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

[9iron]

Second, he wrote "bullshit" once.

Acknowledged. He did in fact write it once. Once too many times. I repeated it for effect and fully acknowledge that I did exactly that.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by billchao

Second, he wrote "bullshit" once.

Acknowledged. He did in fact write it once. Once too many times. I repeated it for effect and fully acknowledge that I did exactly that.

Let's all take a breath and relax.  It is a discussion and should not escalate.  Thank you.

[mvmac]

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.

Bill is an open minded guy as are most of us that are disagreeing with you.

@9iron , the fields are stronger in the Tiger era than they were in the Nicklaus era. There are more players that have a legitimate chance to win than in Jack's day. You can't possibly think the #50 guy in 1975 is better than the #50 in 2005.

@Phil McGleno played on tour (I think it was the late 60's) and says if he had to play now he might not even make it on the Web.com tour. My great uncle would play the west coast swing in the late 50's/early 60's and he was just a club pro. Now if you want to play in an event as a club or mini tour pro you have to shoot something under par to get to Monday, then a number in the low 60's, then beat 4 other guys that shot 64 on a course they've only played once or twice. Come on dude, use some common sense, the guys playing now are just better.

[9iron]

Erik, in your opinion, if a player on tour is good enough to win a PGA Tour event, is he also good enough to win a Major? Yes or No? I'm not asking if the player will win a major, just whether or not you consider such a player good enough to possibly win a major.

For instance, if a Player is good enough to win The Waste Management or Farmer's Insurance, are they also good enough to win a Major? What is your opinion on this?

For the sake of this question you can remove all "B" or Alternate Events, plus anything that is a team event. I am only talking about full field events on the PGA Tour.

[9iron]

Erik, in your opinion, if a player on tour is good enough to win a PGA Tour event, is he also good enough to win a Major? Yes or No? I'm not asking if the player will win a major, just whether or not you consider such a player good enough to possibly win a major.

For instance, if a Player is good enough to win The Waste Management or Farmer's Insurance, are they also good enough to win a Major? What is your opinion on this?

For the sake of this question you can remove all "B" or Alternate Events, plus anything that is a team event. I am only talking about full field events on the PGA Tour.

Erik, I ran out of time to edit my prior post here, but also could you consider the above question in reply to the European Tour. If a player is good enouigh to win, say, The Open D Espana, Nordea Masters, or KLM, are they good enough to win a major tournament. And again, I am not asking you if they ever will win a major, just whether or not you consider them to have the ability to possibly win a major.

[iacas]

Erik, in your opinion, if a player on tour is good enough to win a PGA Tour event, is he also good enough to win a Major? Yes or No? I'm not asking if the player will win a major, just whether or not you consider such a player good enough to possibly win a major.

@9iron , my answers to your questions should be pretty obvious by now, and I have little to no interest in further discussing this with you. I think, to this point, you've patently refused to acknowledge the obvious. When others have debated your misleading or untruthful statements, you've gotten rude. This thread is not about my opinion, but the simple concept of how much stronger the fields are today over the fields of the 1960s and 70s.

[9iron]

@9iron, my answers to your questions should be pretty obvious by now, and I have little to no interest in further discussing this with you. I think, to this point, you've patently refused to acknowledge the obvious. When others have debated your misleading or untruthful statements, you've gotten rude. This thread is not about my opinion, but the simple concept of how much stronger the fields are today over the fields of the 1960s and 70s.

Erik,I don't believe it is as clear cut as is made out here, nor as simple. I have read the arguments made and just do not necessarily buy them lock, stock, and barrel. You guys think nearly anyone on tour can win a major, or so it would seem, but I don't agree. If they could, they would.

You won't be interested in this data point from the year of Tiger's last major win, but some others may so I'm going to cite it.

• A PGA Tour breakdown of its 2008 season showed that the top one-fifth of Tour money-winners earned 53 percent of that year’s purses. The bottom one-fifth on the money list earned just 1 percent of the total 2008 purses.
• http://golftips.golfsmith.com/calculate-payout-professional-golf-tournaments-20519.html

The citation is at the bottom of the above linked article.

Very few players over the many years that majors have been contested, in both jack's day and in Tiger's day, have been won by just anyone. Not all, but the overwhelming majority are won by the top players, and that is in both eras. There is a nice chart roughly half way down this page that shows this is true, even in Tiger's era.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_World_Golf_Ranking

[colin007]

Erik,I don't believe it is as clear cut as is made out here, nor as simple. I have read the arguments made and just do not necessarily buy them lock, stock, and barrel. You guys think nearly anyone on tour can win a major, or so it would seem, but I don't agree. If they could, they would.

You won't be interested in this data point from the year of Tiger's last major win, but some others may so I'm going to cite it.

