Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Phil McGleno

Strength and Depth of Field  

90 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.
      12
    • Winning 17 majors in the 90s-10s.
      150


Recommended Posts

  • Administrator
When did Rickie & Tiger compete for majors?

You appear to have unwittingly made my point.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

You appear to have unwittingly made my point.

You seem to completely miss the point that scoring is different than winning.

I think you have to be a ton better to play on tour today than you did 20, 30 or 40 years ago - but is the point of the thread just getting in the field or is it the ability to win and even more so to win in majors.

Because the thread title states one thing, the poll asks another.

Players play, tough players win!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

They both had to beat the players that were there. No more, no less. And since you did not claim to the contrary, then I am going to just state that you are in agreement that if a player can win on tour then he at least has the phsyical ability, if not the psychological ability, to win a major. You seem to think such players didn't exist to any real degree in the 1960's and 70's, but that is simply not true.

If I made a list of first time winners per year, or players having won one of their first three events in a given year from in Jack's day and compared it to Tiger's day, the numbers are fairly close. There are only two or three more per year now vs. then, so that hardly equates to 100 vs. 10 to 20 that you state could possibly win.

Also, the tour's exempt momney list has created a whole new category of golfer that simply did not exist back in Jack's day. The multi millionairre golfer who keeps his card for years but never wins anything with top players in the field. You say Tiger had to beat all these great players, but I say those players were happy as hell to keep losing to Tiger, just so long as they got to keep their card and keep cashing those checks for finishing 30th, 40th, or 50th. They might have the physical skill set and ability, but they lack the true burning desire to close the deal and carry the mantle. In other words, they were never going to win a major unless everyone folded and just gave it to them. Those players can be seen on tour every week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator
You seem to completely miss the point that scoring is different than winning.

All due respect, but no, and I'm not sure what I said that implies that. [quote name="Wally Fairway" url="/t/74049/strength-and-depth-of-field-in-jacks-day-and-tigers-day/300#post_1104438"]I think you have to be a ton better to play on tour today than you did 20, 30 or 40 years ago - but is the point of the thread just getting in the field or is it the ability to win and even more so to win in majors.[/quote] Like Keegan Bradley winning his first major? You win by shooting scores. Players these days have been raised to shoot them. They're miles better than in the 60s. #50 in the 60s wasn't anywhere near the same level as #50 today. Perhaps you could answer my football question. I'll respond to 9I later. Edit: no I won't. He's on the same old train and refuses to answer my football question. He also likely refuses to acknowledge that Jack himself disagrees with him.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

All due respect, but no, and I'm not sure what I said that implies that.

Like Keegan Bradley winning his first major? You win by shooting scores. Players these days have been raised champions. They're miles better. #50 in the 60s wasn't anywhere near the same level as #50 today.

Perhaps you could answer my football question.

I'll respond to 9I later. Edit: no I won't. He's on the same old train and refuses to answer my football question. He also likely refuses to acknowledge that Jack himself disagrees with him.

I missed your football question, but don't repeat it because I'm out of this thread because it is the same as the GOAT thread.

Everyone has made up their mind and is just trying to convince those on the other side how wrong they are.

Players play, tough players win!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

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?

They both had to beat the players that were there. No more, no less. And since you did not claim to the contrary, then I am going to just state that you are in agreement that if a player can win on tour then he at least has the phsyical ability, if not the psychological ability, to win a major. You seem to think such players didn't exist to any real degree in the 1960's and 70's, but that is simply not true.

If I made a list of first time winners per year, or players having won one of their first three events in a given year from in Jack's day and compared it to Tiger's day, the numbers are fairly close. There are only two or three more per year now vs. then, so that hardly equates to 100 vs. 10 to 20 that you state could possibly win.

Also, the tour's exempt momney list has created a whole new category of golfer that simply did not exist back in Jack's day. The multi millionairre golfer who keeps his card for years but never wins anything with top players in the field. You say Tiger had to beat all these great players, but I say those players were happy as hell to keep losing to Tiger, just so long as they got to keep their card and keep cashing those checks for finishing 30th, 40th, or 50th. They might have the physical skill set and ability, but they lack the true burning desire to close the deal and carry the mantle. In other words, they were never going to win a major unless everyone folded and just gave it to them. Those players can be seen on tour every week.

