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

[MrGolfguy67]

And people who voted Tiger are also expressing their opinion, some of which also added a "not really close" comment but you didn't really have a problem with them. Bottom line - this 'poll' is nothing more than 100+ golf fans expressing their opinion. Stop getting so bent out of shape about it.

 

[iacas]

13 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

And people who voted Tiger are also expressing their opinion, some of which also added a "not really close" comment but you didn't really have a problem with them. Bottom line - this 'poll' is nothing more than 100+ golf fans expressing their opinion. Stop getting so bent out of shape about it.

Strange assumption and you’re reading WAY too much into things.

Have a great evening.

[Phil McGleno]

I should link to this post since I probably should have posted it here anyway-

Just my personal experience-Give it whatever weight you want. Jack fans-of which I am a HUGE one-will probably give it almost none. Their mistake.

[GrandStranded]

On ‎4‎/‎23‎/‎2014 at 10:49 AM, mvmac said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by RayG

Tiger, if he wasn't winning, he barley cracked the first page of the leader board.

 

I think you're speaking to more of what your impression is, here are the numbers, Masters, US Open, Open and PGA. Tiger was in contention plenty of times in majors he didn't win.

 

\

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by RayG

And even today- yes, you get guys from all over the place and crawling out of every mini tour to make a splash on the boards early on. But on Sundays, who shows up? the same top guys that are always around, and THEY aren't exactly chopped liver.

 

This season four of the last seven winners and six overall have been first timers. Out of 23 tournaments so far, 12 have been won by golfers 30 or younger.

 

From the PGA Championship in '08, Padraig Harrington, to the '12 Open Championship, Ernie Els, 16 different players won those 16 majors.

 

---

 

 

I'll add an article that came out before the '12 Open Championship with some interesting numbers

 

http://espn.go.com/golf/blog/_/name/golf/id/8147520/will-repeat-major-winner-please-stand-up

Quote:

 

• Since the beginning of 2009, there have been more major winners from outside the top 100 (three) than from inside the OWGR top 10 (two). The only two players in that span to win a major when ranked inside the top 10 are Rory McIlroy (eighth at the 2011 U.S. Open) and Phil Mickelson (third at the 2010 Masters).

• Compare that with the previous four-year span of 2005-2008. Ten of those 16 major champions were ranked inside the top 10 at the time of their victory. From 2001-2008, 20 of the 32 major winners were ranked inside the top 10 (62.5 percent).

• Six of the past 14 major winners were ranked outside the top 50 in the OWGR. From 1997 to 2008, there were only seven major champions ranked 51st or lower.

Major champ inside OWGR top 10

	Top 10	Outside Top 50
2009-12	2	6
2005-08	10	2
2001-04	10	4
1997-00	6	1
1993-96	7	2
1989-92	8	3

 

• Let's look at the average OWGR position of major winners. For this exercise, we threw out the highest number in that span when calculating the average (so, let's say in the 2001-2004 span, we tossed out Ben Curtis' No. 396, then calculated the number from there). The number you come up with for the past four years is a staggering 43.5. From 2005-2008, that number is just 12.3. In fact, only two major winners in the 2005-2008 sample had a world ranking higher than the 43.5 average from the past four years: Michael Campbell at the 2005 U.S. Open (80th) and Zach Johnson at the 2007 Masters (56th).

• The obvious elephant in the room when doing this exercise is a particular 14-time major champion who has gone major-less during this period of parity. So how does this 2009-2012 span compare with the pre-Tiger years? Once again, the contrast is very stark.

Average OWGR of major winners *

Year	Adjusted average
2009-12	43.5
2005-08	12.3
2001-04	27.6
1997-00	13.5
1993-96	19.9
1989-92	17.1
* Highest number in sample removed

From 1989-1996 (a span of 32 major championships), there were only five major winners ranked outside the OWGR top 50. In the past 14 majors held, there have been six.

 

• There were seven major winners ranked inside the OWGR top 10 from 1993-1996. There were eight from 1989-1992. Amazingly (as referenced above), there have been just two such champions since the 2009 Masters. So who's the pick to win it at Royal Lytham? The numbers say that nowadays, it's anybody's guess.

 

Interesting chart include in this post I'm replying to. I never realized it, but Tiger had two streaks of 2 years each, between 2000-2002 and 2005-2007 where he won 11 of his majors. Leads me to ask, is he really the GOAT, or the owner of 2 of the most dominant condensed streaks in golf history? His overall career over a 10 year period from late 90's to late 2000's is phenomenal, but he was certainly not the most consistent winner of majors over the course of his career it seems. Maybe a couple more in this current comeback change this perception?

