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

[iacas]

5 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

@turtleback

http://www.espn.com/golf/masters07/news/story?id=2814780

Jack, a age 58,  with a bad hip almost won the Masters.  He beat Woods and almost the whole field.  

@Jack Watson, you're trolling at this point.

That article is one guy's opinion. Cool. Who cares? The only opinion I've cited is Jack Nicklaus's own opinion, and HE disagrees with Al Barkow or whatever other quack you can find.

ALL you've got on your side:

• "18 > 14"
• The opinions of some people that modern day players aren't better for whatever reason ("heart," equipment, etc.)
• Single instances of anomalies or whatever. Fleck beat Hogan, too. We can find these throughout golf's history. Hell, Ouimet beat Vardon. Big whoop. They're remarkable because they're anomalies. Sometimes a guy wins losing strokes with his ballstriking. But it's not the general rule…

3 hours ago, Parker0065 said:

At the end of the day you have to look at numbers, because that's all we have. Tiger most wins? NO! Tiger most Majors? NO!

You've confused this topic with the other one, @Parker0065.

2 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

So you are just calling Barkow a bs artist?

It's one guy's opinion. Big whoop.

2 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

Another way to look at field strength is course length relative to club and ball tech.  Augusta for example played the same length in 2000 as 1950.

No, that's not "another way" to do so. The courses may have been the same yardage, but they sure as hell weren't played the same, with the same green speeds, the same fairways, the same tree heights, the same cuts of rough, etc. The design, the weather, the course conditions, the greens, etc. were not the same.

It's a very simple thing: there are only about 125 spots available on the PGA Tour, and significantly more people are vying for them now versus in the 60s and 70s. Back then it was mostly U.S. players, now it's not only far more U.S. players, it's international players.

Strength and depth of field is significantly stronger now than in the past.

1 hour ago, skydog said:

I don’t really care to get into this battle but I’ve never really understood how many on here believe the period from let’s say the mid 70s (jack’ prime) to the mid 90s saw this exponential jump in field strength that has since subsided.

Nope. Nobody's ever said it's been exponential.

And nobody that I know of is saying it has subsided? I would say it's tougher now than it was in 1998 or 2008. I would say that if Jordan gets to 70 wins and 12 majors, he is likely my GOAT over Tiger.

1 hour ago, skydog said:

It was somehow this miraculous 20 year period that the game of golf has never seen before or since- I can’t but that.

I don't think anyone is attempting to sell that.

1 hour ago, skydog said:

I bring this up because people say 14>18 because of SOF. That may or may not be the case- I don’t really know. But what if someone like Spieth racks up 10-12 ( which I think he will). I’m guessing those same people won’t follow the same math.

Well, I just wrote the above before I got to this point, and I've said it before, too. So, for me at least, you're wrong.

1 hour ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

20 majors in the 60s-80s is more impressive, not really even close.

You're in the minority.

Which is fine, just pointing it out.

---

Ignoring the money, and the fact that players are thus trained from age 8 onward, even if we ONLY consider the number of players who play golf and attempt to play on the PGA Tour or have that as a goal, consider this:

• If 125 people play golf in the world, all 125 will qualify for and play on the PGA Tour. You'll have both the best golfer in the world (who won't have to be that great given his competition), and the worst.
• If you have 250 golfers, you eliminate the worst 125, and now you have the best 125 at 50%.
• If you have 5,000 golfers, you're talking about the best 2.5%.
• If you have 50,000 golfers, the best 0.25%.
• In a graph, that looks like this:

Now, we're well into the area to the right. The U.S. has had 500 golfers for a century alone.

But the math still holds up: every time the golfing population doubles, the field becomes stronger and deeper. You go from, say, the top 0.05% of golfers in the world to the top 0.025% of golfers in the world. Simple, basic math.