Let's try Greek.

 Το πεδίο σήμερα PGA αν πολύ ισχυρότερη από ό, τι στη δεκαετία του 1960 και του 1970

Scott

Titleist, Edel, Scotty Cameron Putter, Snell - AimPoint - Evolvr - MirrorVision

My Swing Thread

boogielicious - Adjective describing the perfect surf wave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator

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

When did Greg Norman and Bob Charles become Europeans? ;-)

They both had to beat the players that were there. No more, no less. And since you did not claim to the contrary, then I am going to just state that you are in agreement that if a player can win on tour then he at least has the phsyical ability, if not the psychological ability, to win a major. You seem to think such players didn't exist to any real degree in the 1960's and 70's, but that is simply not true.

Can you answer the football question?

Nicklaus had to beat less "A" and "B" class players than Tiger did. This isn't that complicated. Rory is beating better players now than Tiger had to beat in 2005.

Also, the tour's exempt momney list has created a whole new category of golfer that simply did not exist back in Jack's day. The multi millionairre golfer who keeps his card for years but never wins anything with top players in the field. You say Tiger had to beat all these great players, but I say those players were happy as hell to keep losing to Tiger, just so long as they got to keep their card and keep cashing those checks for finishing 30th, 40th, or 50th. They might have the physical skill set and ability, but they lack the true burning desire to close the deal and carry the mantle. In other words, they were never going to win a major unless everyone folded and just gave it to them. Those players can be seen on tour every week.

How the heck do you know? You think Chris DiMarco was happy to lose to Tiger? Or Duval, Els, Vijay, Phil? You're just making stuff up based on your perception.

Mike McLoughlin

Check out my friends on Evolvr!
Follow The Sand Trap on Twitter!  and on Facebook
Golf Terminology -  Analyzr  -  My FacebookTwitter and Instagram 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

@9iron , you do not even seem to be aware of just how wrong you are. Do you honestly believe that the field in the 1960 US Open was anywhere near as strong as the field in the 2010 US Open? Or your average PGA Tour stop? Or the Masters, which has a small weak field, but at least these days includes Europeans, South Africans, etc.? Let me quote a really smart guy: [quote name="Phil McGleno" url="/t/74049/strength-and-depth-of-field-in-jacks-day-and-tigers-day#post_980457"]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. [/quote] You are smoking something. P.S. The football analogy is great. In my day, when my town was smaller, I was one of the few kids who golfed. Now there are kids who would have kicked my butt struggling to make the high school team. And that's just locally, not counting Europe Asia South Africa Australia etc. That is some serious stuff you are toking my friend.

"The expert golfer has maximum time to make minimal compensations. The poorer player has minimal time to make maximum compensations." - And no, I'm not Mac. Please do not PM me about it. I just think he is a crazy MFer and we could all use a little more crazy sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • 4 months later...
  • Administrator

BTW, I think the PGA Tour in the 50s and 60s is a lot like the LPGA Tour now. A few great players, some good ones, and a whole lot of filler.

  • Upvote 1

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • 1 month later...

Strength of field? BS. So, if Jordan or Rory get to 9 majors then they'll be the best because strength of field is so much better? No, of course not.

1980, 2001, 2015 scoring averages

Look how the whole field shifted towards a lower scoring average. There is no significant reason other than that the golfers are better now then they were 25 years ago. Even compared to 2001, there are slightly more golfers at better scoring averages.  If there are a lot more golfers able to play under 70, then it is much more likely one of those golfers gets hot for a tournament which makes it very hard for the best golfers to win more often

In 2001, 80% of golfers had a better scoring average than the average player in 1980. In 2015, 90% of the players have a higher scoring average than the average golfer in 1980.
Tiger's 14 right now is at least equal to or greater than Jack's 18. I would say If Rory gets to 11-12 it would be considered the same.

