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

[phan52]

The top 10 guys back in the day didn't shake in their Footjoys at the thought of challenging Jack. Tiger spent 10 years scaring the bejeezuz out of the best players in the world. Total and thorough intimdiation. Tiger always won when he was in the mix on Sunday. Guys like Lee Westwood and Sergio Garcia are pussies.

[Spyder]

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.

Um... yeah... because... who needs stats and facts anyways! amirite? Who's with me!?

[jerryleal]

'stats and facts' that can be used in any which way to prove either side of an argument are not stats and facts..they are ploys.

[iacas]

'stats and facts' that can be used in any which way to prove either side of an argument are not stats and facts..they are ploys.

That's what people on the losing side of the stats say. :)

[3putter]

The top 10 guys back in the day didn't shake in their Footjoys at the thought of challenging Jack. Tiger spent 10 years scaring the bejeezuz out of the best players in the world. Total and thorough intimdiation. Tiger always won when he was in the mix on Sunday. Guys like Lee Westwood and Sergio Garcia are pussies.

I'm not sure how often it has to be said that the whole intimidation thing was a media creation. Aren't top players still faltering on Sundays in a Tiger-less event? He may have nerves that they lack, but it sure wasn't intimidation. It's not like he'll be breaking their kneecaps for making birdies.

[ChrisP]

My whole thing with the competition is there's no doubt the fields today are deeper and more advanced and stronger....however, that doesn't equate to the fact that Jack couldn't win 18 majors in today's field. He very well could have. It would have been much more challenging for him, but it's not to say he couldn't do it. Maybe Tiger would win 25 in Jack's day. A lot depends on how these two guys would have adjusted to the different equipment. All this competition talk is great fodder, but at the end of the day, it all comes down to the talent of two players: Jack and Tiger.

I've said many times from 2000-2007, you'll never find a player better than Tiger Woods. That Tiger Woods from those 8 years will never be matched in our lifetime. That Tiger Woods, IMO, would have been impossible to beat back in the 1960s for that 8 year stretch he had.

[jamo]

My whole thing with the competition is there's no doubt the fields today are deeper and more advanced and stronger....however, that doesn't equate to the fact that Jack couldn't win 18 majors in today's field. He very well could have. It would have been much more challenging for him, but it's not to say he couldn't do it. Maybe Tiger would win 25 in Jack's day. A lot depends on how these two guys would have adjusted to the different equipment. All this competition talk is great fodder, but at the end of the day, it all comes down to the talent of two players: Jack and Tiger.

That's only true if you also accept the implication that he should have won more majors back when he did play.

[turtleback]

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.

Fans may make that case* (I do) but you have never heard Tiger say that.  Jack, OTOH, had no trouble changing his story, since his first goal as a pro was to win more events than Snead, but then when it turned out to be too hard he switched to a goal he had already achieved, i.e., majors.

The top 10 guys back in the day didn't shake in their Footjoys at the thought of challenging Jack. Tiger spent 10 years scaring the bejeezuz out of the best players in the world. Total and thorough intimdiation. Tiger always won when he was in the mix on Sunday. Guys like Lee Westwood and Sergio Garcia are pussies.

Nonsense.  Jack is on record all over the place as saying his strategy in the majors was to play very conservative and let his fellow competitors make the mistakes that would give him the title.

* Not only is 14 in the period 1997-2014 more impressive than 18 in the period 1962-1986, but by almost any other measure of golfing achievement, winning percentage, Vardons, POY awards, etc,  Tiger is light years ahead of Jack.

[MS256]

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.

Boggles my mind that somebody could have that opinion.

If that were the case Little League baseball would have no need at all for pool size limits per team. Do you have any idea how much of a mismatch it would be without pool size limits?

Yeah lets let Los Angeles field one team of their best players and see what happens when they play the local small town team.

1A high school sports teams would be the equals of 6A high school sports teams. The All-State teams in 1A sports would be the equals of the All-State teams in 6A sports. Really?

I went to a 1A school and my son went to a 5A school. The difference in the talent level that he played against from what I played against is more than the difference between day and night. He played against people that are in the NFL. I played against people that were lucky to play for a junior college somewhere.

[mvmac]

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

Jerry, you were great in those Nike ads

[boogielicious]

It's like saying, "Golfers are taller now, therefore better!"

Judge Smails - "How do you measure yourself against other golfers?"

Ty Webb - "By height."

[jerryleal]

You're comparing apples and oranges- in the old days only the best of the best played professionally because only a small handful could make a living at it. The large crowd that competes today would've been pros at a club if they all played in 1950 or 1930.

