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

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by flopster

Oh please, and those guys before wouldn't know which end of the wrench to hold to adjust the loft on a modern driver, Tiger would be Tiger and Jack would be Jack, he was born in 1975 and was already scratch at around 11 or 12 and players were still hitting perssimon even in 1987 he would have dominated just as much and probably more the PGA tour had Q school back then now you do that just to make it on web.com.

I guess what im saying is there isnt going to be anyone in Tigers shape including Tiger himself if he played back then because it wasnt part of golf to be in that kinda shape strength wise.The condition of the greens back then were clearly not as good as they are nowadays because of knowledge and equipment to work on greens.I think in any sport its not fair to say the earlier years guys were not as good because things are not the same.

No one is saying that the best back then are not as good as the best today.  What is being said is there are more good players now because there are a lot more people playing.

[Aflighter]

No one is saying that the best back then are not as good as the best today.  What is being said is there are more good players now because there are a lot more people playing.

I  agree there.I also think there are better players today due to advancement in everything.

[turtleback]

I guess what im saying is there isnt going to be anyone in Tigers shape including Tiger himself if he played back then because it wasnt part of golf to be in that kinda shape strength wise.The condition of the greens back then were clearly not as good as they are nowadays because of knowledge and equipment to work on greens.I think in any sport its not fair to say the earlier years guys were not as good because things are not the same.

Paging Gary Player.

In any case, no one is arguing about absolute skill level so you are arguing against a straw man.  Every guy on the buy.com tour has a higher skill level than Harry Vardon had for all the reasons you mention.  But that doesn't really mean anything.  He is an all time great and they are essentially anonymous.  Context matters.

[Jakester23]

Paging Gary Player. In any case, no one is arguing about absolute skill level so you are arguing against a straw man.  Every guy on the buy.com tour has a higher skill level than Harry Vardon had for all the reasons you mention.  But that doesn't really mean anything.  He is an all time great and they are essentially anonymous.  Context matters.

Right Jack is the 2nd best golfer ever no one is saying he's not.

[Golfingdad]

Right Jack is the 2nd best golfer ever no one is saying he's not.

Actually, roughly 30% of the 2500 or so people that have voted in the poll on the Jack vs. Tiger thread say he's not the 2nd best ever.

[Jakester23]

Actually, roughly 30% of the 2500 or so people that have voted in the poll on the Jack vs. Tiger thread say he's not the 2nd best ever. :-P

Well yeah but its ok to be wrong sometimes. ;)

[colin007]

Well yeah but its ok to be wrong sometimes. ;)

I agree with The Jakester.

[WUTiger]

One factor I think we're missing: The players of the 1990s and forward have much better equipment than the players of the 60s-70s did.

Could modern players hit a 1-iron off the turf into the green on the final 18th hole to secure a win in the U.S. Open? Ben Hogan did it from 213 yards out at Merion in 1950 (I know, prior to 60s-70s), and then Jack Nicklaus did it at Baltusrol in 1967 from 238 yards out.

If  you could put players of the 60s in a time machine and bring them forward, I bet they would do quite well against modern players if they had hybrids and lob wedges and the hundreds of different graphite shaft models available. We would need to give them a month to practice with the new toys, and to get over the shock that Johnny Carson no longer hosts the Tonight Show. (Before Jay Leno there was a guy named Johnny Carson).

Another factor is the globalization of not just golf, but golf tournaments. Due to improved air travel, people can fly to almost anywhere in the world for a big tournament. The Sixties saw a big jump availability of international air travel, but not to the degree we have today.

[Golfingdad]

One factor I think we're missing: The players of the 1990s and forward have much better equipment than the players of the 60s-70s did.

Seriously?  Come on dude.  If you're going to spend time to write a post like that, at least spend time to read the thread first.  Nobody who pays any attention is "missing" that fact.  It's been addressed countless times in this thread and in the other Jack vs. Tiger thread.  Heck, it was on this same page and only NINE posts above yours that turtleback last addressed it.  And that was TODAY.

http://thesandtrap.com/t/74049/strength-and-depth-of-field-in-jacks-day-and-tigers-day/210_30#post_1091689

[ghalfaire]

No one is saying that the best back then are not as good as the best today.  What is being said is there are more good players now because there are a lot more people playing.

You're correct that isn't what is being said.  I think what the poll implies however that Jack's 18 majors might not as significant an achievement as Tiger' 14 majors (actually the poll includes the US Amateur tournament wins)  because there are more players capable of winning in the field in any tournament today than in Jack's time.  The idea that more players that can win any tournament today is inferred by the fact that the Standard Deviation of the distributions of PGA player scoring is smaller today that in Jack's day (according to Jamo it had reduced from 0.75 strokes to 0.56 strokes since 1980). Well that feels good and is intuitive and from a pure math point you would have to agree that the chances of less accomplished PGA players (lower ranked) winning today is better than in 1960.  However it isn't clear, at least to me that because the chances for a C or B player are better today that they are appreciably better.   But for example if the B players probability of winning went from 1% to 20% it would be clearly an appreciable affect on Tournament outcomes.  However if the reduced standard deviation translated to an increased probability of a B player winning from 1% to 2% I doubt they would ever be a factor just like they were not a factor in Jack's day.  So there still isn't a supportable answer (meaning real data) on which accomplishment is the greater of the two but is it clear the field today is stronger (less difference in scoring ability between top and bottom) than years ago.  Just how that increased strength translates into difficulty in winning and especially in winning majors is still a question in my mind.