Now, as the curve approaches zero, the actual differences become smaller and smaller. The difference between the top 100% of golfers and a world with 500 golfers cutting it down to the top 25% is still 1/4, but it's also an improvement of 75%. The gap between 0.01% and 0.0025% is similarly 1/4… but it's also only a 0.0075% improvement.

In other words, the strength and depth of a field that takes 125 from a trillion contestants is virtually the same as a field that takes 125 from ten trillion contestants. The numbers are still basically 0.00{000}000125%.

But at the numbers we're talking about in the Jack/Tiger era, we're not to the point where things are basically 0. If there are 50,000 golfers who are +2 or better in 1970, and 150,000 in 2000… that's enough to take the 125 from 0.25% to 0.0833333%. That's significant.

This is what the modern era of golf looks like (not to scale or super exact… just illustrating the basic idea here):

---

In 1965, 49 players tried out for the inaugural Q-School. That number was quite a bit higher than that in 2005. From the U.S. alone, the USGA received 10,127 applications for the 2014 U.S. Open. They received quite a lot fewer in 1974.

The numbers simply add up. There are a hell of a lot more golfers now than there were in the 1960s and 1970s, not only in the U.S. but around the world. Golfers are better trained. They enter the tour at age 23 or 25 or whatever with 15 years of seasoning in highly competitive events.

Bruce Lietzke, as talented as he was, wouldn't stand a chance these days taking months off without even hitting a ball.

Now, note… the above graph alone doesn't settle "Tiger > Jack" or "Jack > Tiger" alone. After all, whichever one you think is the GOAT would still have been the GOAT in either generation. The top 1 of all time would have been at the top end of the top 125 of any given era.

But, in comparing the strengths and depths of field, some people (like me) can use the idea of this type of graph to "weigh" the achievements of both, given that their competition was the other "124 best" of the era, or whatever.

---

The graph above shows why it may take 12 majors and 70 wins for someone to have an equivalent or slightly better than Tiger-like career in the "Spieth Era". It explains why, to many/most, "14 > 18."

P.S. The graphs are likely not perfectly smooth like this, but again, if you're looking to nit-pick the graphs, the point they make is general, not specific. They're not exact, they're just an illustration to say in a picture what I've been saying in words.

P.P.S. I'd made a graph like this before, I believe, but it was faster to re-create it than find the other one.

[turtleback]

On 2/3/2018 at 12:11 PM, Jack Watson said:

@saevel25

1960 PGA at Firestone par 70 almost 7200 yards 1960.

Hogan vs Singh Augusta...53 Hogan playing 53 gear would have beaten Singh on a course the same exact length but with Singh with 2000 equipment.  If you start looking at the course lengths it becomes apparent.

Its self evident that 1950 tech is not as good as the stuff from 2000.  

Ignoring detailed arguments by throwing out virtually irrelevant factoids is not advancing your cause.

On 2/3/2018 at 12:16 PM, skydog said:

Totally forgot about that. 

I don’t really care to get into this battle but I’ve never really understood how many on here believe the period from let’s say the mid 70s (jack’ prime) to the mid 90s saw this exponential jump in field strength that has since subsided. It was somehow this miraculous 20 year period that the game of golf has never seen before or since- I can’t but that. Now I certainly thinks fields improved a lot during that time but I think top to bottom they’ve improved more over the last 20 years....because of the huge inflow of young talent that grew up watching Tiger and decided to play golf you’ve now got amazing athletes playing the game. 

 

I bring this up because people say 14>18 because of SOF. That may or may not be the case- I don’t really know. But what if someone like Spieth racks up 10-12 ( which I think he will). I’m guessing those same people won’t follow the same math.

 

Well then you haven't read the whole thread, because none of the Tiger advocates has claimed that the strengthening of fields has stopped.  And the exact question of assessing a Spieth who wins 10 majors has come up with many of us saying that would be very strong, and if accompanied by the broader achievements like POY, Vardons, money titles tour victories, etc. that grace Tiger's career he could well surpass.

