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

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Jack Watson said:

Really,  @iacas

you may as well come out and say that Hogan wouldn’t have a chance against David Toms.  After all Hogan’s best year was 53 and Toms beat better guys than Hogan in college.  Clearly in your view Hogan’s swing was inferior to Toms after all it was homemade at the caddy yard.

No, not "really," because I've never said any such thing. Or anything that you can even reasonably misconstrue as having such a belief.

Hogan - like Jack but even a bit more so - had a few people to beat. He didn't have to beat 120+ people all capable of winning the event.

[brocks]

6 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

Really,  @iacas

you may as well come out and say that Hogan wouldn’t have a chance against David Toms.  After all Hogan’s best year was 53 and Toms beat better guys than Hogan in college.  Clearly in your view Hogan’s swing was inferior to Toms after all it was homemade at the caddy yard.

Why do you continue to concentrate on the dominant players of a generation, when the topic is strength and depth of field?  I could make a good case for Hogan being better than Jack, let alone Toms.  I would bet my house that if Hogan hadn't had little distractions like a World War and a crippling accident, he would have 20 majors.  If he had been given good coaching when he was a boy, instead of spending 20 years on trial and error, he might have had 30.

But this isn't about who's the GOAT, it's about whether the fields are stronger and deeper now than they were 50 years ago.  Those who say yes have given you facts about the size of the talent pool, superior coaching and training, and equalizing equipment.  You keep coming back with arguments like Hogan could beat Toms.  Seriously, are you even trying?

[iacas]

22 minutes ago, brocks said:

Seriously, are you even trying?

No. He’s just trolling at this point.

[Jack Watson]

@brocks @iacas

Look at the 2000 Ryder cup teams.  They were just ok.  In 97-2002 an awful lot of golfs top tier talent was aging.  I know I pointed it out before,  but Tiger benefited not only from otherworldly talent,  but he also burst on scene at just the right time.  I’m not trolling,  just enjoying a friendly spirited back and forth.  Tiger came in when Norman and Faldo had been at the top but were aging like many other big names.  Its fine to point out a mathematical concept and apply it to a situation as you guys are doing,  but I also think it’s important to take into account specific realities of those exact years of golf.  That’s fair isn’t it?

[iacas]

17 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Look at the 2000 Ryder cup teams. They were just ok. In 97-2002 an awful lot of golfs top tier talent was aging. I know I pointed it out before, but Tiger benefited not only from otherworldly talent, but he also burst on scene at just the right time. I’m not trolling, just enjoying a friendly spirited back and forth. Tiger came in when Norman and Faldo had been at the top but were aging like many other big names. Its fine to point out a mathematical concept and apply it to a situation as you guys are doing, but I also think it’s important to take into account specific realities of those exact years of golf. That’s fair isn’t it?

Tiger "burst onto the scene" when golf had stronger, deeper fields than any that Jack had ever faced.

You've never come close to showing that to be untrue. Ever. Because you can't. You're unable to, because it's true.

You don't get it, and seemingly never will.

---

17 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Look at the 2000 Ryder cup teams.

There was no Ryder Cup in 2000.

This is a stupid game to play, because you're just going to say "oh, that Alex Cagill and that Ken Still were such great players back in 1969."

So yeah, go look at the 1999 Ryder Cup team. It included for the European team players from seven countries. Players from seven different countries were good enough to make the Ryder Cup team, and battle a very good U.S. team, because golf had grown from the 1969 Ryder Cup into a much larger sport. Thus the strength AND depth of the field was much greater.

There are only so many golf tournaments to win in the world each year. Let's say there are 50. If you have 10 good/great players, and 500 decent players, those 10 are going to win a lot of those 50 events.

If you have 5000 really, really good/great players… the top 10 guys, hell, the top 50 guys… will have a much tougher time winning those 50 events.