[Aflighter]

You're correct that isn't what is being said.  I think what the poll implies however that Jack's 18 majors might not as significant an achievement as Tiger' 14 majors (actually the poll includes the US Amateur tournament wins)  because there are more players capable of winning in the field in any tournament today than in Jack's time.  The idea that more players that can win any tournament today is inferred by the fact that the Standard Deviation of the distributions of PGA player scoring is smaller today that in Jack's day (according to Jamo it had reduced from 0.75 strokes to 0.56 strokes since 1980). Well that feels good and is intuitive and from a pure math point you would have to agree that the chances of less accomplished PGA players (lower ranked) winning today is better than in 1960.  However it isn't clear, at least to me that because the chances for a C or B player are better today that they are appreciably better.   But for example if the B players probability of winning went from 1% to 20% it would be clearly an appreciable affect on Tournament outcomes.  However if the reduced standard deviation translated to an increased probability of a B player winning from 1% to 2% I doubt they would ever be a factor just like they were not a factor in Jack's day.  So there still isn't a supportable answer (meaning real data) on which accomplishment is the greater of the two but is it clear the field today is stronger (less difference in scoring ability between top and bottom) than years ago.  Just how that increased strength translates into difficulty in winning and especially in winning majors is still a question in my mind.

They may have been capable of winning but they all fell on their face scared of Tiger.Im pretty sure MR Hogan or them old greats wouldnt have folded like a tent against Tiger.

[iacas]

They may have been capable of winning but they all fell on their face scared of Tiger.Im pretty sure MR Hogan or them old greats wouldnt have folded like a tent against Tiger.

:doh: Tiger was more dominant against better players.

[ghalfaire]

Tiger was more dominant against better players.

Indeed he was. I doubt his 15 stroke win of the 2000 US Open with a score 272 vs 287 for second place will ever be matched.  I don't recall any major wins with anywhere near that large of margin mid to late 19 ^th century.  I also think his 2008 win on a broken leg was impressive. Sometimes I think the difference between Jack and Tiger is Jack just did what he had to to win (sort of like a few pool hustlers I used to know) and a win by a stroke was as good for him as a win by 5 strokes.  Tiger on the other hand wanted crush his peer group and beat them as badly as he could.  I believe Tiger felt he was on a mission and had something to prove.  I don't know either of the gentlemen but that is my impression of the two.

They may have been capable of winning but they all fell on their face scared of Tiger.I'm pretty sure MR Hogan or them old greats wouldn't have folded like a tent against Tiger.

Probably so.   Ben Hogan surely proved he could overcome adversity in his life and on the course.  Jack, as I said above, did what he needed to win and seem to be able to raise his game when needed.   While I don't know who would have won such a contest with the three of them in their prime,  I'm sure there would have been no "surrender" by any of the players.  The old guys had to be pretty tough just to stay on the tour.  If they were not winning or at least placing well, they were gone or teaching at a club somewhere because you could not make a living being ranked 20 ^th on the tour in earlier years.   Tiger changed all that and  had 70 Million on contract the day he turned professional and I believe he was probably worth every nickle to Nike and Titleist.  I think the money has turned some the modern pros soft.  But certainly not Tiger.

[turtleback]

One factor I think we're missing: The players of the 1990s and forward have much better equipment than the players of the 60s-70s did.

Could modern players hit a 1-iron off the turf into the green on the final 18th hole to secure a win in the U.S. Open? Ben Hogan did it from 213 yards out at Merion in 1950 (I know, prior to 60s-70s), and then Jack Nicklaus did it at Baltusrol in 1967 from 238 yards out.

If  you could put players of the 60s in a time machine and bring them forward, I bet they would do quite well against modern players if they had hybrids and lob wedges and the hundreds of different graphite shaft models available. We would need to give them a month to practice with the new toys, and to get over the shock that Johnny Carson no longer hosts the Tonight Show. (Before Jay Leno there was a guy named Johnny Carson).

Another factor is the globalization of not just golf, but golf tournaments. Due to improved air travel, people can fly to almost anywhere in the world for a big tournament. The Sixties saw a big jump availability of international air travel, but not to the degree we have today.

Thank you for just proving that the improvements in equipment allows players of lesser ability a better chance to compete with players of better ability.  Thereby making it HARDER for the best players to separate themselves.  Which is what Jack said 19 years ago in his book and which has been repeated here by me and others about a thousand times.  So maybe it is YOU that is missing things?  Like what people have actually said?

They may have been capable of winning but they all fell on their face scared of Tiger.Im pretty sure MR Hogan or them old greats wouldnt have folded like a tent against Tiger.