It is too bad you had to attribute dishonesty and bad faith to those with whom you disagree.

 

What is really remarkable is that there seem to be folks who seem to think that the fields were strong up to 1996, unaccountably weakened  and then got strong again in about 2010.

[saevel25]

I took the data from PGA Tour on scoring average and came up with the following chart and table. I took data from all the even years from 1980 thru 2016.  

# of Player in each of the two seasons combined that shoot in the BIN range.
There are a few things to take from this graph. First, the scoring average for the tour has drastically increased from 1982 to 2016. Second, the number of golfers averaging a bad scoring average has drastically decreased (note how close the curve in the tail end is getting towards the tour average). Finally, we seriously under-rate the mid to late 1990's.

Here is a table showing the percentage change. I took the percentage of golfers in the era (1980's, 1990's, etc...) in that BIN scoring range and subtracted it from one another. This should give us a good luck at how more golfers are scoring better. Example, 80's versus the 10's, lets say the 72-72.5 scoring average range. 21.6% of golfers shot in this range in the 1980's. Only 3.5% of averaged in this band during the 2010's so far.

The definitive answer is, YES there are many more very good golfers than there was in the past. Will you have the handful of elites that show up each year, sure. In the 1980's, 3% of the golfers shot under 70.5. In the 2010's, 3.9% of golfers shot under 70.5.

I would consider averaging under 70.5 today to be a much harder task than it is in the 1980's with how the courses try to combat the advancements in golf.

 

 

[klineka]

3 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I took the data from PGA Tour on scoring average and came up with the following chart and table. I took data from all the even years from 1980 thru 2016.  

Last week I wanted to use scoring average as well, but @iacas pointed out to me that Scoring Average is not a good metric to use when comparing players from decades apart. There are too many variables where holes can be poked in the scoring average argument. Equipment being used, course conditions, course length, etc etc make it very difficult to say with certainty that the equipment accounted for X % of the decrease in score and the course conditions accounted for X %.

 

7 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I would consider averaging under 70.5 today to be a much harder task than it is in the 1980's with how the courses try to combat the advancements in golf.

 The problem with using scoring average is I could argue that averaging under 70.5 is actually easier today since players hit the ball longer than they did 30 years ago, and neither of us will be able to prove our point with concrete data. Some of the top players can just carry bunkers that are in a 280 yd landing zone that were put there as an attempt to try to combat the advancements in golf, so I could just argue that some courses have actually done very little to combat the advancements in golf, or that the technology has advanced faster than the courses have adjusted, which could make it easier to average under 70.5.

 

[saevel25]

5 minutes ago, klineka said:

 The problem with using scoring average is I could argue that averaging under 70.5 is actually easier today since players hit the ball longer than they did 30 years ago

I made that point at the end of my points.

I don't mind using this sort of analysis as long as perspective needs to be taken on some things that can't be quantified. The big key for me, is not the Tour Average, but the sheer number of players that are playing better. The average isn't spread out over a wide range as it was.

When you consider that PGA Tour players have their own distribution for what they shoot. It probably looks similar to a bell curve. If you start shifting all those bell curves towards the better players, now you have more and more people able to come out and post really low scores. Which makes it tougher for the better players to win consistently.

[lastings]

every single argument here in favor of Jack is based on 18>14, which is fine adn may be a valid opinion.  Not one I personally agree with, but possibly valid nonetheless.  One thing that is clearly being overlooked is that Tiger isn't done. What if Tiger wins another major?  is 18>15?  what if he wins 2? 

If Tiger's back holds up, as it looks like it might, he is definitively taking the wins lead from Snead.  in the 18 full seasons Tiger has played, he has 79 wins.  6 more than Jack had in 25 seasons, and just 3 short of what Snead had in 30 seasons.  And if you really want to talk about depth of field, you may be able to (poorly) argue that the field depth in Majors was as strong in the 70's as it was in the 2000's, but you will never be able to make a remotely logical argument that the field depth in the average tournament was the same.  it wasn't even close.  

