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

[Golfingdad]

Bottom line is back then you had around 10 guys who could win and today i think you have about 20 so all in all its not too much different than back then.

A 100% increase in the quantity of the competition is "not too different?"

[Aflighter]

A 100% increase in the quantity of the competition is "not too different?"

20 Compared to 10 back then is about the same considering the game is bigger now and more competitors.Only adding 10 more with all the talent these days isnt all that.What im saying is the top 10 back then is like the top 20 now.Just trying to say that no matter how good todays golfers are the rest of the 144 man field doesnt have that much of a chance of winning.

[Phil McGleno]

20 Compared to 10 back then is about the same considering the game is bigger now and more competitors.Only adding 10 more with all the talent these days isnt all that.What im saying is the top 10 back then is like the top 20 now.Just trying to say that no matter how good todays golfers are the rest of the 144 man field doesnt have that much of a chance of winning.

You are wrong. I played PGA Tour events. I am not sure I would make it on the mini tours these days.

[turtleback]

So how many majors does Rory need to get to be considered GOAT? Is the field now stronger or weaker than Tiger's? Has to be stronger, right? I think tour wins needs to carry more weight as well. I get that Snead won a bunch of nonsense tournaments, but Tiger and Rory will have played roughly the same quality of tournaments.

In other threads, I didn't think Rory had a shot of catching Tiger's level of dominance. I'm starting to think I was wrong.

He is doing great in terms of majors.  But the minute you ask how many majors does he need to become GOAT the discussion is already off-kilter for those who take a more holistic approach.

The really hard thing for Rory is going to be the other things.  The level of dominance things.  How does his stroke average compare with his contemporaries on a year to year basis?  How many Vardon and POYs?  How many tour victories?  He certainly may be able to do that, but at the end of the 2104 season Rory was 25-1/2.  Tiger was 25-1/2 in June of 2000.  Right before the greatest 4 year stretch of golf anyone has ever seen - and then he did it again a couple of years later.  THAT is going to be the tough stretch for Rory, IMO.

[Silent]

In my opinion the poll is missing an answer: both equally impressive.

Like I said before: if Tiger would have lived in the era of Jack, while Jack was living in the era of Tiger, they both would still get amazing results. It's a fact that today's field is stronger, but that doesn't mean that Jack would win less majors in this time then Tiger did. We can discuss wether it's likely or not, but simply can not know. As we can never know how much better golfer Jack would be if he had the material, trainings methods etc. as they have today (and Tiger had).

[boogielicious]

In my opinion the poll is missing an answer: both equally impressive.

Like I said before: if Tiger would have lived in the era of Jack, while Jack was living in the era of Tiger, they both would still get amazing results. It's a fact that today's field is stronger, but that doesn't mean that Jack would win less majors in this time then Tiger did. We can discuss wether it's likely or not, but simply can not know. As we can never know how much better golfer Jack would be if he had the material, trainings methods etc. as they have today (and Tiger had).

But that is not the point of the poll.  It is not Jack v Tiger.  It is the 150 guys in the 1960-1986 field versus 1999 - today.  The field is stronger today.

[Silent]

But that is not the point of the poll.  It is not Jack v Tiger.  It is the 150 guys in the 1960-1986 field versus 1999 - today.  The field is stronger today.

Ah yes, offcourse. My mistake, I apologzie. It would have been more clear to me if the poll was about the same amount of major wins then (what's more impressive, 20 back then or 20 now, for example). In that case, not looking at individual players, it's definetly more impressive to win 20 majors in the current period since the field in total is stronger.

[9iron]

Charting only the winners does little to speak to the topic of depth or dominance.

Consider a golf tournament taking place in the year 2000.

Tiger Woods wins it.

That does little to tell you about the depth of the field. Was it a PGA Championship (strongest field of any major)? Or did Tiger play a charity event against some high school golfers for fun?

Looking at the winners does little to tell you about the depth of the field.

Imagine two scenarios, which I'm making extreme for simplicity's sake. The "player ratings" I'm giving to people are going to be of the letter grades as follows:

A) One of the all-time best players.

B) Someone who keeps his Tour card most years, but wins maybe one to three times in a career.

C) A fringe player; he may get his Tour card one year with a hot streak at Q-School, but that's his pinnacle.