How many composers of music are there today? How many people write? How many people are there in countless fields of endeavor compare to 50 or 100 years ago. I'm simply stating that just because there are more doesn't make them better, more importantly doesn't make the average better. 50,000 people with songs on youtube-how many Beethovens or Mozarts are there? 100,000 people taking writing classes-how many Shakespeares?

Genius comes along once in a generation or once every few generations.

There is no way to actually test either end of the hypotheses- so it remains just an opinion- and my opinion is that Jack or Arnie or Lee or Tom Watson or Ben Hogan or Sam Sneed or Bobbie Jones  would've challenged Tiger. They wouldn't have wilted like soooo many of todays legions did year after year. You have to admit- and it's been quoted many times that Tiger has seen-the worst golf ever-that makes him a winner, a competitor, a master of the mind game-yes,yes,yes-but a better golfer? 90 wins would've been 50 if the competition played average golf on Sunday. Where does that get fitted into the analysis?

So the fields were bigger?-sure=deeper-by definition-yes-better?- I don't buy it.

[iacas]

You're comparing apples and oranges- in the old days only the best of the best played professionally because only a small handful could make a living at it. The large crowd that competes today would've been pros at a club if they all played in 1950 or 1930.

How many composers of music are there today? How many people write? How many people are there in countless fields of endeavor compare to 50 or 100 years ago. I'm simply stating that just because there are more doesn't make them better, more importantly doesn't make the average better. 50,000 people with songs on youtube-how many Beethovens or Mozarts are there? 100,000 people taking writing classes-how many Shakespeares?

Genius comes along once in a generation or once every few generations.

There is no way to actually test either end of the hypotheses- so it remains just an opinion- and my opinion is that Jack or Arnie or Lee or Tom Watson or Ben Hogan or Sam Sneed or Bobbie Jones  would've challenged Tiger. They wouldn't have wilted like soooo many of todays legions did year after year. You have to admit- and it's been quoted many times that Tiger has seen-the worst golf ever-that makes him a winner, a competitor, a master of the mind game-yes,yes,yes-but a better golfer? 90 wins would've been 50 if the competition played average golf on Sunday. Where does that get fitted into the analysis?

So the fields were bigger?-sure=deeper-by definition-yes-better?- I don't buy it.

Would it surprise you to know that Jack Nicklaus strongly disagrees with your "opinions."

A third to half of the fields in his day were club pros. Guys who took up golf after serving in a war were able to win major championships during Jack's time.

[jerryleal]

"opinions" ?- do you imply that they aren't opinions-or more importantly -would you be quoting Jack if he didn't agree with your "opinions"? Lee Trevino does and  Byron Nelson doesn't ( I made that up to make a point)-who cares?-these are opinions.

[iacas]

"opinions" ?- do you imply that they aren't opinions-or more importantly -would you be quoting Jack if he didn't agree with your "opinions"? Lee Trevino does and  Byron Nelson doesn't ( I made that up to make a point)-who cares?-these are opinions.

Absolutely. You can quantify a good portion of this type of stuff. That's what this thread seeks to explore, if I've read it correctly. @Phil McGleno ?

One of those quantifications is simply the number of people who play golf at a high level. Again, it's highly unlikely that the best 10 golfers out of a pool of 100 are better than the best 10 golfers out of a pool of a thousand. Golf's become more global since Jack's day. It's highly, highly unlikely (and could probably be put to numbers with a probability, etc.) or modeled outright - to demonstrate how much better or worse certain fields and/or players were.

[Phil McGleno]

Yep-Not interested in opinions. Just want to hear facts or numbers or data that even slightly speak to the topic. I know what my gut tells me and Im looking for info that says yes or no to that.-Everyones got an opinion-So what? I want some hard data. Will even settle for soft data.-DOnt have no need for opinions. Ha, posted at almost same time @icas.

[phan52]

Yep-Not interested in opinions. Just want to hear facts or numbers or data that even slightly speak to the topic.

I know what my gut tells me and Im looking for info that says yes or no to that.-Everyones got an opinion-So what? I want some hard data. Will even settle for soft data.-DOnt have no need for opinions.

Ha, posted at almost same time @icas.

Can't do it. Different eras, different players, different equipment, different course conditions, different levels of perks, different training, etc. In the end, it's all subjective and we are all allowed an opinion. My opinion is that the best players were more competitive back in the day because their livelihood depended on it. Today's players finish in the top 50-60 and they are flush for life. A lot of them are happy with that.

JMO.

[misty_mountainhop]

Can't do it. Different eras, different players, different equipment, different course conditions, different levels of perks, different training, etc. In the end, it's all subjective and we are all allowed an opinion. My opinion is that the best players were more competitive back in the day because their livelihood depended on it. Today's players finish in the top 50-60 and they are flush for life. A lot of them are happy with that.

JMO.

With you on that one.