Matt Dougherty, P.E.
 fasdfa dfdsaf 

What's in My Bag
Driver; :pxg: 0311 Gen 5,  3-Wood: 
:titleist: 917h3 ,  Hybrid:  :titleist: 915 2-Hybrid,  Irons: Sub 70 TAIII Fordged
Wedges: :edel: (52, 56, 60),  Putter: :edel:,  Ball: :snell: MTB,  Shoe: :true_linkswear:,  Rangfinder: :leupold:
Bag: :ping:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

The problem with looking at scoring average is that it varies for reasons other than player skill.  Scoring averages were low during the WW2 period (until Tiger, no one came close to Nelson's 1945 scoring average) because golf promoters believed that with so many of the stars away in the service, fans would need the inducement of low scores to get them out to watch.

That said, I obviously agree with the larger point that the fields were much tougher for Tiger.  I just do not think scoring averages are very probative towards establishing that point.

But then again, what the hell do I know?

Rich - in name only

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

The average pro is much better, but the top 3 or 5 Greats of any era would compete well, against each other.
That is why it is important (in my opinion) that positions beyond the top 2 or three (at the most 5) in any event do not play a part in the "Ranking of the Greatest Golfers"

(I do agree that the fields now are much stronger in depth - and it is much more likely now for a player even outside the top 100 to win a regular US / Euro tour event - as does happen).

A question that I don't have the facts in front of me is: How many tournaments were there in say 1950 vs today?

The winning % for players being based on strength of field and number of opportunities to compete

I'm guessing there are more tournaments today to partially offset the stronger fields.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


What does the Tiger club think is happening to the strength of the field now? Did it peak during Tiger's reign, and is now going back down, which would facilitate the idea that you now need to win more majors than Tiger or Jack to be the best? Or is the strength of the field still going up, so that one day maybe it'll only take 5-6 majors to be declared the best player of all time?

Tiger's reign, for the time being is over, so does that devalue all major winners in today's field?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

What does the Tiger club think is happening to the strength of the field now? Did it peak during Tiger's reign, and is now going back down, which would facilitate the idea that you now need to win more majors than Tiger or Jack to be the best? Or is the strength of the field still going up, so that one day maybe it'll only take 5-6 majors to be declared the best player of all time?

Tiger's reign, for the time being is over, so does that devalue all major winners in today's field?


I'm a huge Tiger fan, and I think the strength of field has improved since he came into golf. I don't think it's improved as much as it did from Jack's time to Tiger's time, though; not even close.

Hunter Bishop

"i was an aspirant once of becoming a flamenco guitarist, but i had an accident with my fingers"

My Bag

Titleist TSI3 | TaylorMade Sim 2 Max 3 Wood | 5 Wood | Edel 3-PW | 52° | 60° | Blade Putter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

What does the Tiger club think is happening to the strength of the field now? Did it peak during Tiger's reign, and is now going back down, which would facilitate the idea that you now need to win more majors than Tiger or Jack to be the best? Or is the strength of the field still going up, so that one day maybe it'll only take 5-6 majors to be declared the best player of all time?

Tiger's reign, for the time being is over, so does that devalue all major winners in today's field?

I'd say the overall strength of field is still going up and looking at some of the young guys that are just getting their first shots at PGA Tour tournaments it will likely continue to go up.

Joe Paradiso

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator

What does the Tiger club think is happening to the strength of the field now? Did it peak during Tiger's reign, and is now going back down, which would facilitate the idea that you now need to win more majors than Tiger or Jack to be the best? Or is the strength of the field still going up, so that one day maybe it'll only take 5-6 majors to be declared the best player of all time?

@iacas had a good illustration about this.

http://thesandtrap.com/t/2203/jack-or-tiger-whos-the-greatest-golfer/4824#post_1158183

I've previously stated in this thread (and others) that the number probably lies around 12 or so, yes. It's illogical to assume strength of field is linear.