[skydog]

17 hours ago, turtleback said:

It is too bad you had to attribute dishonesty and bad faith to those with whom you disagree.

Geez, that is a bit extreme and not at all what I was doing. Dishonesty? C'mon man, that's not what I was insinuating.

By Erik's own graph that forms the basis for the thesis I was taking a bit of an issue with- the rate of increase in SOF is declining. i.e. SOFs increased more between 1970-1995 than they did between 1995-2018 says the graph and popular thought. I understand the argument as to why this is the case and for the most part I subscribe to it as do most of you. The issue I take with the graph and theory is that I believe the past ~10 years or so have seen an outsized jump in SOFs due to the fact that you now have a bunch of incredible athletes playing the game thanks to Tiger. Guys like Koepka, DJ, and Rahm (just a few examples) probably would have ended up being D1 athletes in another sport but chose golf because of the huge explosion in  the game's popularity when Tiger came on the scene. If I rack my brain for true athletes (besides Tiger) that played the game in the mid to late 90s, I can't think of many....maybe Norman and Vijay would be the closest thing? Now think about what guys playing the game look like today. It's night and day.

Edited February 5, 2018 by skydog

[Patch]

I really enjoy reading this thread, and others where Jack, and Tiger are compared with each other.

Pretty much everyone has valid points as to why their guy is better. I myself have my own favorite, but I do not have concrete proof that Jack was better. I have seen them both play, and they are the best of the best.

I was in a couple of business meetings with Jack present, and I can honestly say he's s tough cookie. What he wants, he gets. I would assume he transferred that toughness to his golf game in his prime.  I can only think Tiger was that mentally strong during his best run of golf. 

What I keep thinking about is the reality these guys played in. Jack played in his own reality, which of course was different than Tiger's. If only there was a way to put both these guys, in their primes, to play each oth we, would know for sure. 

Imagine Tiger growing up and playing in Jack's time of golf. (Jack's reality) Tiger playing golf using everything Jack had available to him, back then. I think everyone can agree that not as much was known about golf technology back then, when compared to now. 

Then imagine Jack growing up, and playing in Tiger's reality. Jack having everything that Tiger had  that made him so great. Could Jack have used all of Tiger's available competition ,  technology as good as Tiger? Maybe better? 

Obviously we'll never know 100% who was better, but the discussion will always be a fun one.

I did read some where that in their best days, playing against each other, that both Jack, and Tiger would have made Arnold Palmer a simple tour journeymen player. 

[dennyjones]

This thread is like asking who was the better hockey player, Gordie Howe or Wayne Gretzky!   The talent today is so much better than in the past years.   The players are bigger, stronger, faster and more athletic.   The sheer number of players playing today far exceed the numbers playing golf back when Jack was winning.      

[Piz]

Looking back thru the years...and making allowances for exceptional individuals...there seem to be fewer "usual suspects" as the years recede.  That suggests that the top 100, from decades past, would have a tough time with the current top 100.  We are talking, after all, about the crop...not the cream.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, skydog said:

Geez, that is a bit extreme and not at all what I was doing. Dishonesty? C'mon man, that's not what I was insinuating.

@skydog, "dishonesty" is a good word for it. You set up a straw man, were dishonest in saying that others were advancing that straw man, and then knocked it down.

1 hour ago, skydog said:

By Erik's own graph that forms the basis for the thesis I was taking a bit of an issue with- the rate of increase in SOF is declining.

Of course it is. It can only get to a certain point. I shared the basic math and the reasons for it - the differences between the top 0.00000000000000000000125% and the top 0.000000000000000000000000125% are negligible. We're not at that stage (nor will we ever be, unless we somehow figure out how to fit a trillion people on this planet or invent interstellar travel or something), but it makes simple mathematical sense why the rate of improvement would be slowing.