D) A mini-tour player.

Imagine a PGA Tour field with:

a) 5 A players

b) 20 B players

c) 75 C players

You might expect to see the five players win a fair amount, the 20 grab a win now and then too, and the C players to occasionally get a top 5 finish.

Now imagine:

a) 5 A players

b) 93 B players

c) 2 C players

You'd expect to see almost the same results the way you've accounted for things, yet the second field is WAY deeper.

Simply put, you're still confusing "winners" with "depth of field."

Erik, two questions.

One, am I correct in saying that you have stated your belief that the PGA Championship has the best field among majors?

Two, in the examples of 2 fields that you give above I can see that you are saying that Field B is deeper than Field A, but in objective terms as this would apply to a Major Championship are you suggesting in the deeper (presumably Tiger Era) that 98% of the players have a chance at winning? I don't want to assume anything, so if you don't believe that 98% of the players in a major championship have a chance of winning, then what percentage would you give it?

Some people asked me to respond to some earlier posts, and like an idiot I am about to do so as I have done a little research, but I would like to see your answers to these questions before doing that. Thanks in advance.

[iacas]

One, am I correct in saying that you have stated your belief that the PGA Championship has the best field among majors?

I don't believe I ever said "best." That's very subjective.

As measured by strength of field using "strength of field" calculations considered commonplace (OWGR, etc.) the PGA Championship has the strongest field. That's objective.

Two, in the examples of 2 fields that you give above I can see that you are saying that Field B is deeper than Field A, but in objective terms as this would apply to a Major Championship are you suggesting in the deeper (presumably Tiger Era) that 98% of the players have a chance at winning? I don't want to assume anything, so if you don't believe that 98% of the players in a major championship have a chance of winning, then what percentage would you give it?

I'm not putting a number on a hypothetical example or something which changes year to year. The PGA Championship has 20 PGA Club Pros playing in it and they aren't gonna win. Most or sometimes even all don't make the cut.

So… no. I would not say 98%.

Furthermore, again, the example above pointed out that by looking only at the WINNER you could not tell much about the DEPTH of the field.

[9iron]

Erik, you just called the PGA the strongest field using depth of field measures. I'm happy to remove the club [pros from the equation but I want to be certain that you would call this the deepest field, and it appears that are doing that.

OK, so taking the club pros out of it altogether and looking only at Tour Professionals, what percentage, on average, would you say can actually win a major championship. On average therse days. Your thesis is that fields are deeper today than they were in jack's day, so what percentage can actually win today, thus depriving Tiger of winning and what percentage would you say could have won back in Jack's Era, thus depriving Jack of winning another major. Isn't this the point? Tiger would have won more except the fields were deeper, thus keeping his number lower than it otherwise could have been had he been playing against the relatively weaker fields jack played agaimnst? That is the claim, right? So let's put percentages on it.

[boogielicious]

Erik, you just called the PGA the strongest field using depth of field measures. I'm happy to remove the club [pros from the equation but I want to be certain that you would call this the deepest field, and it appears that are doing that.

OK, so taking the club pros out of it altogether and looking only at Tour Professionals, what percentage, on average, would you say can actually win a major championship. On average therse days. Your thesis is that fields are deeper today than they were in jack's day, so what percentage can actually win today, thus depriving Tiger of winning and what percentage would you say could have won back in Jack's Era, thus depriving Jack of winning another major. Isn't this the point? Tiger would have won more except the fields were deeper, thus keeping his number lower than it otherwise could have been had he been playing against the relatively weaker fields jack played agaimnst? That is the claim, right? So let's put percentages on it.

The field is eleventy hundred percent better today.

[9iron]

Bullshit.

I've posted over and over again the way these supposed greats fell apart in competition against Jack starting with his very first major, year the US Open playoff against Arnie.  But there would never have even been a playoff if Arnie had not putted crappy - 10 3-putts in 4 rounds?

So nobody ever putted lousy against Tiger? Who knew?

Bullshit.

Then there is Doug Sanders who gifted Jack with a British Open.