You don't understand the basic math behind this concept. You repeatedly ignore it, and chime in only with your opinions that, say, Hal Sutton wasn't a good player, but the math would say he was better than many of the players on Jack's Ryder Cup teams, and significantly better than many of the players on the teams Jack faced.

This:

And this:

[Phil McGleno]

@Jack Watson @sheepdog @GrandStranded -Is it harder to win on the LPGA Tour in 2018 than it was in 1978?-Yes.

Why?-"Because of the Koreans" you say?

But Korean people are not physically superior golfers because they are Korean.-They are just humans.

It is much tougher to win on the LPGA Tour now than in 1978 because there are a lot more women playing golf now than in 1978.-A lot of them are Korean.

But there are 150 people on the PGA Tour or LPGA or whatever who even have a chance to play in and win tournaments when in 1978 they would take anyone who could break 80 and on the PGA Tour they were still filling out fields with club pros like me.

Nowadays the top 150 have trained their entire life and beat out a hundred thousand other pros just to make the Web.com Tour. The best 20 club pros can not even make the cut in a major regularly let alone winning them like Harmon did in the 30s.

I have no idea how this topic stays open.-The sheer stupidity of those who think that Jacks competition was remotely as good as Tigers astounds me.

@iacas-you should close the topic.

[sheepdog]

That's right, sure Nicklaus beat a bunch of chumps, he'd be a journeyman today. Kind of like you were.

[boogielicious]

Just now, sheepdog said:

That's right, sure Nicklaus beat a bunch of chumps, he'd be a journeyman today. Kind of like you were.

Knock it off. That is not remotely what he’s saying and you absolutely know it. Grow up. 

[sheepdog]

22 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

The sheer stupidity of those who think that Jacks competition was remotely as good as Tigers astounds me.

OK, what's he saying ??????

Edited July 4, 2018 by sheepdog

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

OK, what's he saying ??????

That's pretty plain English.

That you can't understand it doesn't surprise me.

17 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

That's right, sure Nicklaus beat a bunch of chumps, he'd be a journeyman today. Kind of like you were.

Nobody's said that. Or anything close to that.

[sheepdog]

OK I get it, pay attention to what I mean, not what I say. I get it.😎

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

OK I get it, pay attention to what I mean, not what I say. I get it.😎

Nope. Not at all.

[Phil McGleno]

1 hour ago, sheepdog said:

That's right, sure Nicklaus beat a bunch of chumps, he'd be a journeyman today. Kind of like you were.

Not what I said or what I was.-I was not a journeyman. I was a club pro. I had no aspirations at all to be a PGA Tour player.

I had a family to raise and was content to do that.

[sheepdog]

Perhaps my understanding of his statement doesn't jive wjth your understanding of his statement, it happens. Still Mr. O'Grady called me out so I answered with my understanding of his statement

[boogielicious]

Just now, sheepdog said:

Perhaps my understanding of his statement doesn't jive wjth your understanding of his statement, it happens. Still Mr. O'Grady called me out so I answered with my understanding of his statement

He is not Mr O’Grady. You can’t even read his name correctly. 

[sheepdog]

12 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

He is not Mr O’Grady. You can’t even read his name correctly. 

There's a guy that played on tour back in the 80s that looked just like his avatar named Mac O'Grady. I think I saw him in Memphis. Did I let a secret out or something?????

 

This place is awfully confusing to an old guy.

[turtleback]

1 minute ago, sheepdog said:

There's a guy that played on tour back in the 80s that looked just like his avatar named Mac O'Grady. I think I saw him in Memphis. Did I let a secret out or something?????

 

This place is awfully confusing to an old guy.

Age has nothing to do with it, unless you are claiming that because of your age you have lost the ability to think and reason.

A clue: people with avatars of their favorite golfer aren't that golfer.  And for the record, I am not 2 Muppets.

[sheepdog]

Wait, he said he played on tour but he's Phil McGleno, yet when I google Phil McGleno I get Mac O'Grady. Surely you can see how little ole me could be confused.👈👉