And, as I noted many times, my graphs aren't to scale in either direction. The slope of the line in the "closeup" graph starting with Ouimet is particularly too steep at the left side.

1 hour ago, skydog said:

The issue I take with the graph and theory is that I believe the past ~10 years or so have seen an outsized jump in SOFs due to the fact that you now have a bunch of incredible athletes playing the game thanks to Tiger.

It probably has. Again, I said the graph isn't to scale and that the graph would also not be perfectly smooth - that there could be jumps and periods where it's slower or faster than the "smooth line" version. I think I said that with this:

On 2/3/2018 at 4:26 PM, iacas said:

P.S. The graphs are likely not perfectly smooth like this, but again, if you're looking to nit-pick the graphs, the point they make is general, not specific. They're not exact, they're just an illustration to say in a picture what I've been saying in words.

So…

1 hour ago, skydog said:

If I rack my brain for true athletes (besides Tiger) that played the game in the mid to late 90s, I can't think of many....maybe Norman and Vijay would be the closest thing? Now think about what guys playing the game look like today. It's night and day.

Okay.

I still don't think the jump was as big as 1970 - 2000, but whatever. Not really the point.

40 minutes ago, Patch said:

Obviously we'll never know 100% who was better, but the discussion will always be a fun one.

@Patch, I think you meant that whole thing for the other topic. This one is for strength and depth of field, not which is the GOAT overall.

[skydog]

16 hours ago, iacas said:

@skydog, "dishonesty" is a good word for it. You set up a straw man, were dishonest in saying that others were advancing that straw man, and then knocked it down.

Again- geez. I know straw man is your favorite buzz word but I wasn’t attempting to be dishonest and I don’t appreciate being accused of that. My point was that if you say 14>18 because of SOF than you have to be prepared to say 10-12 > 14 in a couple decades. I hadn’t read the whole thread and hadn’t seen where you or anyone else acknowledged that so i apologize. So feel free to accuse me of ignorance of what was in the thread, but not dishonesty. 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, skydog said:

Again- geez. I know straw man is your favorite buzz word but I wasn’t attempting to be dishonest and I don’t appreciate being accused of that.

Straw man is not a buzz word, nor is it something I use all that often.

Whether you were trying to do it or not, you were dishonest. You falsely represented the objections others had.

Let's limit the meta discussion, too, please.

2 hours ago, skydog said:

My point was that if you say 14>18 because of SOF than you have to be prepared to say 10-12 > 14 in a couple decades.

And as I pointed out, many, many people have already said as much. I've said as much, many times.

2 hours ago, skydog said:

I hadn’t read the whole thread and hadn’t seen where you or anyone else acknowledged that so i apologize. So feel free to accuse me of ignorance of what was in the thread, but not dishonesty. 

It's meta, but again… you stated that people were making those arguments and then knocking it down. That's dishonesty, not ignorance.

Moving on…

[mvmac]

2 hours ago, skydog said:

My point was that if you say 14>18 because of SOF than you have to be prepared to say 10-12 > 14 in a couple decades.

Right, I'm pretty sure everyone saying the SOF was stronger/deeper in Tiger's era than in Jack's would agree with that. It wouldn't make sense if they didn't.

If Rory wins 12 majors and 65-70 events, he is most likely the GOAT.

[MrGolfguy67]

On ‎2‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 3:26 PM, iacas said:

You're in the minority.

Which is fine, just pointing it out.

---

 

---

 

Of course its fine, because I'm also right.

[iacas]

46 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

Of course its fine, because I'm also right.

No. It’s an opinion.

And not the topic here, really.

[MrGolfguy67]

So why bother "pointing out" that its in the minority?

 

[iacas]

32 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

So why bother "pointing out" that its in the minority?

Because you had to add a "not really even close" type thing. Not only is it "close," you're on the other side of the vast majority. Or, you're correct that it's "not really even close…", but in the opposite direction.

Anyway, this is more meta commentary.