So I guess what you are claiming here is that Jack didn't even have to show up in that final round, or the playoff round? Huh. Who knew? You do realize that Sanders outplayed Jack by 2 strokes over the final 2 regulation rounds of the 1970 Open Championship? You do realize as well that Nicklaus had to birdie the final playoff hole of an 18 hole playoff to beat Sanders by 1 stroke over 5 rounds of golf. That final totals were 355 strokes for Nicklaus and 356 strokes for Sanders, but to your simple narrow minded viewpoint the only thing that matters was a single 4 foot putt? You do realize that Bob May, Chris DiMarco, and Rocco Mediate who got into playoffs for Major titles with Tiger Woods all missed four foot putts in those events? Or perhaps you do not realize that. Maybe you really are that narrow minded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

Bullshit.

Then there are Greg Norman and Seve who both had to throw up on themselves to make Jack closing round in 1986 more than just a nice footnote.

LOL. Norman and Seve both shot 2 under par 70 in that final round of the 1986 Masters, and you describe that level of golf as "threw up all over themselves"?  You are so narrow minded it isn't funny. Also, Tom Kite who finished T2 shot -4 that day, and Jay Haas, also on the leaderboard shot -5 that day. Jack won not because his competition threw up all over themselves that day, but because he shot a 7 under 65. You have to be really close minded to think that everyone else lost that day, as opposed to Jack winning it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

Bullshit.

1968 Masters - Palmer shoots 38 on the back nine to finish 2 shots back.

You are losing your mind now. Arnie did not shoot a 38 on the back 9 of the 1968 masters at all. He didn't shoot anything in that final round except maybe if he were duck hunting that day,

because he missed the cut in the 1968 Masters. Bob Goalby won that Tournament went Roberto DeVicenzo signed his scorecard incorrectly. Who us full of crap here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

Bullshit.

How ironic, most of the "tough competitor" talk is based on the times Watson and Trevino beat him.  Maybe if Tiger had lost to Bob May and Rocco Mediate, both of whom played a LOT tougher than many of those past greats played against Jack . . . .

This is pretty funny. Not to take anything away from Mediate, but when Doug Sanders was shooting 2 strokes better than Nicklaus over the final two rounds of the 1970 Open Championship         you deemed him a chump, but in the 2008 US Open Mediate shot the exact same score as Tiger over the final 2 rounds and he played tougher than the guys who played against Jack?

Additionally, in the final round of the 2008 Open 6 players that finished in the top 10 shot the same or even better score than Mediate. Also, you make no mention that Mediate bogeyed the    15th hole on Sunday and failed to match Tiger's birdie on that reachable 18th as well, thus leading to the playoff. And in the playoff Mediate shot the exact same score relative to par, meaning +1 to par, that Doug sanders shot way back in 1970 against Jack. But Doug Sanders is a chump while Mediate is the best in your mind? Wow. Just wow.

[Golfingdad]

You are losing your mind now. Arnie did not shoot a 38 on the back 9 of the 1968 masters at all. He didn't shoot anything in that final round except maybe if he were duck hunting that day,  because he missed the cut in the 1968 Masters. Bob Goalby won that Tournament went Roberto DeVicenzo signed his scorecard incorrectly. Who us full of crap here?

Why do people make arguments like this?  Did it not dawn on you that perhaps he just misremembered the exact year or made a typo?  You actually think he's trying to make up something entirely to trick you into buying a false argument?  Please ... have some common sense.

(I'm guessing here - by doing a tiny bit of research - that he may have meant 1966.)

Is that right, @turtleback ?

[9iron]

Why do people make arguments like this?  Did it not dawn on you that perhaps he just misremembered the exact year or made a typo?  You actually think he's trying to make up something entirely to trick you into buying a false argument?  Please ... have some common sense.

(I'm guessing here - by doing a tiny bit of research  - that he may have meant 1966.)

Is that right, @turtleback ?

It isn't like he will read or even consider anything I wrote anyway. I wrote that mainly for others who are not as close minded as turtleback. At least now they can view his rant in another different light. I just gave that one to him because he likes the word Bullshit so much.

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9iron

You are losing your mind now. Arnie did not shoot a 38 on the back 9 of the 1968 masters at all. He didn't shoot anything in that final round except maybe if he were duck hunting that day,

because he missed the cut in the 1968 Masters. Bob Goalby won that Tournament went Roberto DeVicenzo signed his scorecard incorrectly. Who us full of crap here?