Edited March 16, 2018 by GrandStranded

[Dr. Manhattan]

45 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Interesting chart include in this post I'm replying to. I never realized it, but Tiger had two streaks of 2 years each, between 2000-2002 and 2005-2007 where he won 11 of his majors. Leads me to ask, is he really the GOAT, or the owner of 2 of the most dominant condensed streaks in golf history? His overall career over a 10 year period from late 90's to late 2000's is phenomenal, but he was certainly not the most consistent winner of majors over the course of his career it seems. Maybe a couple more in this current comeback change this perception?

 

Actually it was 1999-2002 and 2005-2008. He won 13 of his 14 majors in these 8 seasons. 

That is why you can say they’re 1A and 1B. I think BOAT and GOAT can be different people. Tiger is probably the BOAT and Jack is probably the GOAT. 

[GrandStranded]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

 

Actually it was 1999-2002 and 2005-2008. He won 13 of his 14 majors in these 8 seasons. 

That is why you can say they’re 1A and 1B. I think BOAT and GOAT can be different people. Tiger is probably the BOAT and Jack is probably the GOAT. 

I think I can get on board with that. Not sure many others will though...

[saevel25]

2 hours ago, GrandStranded said:

I never realized it, but Tiger had two streaks of 2 years each, between 2000-2002 and 2005-2007 where he won 11 of his majors. Leads me to ask, is he really the GOAT, or the owner of 2 of the most dominant condensed streaks in golf history? His overall career over a 10 year period from late 90's to late 2000's is phenomenal, but he was certainly not the most consistent winner of majors over the course of his career it seems. Maybe a couple more in this current comeback change this perception?

He won 14 majors out of 44 attempts from 1998 thru 2008, 32% of them.

Jack won 14 majors out of 58 attempts from 1961 thru 1975, 24% of them.

Tiger was more consistent in majors. Since Tiger competed against stronger fields, there is a much higher chance of him falling out of the top 10 than Jack would have. That top 10 could be just one guy shooting one stroke better on the final round to bump Tiger out of the top 10.

 

[GrandStranded]

3 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

He won 14 majors out of 44 attempts from 1998 thru 2008, 32% of them.

Jack won 14 majors out of 58 attempts from 1961 thru 1975, 24% of them.

Tiger was more consistent in majors. Since Tiger competed against stronger fields, there is a much higher chance of him falling out of the top 10 than Jack would have. That top 10 could be just one guy shooting one stroke better on the final round to bump Tiger out of the top 10.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Was it meant to refute anything I said about Tiger's "two streaks?" Because they are what they are what I said they are. Two incredibly dominant streaks. I'm not sure if it's that, or you're talking about the total number each won. That would lead to 18>14, and I don't think that's your argument. As far as winning percentages in majors, I think the best and most fair way to compare the two would be at the end of Tiger's career. Right now his are still condensed over a shorter period, but the% will likely look a lot different 10 years from now.

[3jacker]

This is like arguing religion.

[iacas]

5 hours ago, GrandStranded said:

Interesting chart include in this post I'm replying to. I never realized it, but Tiger had two streaks of 2 years each, between 2000-2002 and 2005-2007 where he won 11 of his majors. Leads me to ask, is he really the GOAT, or the owner of 2 of the most dominant condensed streaks in golf history? His overall career over a 10 year period from late 90's to late 2000's is phenomenal, but he was certainly not the most consistent winner of majors over the course of his career it seems. Maybe a couple more in this current comeback change this perception?

I don't care when a guy wins them.

Imagine a situation where a guy wins 18 majors in a row, but doesn't win any others in a 30-year career. Let's say he competed the same time as Jack, too, so the fields were the same.

How on earth do you figure his 18 < Jack's 18?

---

The Jack fans out there are constantly looking for ways to massage their ONE favorable data point (which I don't even think is favorable given even a small adjustment for strength of field). This is just another variant of the "longevity" argument.

It's still just a minor variation to "18 > 14" (which again is shorthand for "majors are all that matter"). Majors are all that matter because otherwise Tiger wins out on almost every other stat.

[iacas]

A quote from the April edition of Golf Digest, in an interview with Bob Goalby, 1968 Masters winner, and uncle to Jay Haas, and so great uncle (?) to Bill Haas.

The quote is about Jack being as long as Dustin Johnson, which he denies because Jack was 5'10" and DJ is 6'4" with "long, sinewy arms." Then he continues:

"At some point, we have to acknowledge that golfers today are better in every way. If they weren't, it would mean my generation didn't do a good job bringing them along."

Yet another of those old school guys who states what's obvious to most: golfers are much better today than back then. No, few (perhaps only one) is as good as Jack, but overall, the average PGA Tour golfer is significantly better today than they were then.

[mvmac]

Talked with my best friend today who is good buddies with Martin Trainer, the player that won on the Web last week. Martin mentioned that the quality of players on that tour is unbelievable, how solid everyone is and that you can't let up at all or players will pass you by on the leaderboard. And Martin knows what good is, he's played in a U.S. Open, several PGA Tour events and played for USC.