I won't get into the reasons why in detail, but I think it's far more likely that strength of the field approaches a limit. I did this quickly just to illustrate my point, there's no scale, etc.:

Mike McLoughlin

Check out my friends on Evolvr!
Follow The Sand Trap on Twitter!  and on Facebook
Golf Terminology -  Analyzr  -  My FacebookTwitter and Instagram 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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?

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

Then how do you explain Hoosiers? HA!!!!! How you like them apples, science guy!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Look how the whole field shifted towards a lower scoring average. There is no significant reason other than that the golfers are better now then they were 25 years ago. Even compared to 2001, there are slightly more golfers at better scoring averages.  If there are a lot more golfers able to play under 70, then it is much more likely one of those golfers gets hot for a tournament which makes it very hard for the best golfers to win more often

They have much better equipment now also. That being said, it's very clear that today's field is stronger. And the field of tomorrow will be stronger than today's field. It's an endless discussion and a comparisation that can never be made; we will never know how Nicklaus would have performed in today's field, with today's equipment, experience, guidance and profesionalism and we would never know how Tiger would have performed if he lived 40 years earlier and had to play under less profesional circumstances, less equipment etc. Nicklaus was the best of his time and did great things for the sport, Tiger is also the best of his time and did great things for the sport; why can't we leave it at that? Two legends, two different times, both great.

~Jorrit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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
  • TST Partners

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-15%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope.
  • Posts

    • Wordle 1,013 4/6* ⬛🟦🟦⬛⬛ ⬛🟦⬛🟦🟦 🟧⬛🟧🟧🟧 🟧🟧🟧🟧🟧 par is good after a double bogey yesterday.
    • I did read the fine print tonight. It said replace with “similar features & function”.  8 yeas ago my purchase had features that today are available on the lower end models and the current version of my model has more “bells & whistles” than what I got 8 years ago.  So I am thinking they honored the agreement and I can’t argue the offer. since getting a credit for the full purchase price all I am really out over the past 8 years was the cost of the extended warranty, which was less than a low end  treadmill would have cost me. now the question is which model to replace with.  I’ll stay with Nordic Track or I forfeit the $1,463 credit so I will get Nordic Track.  And they honored the warranty and were not hard to work with which is a plus.
    • Generally speaking, extended warranties are a terrible deal and should almost always be avoided. They are a huge profit center for the companies that offer them, which should tell you almost everything you need to know about how much value most consumers get when purchasing them.  This is correct, and the old adage applies - only buy insurance when you can't afford the loss. This usually doesn't apply to most consumer goods.  To your second question, no I don't believe the offer is fair. They are replacing it, but it is not being replaced at "no cost to you". Since the amount being disputed (over $500) is non-trivial, I would probably push the issue. Don't waste your time on the phone with a customer service agent or a supervisor. They have probably given you all they have the authority to do. Rather, I would look at the terms of your agreement and specifically legal disputes. The odds are you probably agreed to binding arbitration in the event of a dispute. The agreement will outline what steps need to be followed, but it will probably look something like this.  1. Mail the Nordic Track legal department outlining your dispute and indicate you are not satisfied with the resolution offered.  2. Open up a case with the AAA (American Arbitration Association), along with the required documentation. 3. Wait about 4-5 weeks for a case to be opened - at which point someone from Nordic Track's legal department will offer to give you the new model at no cost to you.  They certainly don't want to spend the time and energy to fight you over $500. 4. Enjoy your new Nordic Track at no cost to you. I recently entered binding arbitration against a fairly large and well known company that screwed me over and refused to make it right. In my demand letter, I made a pretty sizeable request that included compensation for my time and frustration. Once it hit their legal department, they cut me a check - no questions asked. It was far cheaper to settle with me than to send their legal team to defend them in the arbitration.
    • I never thought of looking at it on multiple purchases like you said.  Yes, the extended may help me on 1 or 2 items but not the other 5 or 6.
    • Day 84 - Forgot to post yesterday, but I did some more chipping/pitching.    Back/neck were feeling better today, so I did a much overdue Stack session. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...