I am responding to this because it is the only part of that post that made any sense.  You are right, it was a typo.  I meant to type 1966,  Thanks for catching that error.

As to the rest of your response, it is laughable.

Quote:

So nobody ever putted lousy against Tiger? Who knew?

Yeah, that was exactly the argument I was making.  Sheesh!  What does how people putt against Tiger have to do with your ridiculous contention that Jack had to face players who " did not back down. "    It is this (lack of) quality in your argument that makes no one take you seriously.  You come up with complete non sequiturs.

Look at this one in isolation:

Your Proposition:  Jack played players who didn't back down

My Rebuttal:: Arnie 3 putted 10 times in the '62 Open to let Jack into the playoff

Your Response: So nobody ever putted lousy against Tiger?

Not only does the response not have anything to do with EITHER the proposition nor the rebuttal, but it is arguing against a point no one has ever made to tried to make..  Where did anyone claim that no one ever putted lousy against Tiger?  For that matter where did anyone claim that people always putted poorly against Jack?

And yes, I was claiming that Jack didn't even have to show up for the fourth round.  It is well known that in many of his majors they just told Jack not to bother showing up for round 4.  The funny thing was that his 3 round score would invariably beat everyone else's 4 round score.  Wow you figured out the secret to Jack's success.

[billchao]

It isn't like he will read or even consider anything I wrote anyway. I wrote that mainly for others who are not as close minded as turtleback. At least now they can view his rant in another different light. I just gave that one to him because he likes the word Bullshit so much.

For starters, @turtleback would have and did read your post, despite your wrong assumptions about him. Second, he wrote "bullshit" once. Just one single time, despite the way you quoted his post and edited it to grossly misrepresented him. Kind of ironic, actually, for someone who was so offended by being misquoted, as you accused @iacas of doing it earlier in the thread: [quote name="9iron" url="/t/74049/strength-and-depth-of-field-in-jacks-day-and-tigers-day/240#post_1101480"]You took my prior posts and sort of twisted and contorted them. [/quote] If you ask me, I believe you owe Rich an apology.

[9iron]

I am responding to this because it is the only part of that post that made any sense.  You are right, it was a typo.  I meant to type 1966,  Thanks for catching that error.

As to the rest of your response, it is laughable.

Yeah, that was exactly the argument I was making.  Sheesh!  What does how people putt against Tiger have to do with your ridiculous contention that Jack had to face players who "did not back down. "    It is this (lack of) quality in your argument that makes no one take you seriously.  You come up with complete non sequiturs.

Look at this one in isolation:

Your Proposition:  Jack played players who didn't back down

My Rebuttal:: Arnie 3 putted 10 times in the '62 Open to let Jack into the playoff

Your Response: So nobody ever putted lousy against Tiger?

Not only does the response not have anything to do with EITHER the proposition nor the rebuttal, but it is arguing against a point no one has ever made to tried to make..  Where did anyone claim that no one ever putted lousy against Tiger?  For that matter where did anyone claim that people always putted poorly against Jack?

And yes, I was claiming that Jack didn't even have to show up for the fourth round.  It is well known that in many of his majors they just told Jack not to bother showing up for round 4.  The funny thing was that his 3 round score would invariably beat everyone else's 4 round score.  Wow you figured out the secret to Jack's success.

C'mon, you are blind to any other point of view on this subject that does not agree with your own. I have said before that people go way overboard and this has become "religion" for some people, and your post does nothing to diminish that claim.

This is for bill as well as you; you may have read my post, but you don't really thoughtfully consider any opposing ideas on this subject. That is why I gave you my prior one word answer. Taking the time to respond to you is literally a waste of time. You are narrow minded on this subject at best, and totally close minded at worst.

[turtleback]

C'mon, you are blind to any other point of view on this subject that does not agree with your own. I have said before that people go way overboard and this has become "religion" for some people, and your post does nothing to diminish that claim.

This is for bill as well as you; you may have read my post, but you don't really thoughtfully consider any opposing ideas on this subject. That is why I gave you my prior one word answer. Taking the time to respond to you is literally a waste of time. You are narrow minded on this subject at best, and totally close minded at worst.

Damn, there goes that exploding irony meter again.