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

[Shorty]

Here's a question.  Phil, at a +2.7 you couldn't qualify for any PGA events right now?   I'd think being almost a +3 you'd be making cuts pretty regularly.  Am I way off?

You are WAAAAAAYYYYY off.

A person making cuts pretty regularly is making several hundred thousand dollars on the PGA Tour.

To put it another way, there are dozens of players you have heard of who are floundering about on the web.com tour making next to nothing. Rod Pampling, James Nitties, Nathan Green, Steven Allan, just to name a couple of Aussies.

An amateur handicap is not calculated exclusively on stroke rounds.

[kleraudio]

Sorry was just questioning it.  +5 is serious....

[rehmwa]

Tiger doesn't understand this already? Tiger is also very astute in golf history. There is a reason why he was chasing Jack, and why he wants the Major record. I believe if there is anyone who knows how hard it is getting to win a Major it is Tiger.

Tiger already knows this

Arnie already knows this

Jack already knows this

Tiger wants to match or beat the total number because (he likes to win) that's a feat that clearly distances him because it's even harder now

Those guys, and likely the entire field of super pros all know this better and more intimately than anyone here does

absolutely

(Frankly, if Jack and Tiger have some kind of relationship, I'd bet a dollar that Jack (seems very classy and decent) has already encouraged Tiger and said those things.  It doesn't have to be public for it to happen).

[phillyk]

Here's a question.  Phil, at a +2.7 you couldn't qualify for any PGA events right now?   I'd think being almost a +3 you'd be making cuts pretty regularly.  Am I way off?

I'm a +2.7 right now, and I know I wouldn't make very many cuts at PGA events.  I've been working hard to shoot round +5 or 6, when I think I'd be ready.  I already have rounds in that area, just need to get mentally tougher and stop letting these slow bumpy greens get to me...

[dbuck]

I was not able to vote for some reason but I would have picked the 20 in the 60's-80's . I haven't read all the posts , so someone else may have mentioned, if you include the amateurs, it should be 50's-80's. I agree that the depth of the field is greater during Tigers's time, but not necessarily the competition for domination in the majors and top of the tour. In all these discussions, I have always held that Jack is the GOAT by a slight margin over Tiger and still do, but I will make one concession. IF (and you can't prove because it is purely imagination) you could have Tiger and Jack head to head, both in their prime with the same equipment, I think Tiger might beat Jack 11 or 12 times out of 20.

[SEVENTEEN 17]

Who's ever tried to play golf with 60's & 70's equipment ? Unfair comparison I think cheers 17

[iacas]

Who's ever tried to play golf with 60's & 70's equipment ?

Unfair comparison I think

cheers 17

That's not the topic of this thread. And as others (including Jack himself) has stated: better equipment does more to elevate the players toward the bottom than it does to help the top players.

[boogielicious]

Who's ever tried to play golf with 60's & 70's equipment ?

Unfair comparison I think

cheers 17

Who's ever tried to play with the pants they wore back then?  Just as relevant.

They all had the same equipment back then, just as they all have the same equipment now.  The difference?  Now there are more excellent golfers than there was back then.

[Spyder]

Who's ever tried to play golf with 60's & 70's equipment ?

Unfair comparison I think

cheers 17

Let's simplify this incorrect assumption in one question:

Who would suffer more using vintage clubs from 1960-1970; the top 5 ranked players in world, or you? Therefore, you have your answer when it comes to the question of "who benefits more from better equipment?".

[dbuck]

While the field is broader and deeper, there have been fewer challengers for domination. Jack had Arnie, Casper, Player, Trevino,Weiskopf, Floyd, Miller, Watson, Ballesteros, Kite, Norman, and a couple of others over a 20+ year period. Tiger has had Phil and VJ . I restate and revise what I said before though, if you could magically put Tiger against Jack in the their primes against each other head to head with the same ball, equipment, whatever, I think Tiger might win 10.5-11 times out of 20. So there, I said it, Tiger might be a little better than Jack. As a career though, Jack is still ahead. If Tiger comes out of the funk he has been in for 4 years or so and catches Jack's 18, I will change my opinion, as that comeback would be a miracle in itself.

[iacas]

While the field is broader and deeper, there have been fewer challengers for domination. Jack had Arnie, Casper, Player, Trevino,Weiskopf, Floyd, Miller, Watson, Ballesteros, Kite, Norman, and a couple of others over a 20+ year period. Tiger has had Phil and VJ .

Those players benefitted from weaker fields too. It's not only easier for the top guy to separate himself, but for the top ten or so to do so as well.

I restate and revise what I said before though, if you could magically put Tiger against Jack in the their primes against each other head to head with the same ball, equipment, whatever, I think Tiger might win 10.5-11 times out of 20.

That's not what this thread is about.

