, that the top-5 or top-10 now is better than the top-10 then. That's pure opinion.

It's not pure opinion, no. There's a dash of opinion, but you can break things down statistically, too.

And statistically speaking, it's highly, highly unlikely that even the top ten players in any one year in the 1960s or 1970s were, man-to-man, anywhere near as good as the top ten from the 90s or 00s, simply due to the size of the talent pool.

The only numbers you can provide to support your opinion - that Trevino and Watson and so on had more majors than Phil and Ernie and others in the Tiger era - also support my argument that the fields are that much stronger today.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I think something as simple as being able to travel so easily and comfortably must help give players that are traveling a better shot at winning events that would have been much more demanding 40 years ago. That probably brings more possible winners into the field each week.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • Copy & Pasting my own answer on a similar thread here.... I agree about borrowing or grabbing a CHEAP bag of random clubs at a garage sale to start with but when you're ready to invest a little dough into your own set, there are really three ways to do it... 1 - Get a cheap beginner set from Golfsmith or Dick's (or other online source). Advantages (if you go instore) are you get to see/swing them first, some assistance with selection, a good matched set to start learning the game with even if they are not fitted. I recently spent $169 on a set of Lynx Tigress clubs from Golfsmith for my wife...same set is currently listed on their site for $299. They are actually quite well made/designed and will likely be all she ever needs for her game. Dick's also had a Top Flite set in the same price range...she liked the color of the Lynx set better. ;) 2 - Roll the dice with an online "Clone" company like Giga, Diamond Tour, Pine Meadow, Hireko Golf, etc...You don't get to swing them first but you can use their online fitting systems to customize size/shaft/grip options a little more than just the standard options in a box. I used to have a Pine Meadow driver that I could hit ever bit as far as my brother-in-laws latest greatest. This is a good article about clone clubs http://planet-golf.com/what-are-clone-golf-clubs/ 3 - Used brand name stuff, one man's trash is literally my treasure. Try EBay, Club Finders (or other like websites) and buy a used set of matched irons of proper size/flex (used Ping Eye 2 iron sets go for $90-125 all day) and then piece together your other clubs individually. Again, you won't get to swing them first and you could get burned on a deal along the way...but if you take your time and shop smart, you can assemble a nice bag without breaking the bank this way too. I'm lucky here in Dallas to have a PGA store, a Golfsmith, a dozen Dick's Sports, and also Club Finders Golf (used golf specialist) all within 20 minutes of my house so when I started building a new bag I decided to take the #3 route...but I am considering finishing it off with a couple of new clone wedges rather than going with older/used wedges. Good luck whatever you decide.
    • I agree about borrowing or grabbing a CHEAP bag of random clubs at a garage sale to start with but when you're ready to invest a little dough into your own set, there are really three ways to do it... 1 - Get a cheap beginner set from Golfsmith or Dick's (or other online source). Advantages are you get to see/swing them first, some assistance with selection, a good matched set to start learning the game with even if they are not fitted. I recently spent $169 on a set of Lynx Tigress clubs from Golfsmith for my wife...same set is currently listed on their site for $299. They are actually quite well made/designed and will likely be all she ever needs for her game. Dick's also had a Top Flite set in the same price range...she liked the color of the Lynx set better. ;) 2 - Roll the dice with an online "Clone" company like Giga, Diamond Tour, Pine Meadow, Hireko Golf, etc...You don't get to swing them first but you can use their online fitting systems to customize size/shaft/grip options a little more than just the standard options in a box. I used to have a Pine Meadow driver that I could hit ever bit as far as my brother-in-laws latest greatest. This is a good article about clone clubs http://planet-golf.com/what-are-clone-golf-clubs/ 3 - Used brand name stuff, one man's trash is literally my treasure. Try EBay, Club Finders (or other like websites) and buy a used set of matched irons of proper size/flex (used Ping Eye 2 iron sets go for $90-125 all day) and then piece together your other clubs individually. Again, you won't get to swing them first and you could get burned on a deal along the way...but if you take your time and shop smart, you can assemble a nice bag without breaking the bank this way too. I'm lucky here in Dallas to have a PGA store, a Golfsmith, a dozen Dick's Sports, and also Club Finders Golf (used golf specialist) all within 20 minutes of my house so when I started building a new bag I decided to take the #3 route...but I am considering finishing it off with a couple of new clone wedges rather than going with older/used wedges. Good luck whatever you decide.
    • Great time! Laughs, good conversation and three new good people that I met. Hacker James is a fun character and his daughter is also. She has good setup form and with more playing and practice she can really improve. She hit a few good long drives, out driving her father from the same tees. Hacker James was lagging very well, but nothing fell for him, but he took it like the golfer that he is. Shindig is a great guy and fun to play with and talk with. His golf game is impressive. Long drives, good short game and putter. He's pretty consistent. Consistently out drove me. Shindig was using Game Golf, I'm looking forward to seeing the results. It didn't seem to bother his game.   I got up at 3:00 am, left home around 4, got to the course about 6:30 from Palm Desert. I liked the course. it has a great practice area, broken up into the driving range and different short game areas. The layout of the course was good as well as the fairways and greens. I didn't like some of the sand bunkers with very little sand, but overall it's a good course to play. The employees were friendly as well.   I shot 97, 48 on the front, 49 on the back. I putted so badly.  I missed so many putts within 5 feet. I drove the ball well, not too many out of the fairway, and they were still playable. I got in the sand and out pretty good most of the time, but I missed one short putt after another, it was killing me or better yet I was killing myself. My lagging was hit and miss as well. When I got home I took five putters to the putting green and selected another putter for my next round.  I did hit one of those shots that make you say " Oh yea". It was a 5-wood from the fairway, oh so sweet.  Looking forward to the next outing and meeting other Sand Trap members.    
    • I've always been at best average at speed events like sprinting.  But when I hit the driver well it goes 250 to 260 yards.  I gained maybe 30 to 40 yards this year and I'll turn 59 this December.  I'm 5'11", 150 lbs.  I've had leukemia, high dosage chemo and a bone marrow transplant, 5 years ago.  I'm definately not an example of great health. Most 42 year old men should be able to hit it further than 180 yards. Yes, technic and just as important... swing fast.  You should post a swing video in the member swing section of this forum to get tips from some experts around here.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Dresilved
      Dresilved
      (51 years old)
    2. kpetrina
      kpetrina
      (24 years old)
    3. Luana
      Luana
      (38 years old)
  • Blog Entries