A PGA Tour breakdown of its 2008 season showed that the top one-fifth of Tour money-winners earned 53 percent of that year’s purses. The bottom one-fifth on the money list earned just 1 percent of the total 2008 purses.

http://golftips.golfsmith.com/calculate-payout-professional-golf-tournaments-20519.html

The citation is at the bottom of the above linked article.

Very few players over the many years that majors have been contested, in both jack's day and in Tiger's day, have been won by just anyone. Not all, but the overwhelming majority are won by the top players, and that is in both eras. There is a nice chart roughly half way down this page that shows this is true, even in Tiger's era.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_World_Golf_Ranking

it seems like you have no clue as to how the money break-down works on these purses.

[9iron]

it seems like you have no clue as to how the money break-down works on these purses.

You'd be wrong in that belief. I know exactly what the formula is, and despite the fact it isn't mentioned here hardly ever that formula plays a part in how money is concentrated at the top. Not as much of an influence as some other thjings that the Tour has done, but a significant influence none the less.

[billchao]

You'd be wrong in that belief. I know exactly what the formula is, and despite the fact it isn't mentioned here hardly ever that formula plays a part in how money is concentrated at the top. Not as much of an influence as some other thjings that the Tour has done, but a significant influence none the less.

Distribution of tournament purses is not the topic of this thread. You may feel free to start a new one if you'd like to discuss it.

[iacas]

Erik,I don't believe it is as clear cut as is made out here, nor as simple. I have read the arguments made and just do not necessarily buy them lock, stock, and barrel. You guys think nearly anyone on tour can win a major, or so it would seem, but I don't agree. If they could, they would.

Far, far, far more people can win now than in Jack's day. Again, Harry Vardon had to beat, what, like three people? Hogan had to beat more. Arnie a few more. Jack a few more. Tiger more more more. Rory… more.

Also, again: you and I are tasked with creating the best football team of 19 and 20 year old men we can. Your town has 500 men of such age. My town has 500,000.

Our teams play 20 games. Does your team win at all?

You won't be interested in this data point from the year of Tiger's last major win, but some others may so I'm going to cite it.

Why would I be interested in how the purse is broken down? As @billchao said…

Distribution of tournament purses is not the topic of this thread. You may feel free to start a new one if you'd like to discuss it.

[jamo]

Also, again: you and I are tasked with creating the best football team of 19 and 20 year old men we can. Your town has 500 men of such age. My town has 500,000. Our teams play 20 games. Does your team win at all?

Don't forget, the town of 500,000 has also been raised since childhood in specialized sports training, with the ability to play year-round and access to cameras and state-of-the-art instruction.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Also, again: you and I are tasked with creating the best football team of 19 and 20 year old men we can. Your town has 500 men of such age. My town has 500,000.

Our teams play 20 games. Does your team win at all?

Don't forget, the town of 500,000 has also been raised since childhood in specialized sports training, with the ability to play year-round and access to cameras and state-of-the-art instruction.

They also have had better nutrition and are physically stronger and healthier due to advances in medicine.

[9iron]

Distribution of tournament purses is not the topic of this thread. You may feel free to start a new one if you'd like to discuss it.

Actually, distribution of tour winnings i.e. standard deviation of money earned is brought up in this article

http://thesandtrap.com/b/thrash_talk/tiger_vs_jack

which is linked on more than one page of this thread. The article attempts to use the standard deviation of tour winnings to illustrate that the tour has greater depth of field today than in the past, but it lacks context in a variety of ways. In Jack's era the top players earned about the same percentage of the tour allotment as in Tiger's era, but the bottom players earned less than in recent years. The standard deviation is more influenced by the bottom players earning slightly more (hard to believe since they still only take about 1% of total purses) than by the top earning about the same.  The article does not attempt to discuss how players today are shut out of tournaments due to the way the Tour protects power players via the exempt lists. The article does not make clear how wide the disparity in winnings between the top and bottom quintiles actually is, and what this says about the tour.

The article I linked shows that tour winnings are still extremely imbalanced. Without this context the thrash article could paint an inaccurate picture of the tour becoming more balanced when in fact that is not the case. Since the advent of the guaranteed exemption list in 1983 and the WGC events, more of the tour winnings are concentrated at the to[p than even back in Jack's day.

[9iron]

Far, far, far more people can win now than in Jack's day. Again, Harry Vardon had to beat, what, like three people? Hogan had to beat more. Arnie a few more. Jack a few more. Tiger more more more. Rory… more.

Erik, it is not as clear cut as you make it, plus what you say here is a far cry from things you have written in the past. In the article I linked above you are shown in the comments to say that Jack had to beat 10 to 20 players. That is just not so.

In 1982 the following players playing in major championships did not make the top 20 in 1981 PGA money list. Some opf these players are not even in the top 40 or 50, yet they are household names to true golf fans.