So there, I said it, Tiger might be a little better than Jack. As a career though, Jack is still ahead. If Tiger comes out of the funk he has been in for 4 years or so and catches Jack's 18, I will change my opinion, as that comeback would be a miracle in itself.

That's your opinion, and again, not what this thread is about.

To many, 14 is already greater than 18 because of the true topic here: strength of field. Just look at the poll results.

[SEVENTEEN 17]

Ouch....

[Parker0065]

Jack played fewer but tougher competitors!

Tiger has played somewhat less tougher, but a higher volume of competitors!

What does that mean in the end, a dead even tie when it comes to "difficulty to win" in their individual era's in my opinion!

Comparing era's is not only a complete waste of time but not fair to each era. Ben Hogan was presented with the standards of excellence for his time and he rose to the occasion. Jack Nicklaus was presented with the standards of excellence for his time and he rose to the occasion. Tiger Woods was presented with the standards of excellence for his time and although every single Tiger fan and most golf fans in general would say he has already risen to the occasion, ask Tiger and he will likely state he has not met that requirement until he reaches 19 Majors!

So blah, blah, blah argue all you want but study some history people. Do you really think the Romans thought any other civilization could possibly ever rival theirs, yet here we are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry to be juvenile but these types of threads are stupid!!!

[iacas]

Jack played fewer but tougher competitors! Tiger has played somewhat less tougher, but a higher volume of competitors!

You can't say that like it's a fact. You could easily be wrong. :-)

[Parker0065]

You can't say that like it's a fact. You could easily be wrong.

I usually am !!!

But yes, I should have put that is my opinion that there were fewer but better opponents in Jack's era!

My highlighted statement trumps all that either way so I guess I should have just deleted the first part, lol!

[jerryleal]

I don't buy the argument that today's players are better, or that that more players equates to more depth of field and therefore harder competition. Tiger was shooting to beat Jack's total of 18 majors without apostrophes until it started looking difficult for him to do so. Tiger is still shooting for 18. It's all of the Tigerettes that argue that  14 is really better than 18.

This has been discussed ad nauseum in a hundred sports -"today's vs. yesterdays' " and I think that in a sport like golf -where it's you against yourself, it's a fruitless discussion.

If we were to be fair, we would give a young healthy Jack today's clubs and balls to compete with a young healthy Tiger for this mythical match-up- BUT WHY DO WE DENY THIS YOUNG MYTHICAL JACK TODAY'S TRAINING TOOLS? and if we give the young mythical Jack today's high speed computers and high speed slow mo camera's-WHY DON'T WE GIVE THIS YOUNG JACK THE EXTRA 8 HOURS EVERY DAY THAT HE WOULDN'T HAVE  USED FIGURING OUT THE MECHANICS OF A SWING OR LOOKING FOR GLITCHES,8 HOURS EVERY DAY THAT HE WOULD'VE TRAINED WITH- and then we'd have to give him the benefits of sports psychologist-just to make it an even playing field, AS WELL AS JETTING HIM TO EACH EVENT.

My point is, that if you want a 'fair' comparison between players or fields, there are so many variables that would have to be tweeked, that the competition wouldn't resemble reality from today or from yesterday-it's a senseless, pointless debate with no end or answer.

Was Lincoln a lesser leader because he only led 50 million?

I believe in the mythic quality of history. I don't want my heroes brought down to real size by statistical analysis.

[acerimusdux]

Jack played fewer but tougher competitors!

Tiger has played somewhat less tougher, but a higher volume of competitors!

Agree.  In any given era, there may be 4-5 great players, 2-3 great players, 1 great player, or even none.  But in no era are there 50 great players, in any sport. If there are 50 guys with decent odds to win any given major, that may mean there are 50 very good players at that time, but there are no great ones.

That's what today's game looks like to me.  The average level of performance seems very high. But there are no standouts. And just watching some of these tournaments, the level of play even of some of the winners hasn't really been all that inspiring.

Sure, today's players have better technology, better instruction, better nutrition, better training regimines, access to ball flight monitors and statistical data, knowledge of more sound putting methods than were once taught, etc.  But what is impressive about being born into such an era, rather than an earlier one?  To me, the only fair way to compare across eras, is to assume that any player you choose to bring forward, hypotheically, to today's game, would have also had the benefit of all of these advancements.  And I think the truly great golfers throughout history, in those condition, would still have found a way to stand out.

To me, looking at the difference in scoring averages from the 100th best player sort of misses the point. To the great players, it doesn't really matter how good the 100th best player is.  Look at the spreads from the 1st to the 5th or 10th and you will see something different. Today those spreads are relatively small, just as they were in 1985, another era when there were no great players in their prime.

[Phil McGleno]

:doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: [quote name="jerryleal" url="/t/74049/strength-of-field-in-jacks-day-and-tigers-day/108#post_986554"]I believe in the mythic quality of history. I don't want my heroes brought down to real size by statistical analysis. [/quote]