I've played with Martin a couple times, he regularly hits it 320-340, plays ho-hum golf and shoots 65/66 on his home course (Venturi tees at Cal Club).

[Dr. Manhattan]

10 hours ago, iacas said:

A quote from the April edition of Golf Digest, in an interview with Bob Goalby, 1968 Masters winner, and uncle to Jay Haas, and so great uncle (?) to Bill Haas.

The quote is about Jack being as long as Dustin Johnson, which he denies because Jack was 5'10" and DJ is 6'4" with "long, sinewy arms." Then he continues:

"At some point, we have to acknowledge that golfers today are better in every way. If they weren't, it would mean my generation didn't do a good job bringing them along."

Yet another of those old school guys who states what's obvious to most: golfers are much better today than back then. No, few (perhaps only one) is as good as Jack, but overall, the average PGA Tour golfer is significantly better today than they were then.

 

I just think of a guy like Hoffman. He is a hell of a ballstriker with a very good overall game. Only has 4 wins on Tour. There are dozens of guys on Tour just like him. “These guys are good.” Understatement by Tour marketing IMHO. 

[Chanceman]

Statistics can be used to support almost any argument. Relativism is today's ideology - standards of one era are just that. The great players of one era will stand out against those of another. Technology, training methods, diet, economics, sponsorship, knowledge, travel, course care standards, equipment, the ball, all change over time and so players of one era cannot be held to the same standard as another. Is Usain Bolt greater than Jesse Owens, or Carl Lewis? On times yes but lots has changed over the journey. In cricket (a sport as old as golf) Don Bradman averaged 99 in the 30s and 40s but the best today is about 55 or 60 - yet people still argue.  All records fall, does that mean the new holder is a better athlete? I would say not necessarily.

[iacas]

23 minutes ago, Chanceman said:

Statistics can be used to support almost any argument.

And yet, in that entire paragraph, you presented nothing that can be considered an argument.

Jack himself said that the fields were significantly stronger in his own autobiography.

23 minutes ago, Chanceman said:

Is Usain Bolt greater than Jesse Owens, or Carl Lewis?

Uh, yes.

[Chanceman]

That's because I and many others are tired of presenting reasonable arguments and having you guys resort to the same silly tripe, essentially avoiding the question and resorting to circular thinking. eg the fields are bigger so they must be better. Taken to its logical conclusion, this means that as the population increases the current champion becomes the de facto GOAT. Its natural of course to think that our current Man is the best ever.  I beg to differ and that with reasonable inferences you can have a fair assessment of the best over time. Not provable in any conclusive way of course but yet some people insist it is. And despite my having presented a host of reasons why modern performances might be better than before, and not due entirely to the athlete's ability.

re Usain Bolt, the question has to be whether Jesse Owens, with rubber tracks , ergonomic shoes , professional sport , weight training and a more supportive social environment etc etc could have done what Bolt has. Maybe, maybe not, but you cant be definitive. On the evidence, though, its sure Bolt.

Its much more difficult with Jack and Tiger because Jack's results in Majors are actually superior, so you have to find a reason dont you? Depth of field - bingo.

Off to golf, cheerio.

[phillyk]

It isn’t about what one could potentially do with different equipment. It’s how these players have fared against their competitors that determines greatness. The course, access to technology, etc is the same for players in a single tournament. So you can eliminate it having any effect from a generation to generation view. That’s why strength of field matters. It determines the baseline for how they played. 

[saevel25]

3 hours ago, Chanceman said:

eg the fields are bigger so they must be better.

So you decide to drop all the discussion on how the players are actually better, and there are more of them. It isn't just because the fields are larger (looking at a number).

3 hours ago, Chanceman said:

Its natural of course to think that our current Man is the best ever.

Actually it isn't. Humans tend to romanticize and justify the greatness their sporting heroes. They always overestimate how good the athletes of the past are. They are willing to criticize those in the modern era while look past the inadequacies of those in the past.

3 hours ago, Chanceman said:

Its much more difficult with Jack and Tiger because Jack's results in Majors are actually superior, so you have to find a reason dont you? Depth of field - bingo

Jack's results in the Majors are not superior if you think about all the factors that go into a win. We are not sitting here trying to find ways to undermine Jack's accomplishments. We can sit back and think logically about things, instead of trying to validate our nostalgia. If we can try to accurately apply a quality factor to the stats, then we can fairly judge the golfers. If we don't, then we are unfairly underestimating the current generation of golfers.

The questions has never been, "What if they grew up in the same era, who would be greater." The question is, "Who is the greatest golfer of all time." If the criteria is wins and majors then the quality of those wins and majors must be stacked up. Is it Jack's fault he played in the 1960's  & 1970's versus the late 90's and 2000's? Of course not, but the depth of competition is still valid.