Larry Nelson

Tom Weiskopf

Scott Simpson

Fuzzy Zoeller

Bill Rogers

Peter Oosterhuis

Lou Graham

David Graham

Payne Stewart

Andy North

Fred Couples

Hubert Green

John Mahaffey

Nick Faldo

Ben Crenshaw

Lee Trevino

Larry Mize

Nick Price

Then you have Eurpeans and I'll name a few

Seve

Greg Norman

Sandy Lyle

Sam Torrance

Bernhard Langer

Ian Woosnam

Tony Jacklin

Bob Charles

If you count the top 20 + the men named here, you are already at close to 50 players who had enough ability to win a championship in 1982. There are a lot more players that my limited research does not show who had won on Tour in the prior 5 to 6 years that I did not even list. You have implied that if a player could win on tour that he could also win a major. If I listed all those players, then I'd get more than 80 names, maybe close to 100.

Mahaffey was ranked 150 on the money list the year before he won his major. Judging by your comments, you'd have written him off. Jertry Pate was ranked 181 on the momney liost the year prior to hjis major win. So players came from way off the lead to win majors back in jack's day, just as they opccassionally do in Tiger's day. Still, it is not the norm. Almost all majors then, and now, are concentratyed in the better players. Getting close is one thing, CLOSING, meaning winning, is something altogether more difficult to do. Even today.

[billchao]

Actually, distribution of tour winnings i.e. standard deviation of money earned is brought up in this article [U][COLOR=555555][URL=http://thesandtrap.com/b/thrash_talk/tiger_vs_jack]http://thesandtrap.com/b/thrash_talk/tiger_vs_jack[/URL][/COLOR][/U] which is linked on more than one page of this thread. The article attempts to use the standard deviation of tour winnings to illustrate that the tour has greater depth of field today than in the past, but it lacks context in a variety of ways. In Jack's era the top players earned about the same percentage of the tour allotment as in Tiger's era, but the bottom players earned less than in recent years. The standard deviation is more influenced by the bottom players earning slightly more (hard to believe since they still only take about 1% of total purses) than by the top earning about the same.  The article does not attempt to discuss how players today are shut out of tournaments due to the way the Tour protects power players via the exempt lists. The article does not make clear how wide the disparity in winnings between the top and bottom quintiles actually is, and what this says about the tour.  The article I linked shows that tour winnings are still extremely imbalanced. Without this context the thrash article could paint an inaccurate picture of the tour becoming more balanced when in fact that is not the case. Since the advent of the guaranteed exemption list in 1983 and the WGC events, more of the tour winnings are concentrated at the to[p than even back in Jack's day.

Uh, no. Distribution of tour winnings was a small part of that article. The meat of the depth of field argument in that article, which you conveniently ignored, is the standard deviation of stroke averages has gone down.

[iacas]

Erik, it is not as clear cut as you make it, plus what you say here is a far cry from things you have written in the past. In the article I linked above you are shown in the comments to say that Jack had to beat 10 to 20 players. That is just not so.

Sure it is. Jack had to beat very few players relative to Tiger Woods. Furthermore, I like how you cherry-picked 1982… after which Jack won one major (and a bit of a fluke at that). How about the fields in the 1960s and 1970s? How about the Ryder Cup teams as listed earlier? Payne Stewart? He hadn't even made the top 20 in a major until 1985. Didn't win until 1989. You're just listing names. For all you know, Rickie Fowler will win six majors in his career and we'll be talking about Tiger Woods having to play against him from 2009 (or whenever) onward.

You're reaching quite a bit.

Now, kindly answer the question about the football teams, because at a very basic level, you seem unable to grok the very basic point it makes.

[Wally Fairway]

Sure it is. Jack had to beat very few players relative to Tiger Woods. Furthermore, I like how you cherry-picked 1982… after which Jack won one major (and a bit of a fluke at that). How about the fields in the 1960s and 1970s? How about the Ryder Cup teams as listed earlier? Payne Stewart? He hadn't even made the top 20 in a major until 1985. Didn't win until 1989. You're just listing names. For all you know, Rickie Fowler will win six majors in his career and we'll be talking about Tiger Woods having to play against him from 2009 (or whenever) onward.

You're reaching quite a bit.

Now, kindly answer the question about the football teams, because at a very basic level, you seem unable to grok the very basic point it makes.

When did Rickie & Tiger compete for majors?

Tiger last won a major in 2008 & Rickie has 1 tour win.

Now if Rickie does win those 6 majors it will be competing with Rory, Spieth and some unnamed kid who graduated high school in 2012 and not against Tiger (see the multiple retirement speculation threads)

I have no doubt the field is stronger today, but this Rickie comment is like your there are 50 Tom Watsons.

IMO - there is a big difference between scoring and winning; tons of people can put up scores on Thur/Fri/Sat but cannot close the deal on Sunday. Watson gets coffee because he is a closer. I'm waiting to see who, other than Rory can consistently do that in this generation.