Due respect, but that is nonsense.  Jack himself said that he won a lot of his majors by just being conservative and letting his competitors collapse around him.  The thing no one ever mentions, though, is how could this happen when the players of Jack's era are reputed (mostly by people with rose colored glasses) to be steely eyed competitors who could look him right in the eye and not blink.  How could they both not blink AND collapse??

Well the actual facts are that his competitors blinked a lot.  They gave away majors to Jack in ways that Tiger has never (yet?) got.  Who 3-putted 10 times to allow Tiger into a playoff for the US Open (Arnie did that for Jack).  Who blew a 3-foot putt to win a major and allow Jack back in for a playoff?  (Doug Sanders did that for Jack).  Who bogeyed 18 when a par would have gotten them a playoff? (Norman did that for Jack)

The notion that no one has stood up to Tiger and battled him tough is also just plain silly.  It has happened and sometimes he has won (Rocco, Bob May) and sometimes he has lost (Michel Campbell, YE Yang).  The reality is that if someone is shooting 3 straight 66s at you it really doesn't matter what his name is or how many events he has previously won.  It is sure going to put more pressure on you than a guy who misses a 3-footer to win.

The reality is that if someone watches you pull off an amazing bunker shot to get 8 feet inside you but you then ram it down his throat by making your birdie putt, it really doesn't matter what his name is.  That is sure going to put more pressure on you than 3-putting 10 times over the course of the week.

It is the shots that count, not the name of the person hitting them.

PS:  Hogan got crushed in a US Open playoff by a virtual unknown, so maybe those old guys weren't quite as tough as the rose colored glasses say they were.

[3putter]

Thank you for just proving that the improvements in equipment allows players of lesser ability a better chance to compete with players of better ability.  Thereby making it HARDER for the best players to separate themselves.  Which is what Jack said 19 years ago in his book and which has been repeated here by me and others about a thousand times.  So maybe it is YOU that is missing things?  Like what people have actually said?

Due respect, but that is nonsense.  Jack himself said that he won a lot of his majors by just being conservative and letting his competitors collapse around him.  The thing no one ever mentions, though, is how could this happen when the players of Jack's era are reputed (mostly by people with rose colored glasses) to be steely eyed competitors who could look him right in the eye and not blink.  How could they both not blink AND collapse??

Well the actual facts are that his competitors blinked a lot.  They gave away majors to Jack in ways that Tiger has never (yet?) got.  Who 3-putted 10 times to allow Tiger into a playoff for the US Open (Arnie did that for Jack).  Who blew a 3-foot putt to win a major and allow Jack back in for a playoff?  (Doug Sanders did that for Jack).  Who bogeyed 18 when a par would have gotten them a playoff? (Norman did that for Jack)

The notion that no one has stood up to Tiger and battled him tough is also just plain silly.  It has happened and sometimes he has won (Rocco, Bob May) and sometimes he has lost (Michel Campbell, YE Yang).  The reality is that if someone is shooting 3 straight 66s at you it really doesn't matter what his name is or how many events he has previously won.  It is sure going to put more pressure on you than a guy who misses a 3-footer to win.

The reality is that if someone watches you pull off an amazing bunker shot to get 8 feet inside you but you then ram it down his throat by making your birdie putt, it really doesn't matter what his name is.  That is sure going to put more pressure on you than 3-putting 10 times over the course of the week.

It is the shots that count, not the name of the person hitting them.

PS:  Hogan got crushed in a US Open playoff by a virtual unknown, so maybe those old guys weren't quite as tough as the rose colored glasses say they were.

Very well said.

[ghalfaire]

Due respect, but that is nonsense.  Jack himself said that he won a lot of his majors by just being conservative and letting his competitors collapse around him.  The thing no one ever mentions, though, is how could this happen when the players of Jack's era are reputed (mostly by people with rose colored glasses) to be steely eyed competitors who could look him right in the eye and not blink.  How could they both not blink AND collapse??

PS:  Hogan got crushed in a US Open playoff by a virtual unknown, so maybe those old guys weren't quite as tough as the rose colored glasses say they were.

Just because Jack said that doesn't make it so.

Maybe your post script just means that lower ranked players had as much a chance to win then as they do now and therefor it was just as difficult for the better player to separate themselves from field as it is today.

[turtleback]

Just because Jack said that doesn't make it so.

Maybe your post script just means that lower ranked players had as much a chance to win then as they do now and therefor it was just as difficult for the better player to separate themselves from field as it is today.

Well, with all of those counter-examples you provided, I'm convinced.

That you are now just being delusional.

[Golfingdad]

Well the actual facts are that his competitors blinked a lot.  They gave away majors to Jack in ways that Tiger has never (yet?) got.  Who 3-putted 10 times to allow Tiger into a playoff for the US Open (Arnie did that for Jack).  Who blew a 3-foot putt to win a major and allow Jack back in for a playoff?  (Doug Sanders did that for Jack).  Who bogeyed 18 when a par would have gotten them a playoff? (Norman did that for Jack)

Great post, but I think this part specifically just needs to be cataloged and referenced each time somebody tries to make the nonsensical "everybody was intimidated of Tiger and laid down to him" argument.