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

[3putter]

Just because Jack said that doesn't make it so.

Maybe your post script just means that lower ranked players had as much a chance to win then as they do now and therefor it was just as difficult for the better player to separate themselves from field as it is today.

No. His script was a counter to the age old argument of "All these new age soft players got intimidated by Tiger, and it would never have happened in the good ol days of Hogan, Snead, Arnie, Jack...etc"

There are numerous posts that have addressed the possibility of lower ranked players winning/better players separating themselves angle. This isn't one of them, I'm not even sure how it can be legitimately made into one.

[onkey]

Could modern players hit a 1-iron off the turf into the green on the final 18th hole to secure a win in the U.S. Open? Ben Hogan did it from 213 yards out at Merion in 1950 (I know, prior to 60s-70s), and then Jack Nicklaus did it at Baltusrol in 1967 from 238 yards out.

Yes they could.  But today that same club would be called a 3-iron.

John Daly hit a 1-iron from 278 yards on #17 at Baltusrol in 1993.

[metrybill]

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

This is edited from my post on another thread. It may need to be updated. Until otherwise proven, I am definitely an 18+2 =20 is better than a 14+3 = 17 believer.

I am also a firm believer that Jack was more relevant on more occasions in the majors than has been Tiger.

Majors:

1st/2nd/3rd

Jack: 18/19/9 = 46

Tiger 14/6/4 =   24

Jack put himself in contention far more often than has the Tiger, actually nearly 2x as often.

Going into Sundays, Jack won from in front and, importantly, from behind putting pressure on the leaders.

To the best of my recollection, Tiger has never won a major from behind.

IMO Jack played against more dominant, consistent majors competitors / contenders than has Tiger.

Here are some of the players Jack beat (finished second) in his 18 majors wins.  The numbers in parentheses show their career finishes in majors (1st, 2nd, 3rd).

Arnold Palmer    (7,10, 2) HOF (Hall of Fame)

Tony Lema         (1,1,0 )*                                                                         * only played 10 years before his death in his mid 30's.

Gary Player        (9,6,3) HOF

Billy Casper        (3,4,1) HOF

Tom Weiskopf    (1,5,3)

Ben Crenshaw    (2,5,4) HOF

Ray Floyd           (4,5,1) HOF

Tom Kite             (1,4,1) HOF

Greg Norman      (2,8,4) HOF

Totals:                (30, 48, 22 = 100)

http://www.worldgolfhalloffame.org/hall-of-fame/search-hall-of-fame-members/

Jack NIcklaus won his first tournament in 1962 (US Open) and is last in 1986 (Masters), 73 PGA wins in all over a 24 year period.  ** Keep in mind that Nicklaus' career overlapped with the careers of the following HOF players: T. Watson, Billy Casper, Ben Crenshaw, Chi Chi Rodriguez, C. Sifford, Nick Price, J. Ozaki, Christy O'Connor, Larry Nelson, J. Ozaki, Johnny Miller, Sandy Lyle, Hubert Green, Sir Nick Faldo, Seve Ballesteros, Lanny Wadkins, Robert DiVincenzo, Ray Floyd, Hale Irwin, Tony Jacklin, Bernhard Langer, Gene Littler, Curtis Strange, Ken Venturi, and Fred Couples.

I am NOT a Tiger Woods detractor at all, albeit I admit I don't like him as a person. See my avatar, He has been the best player of the current era, at least until Bubba and Rory showed up.

Here are some of the players Tiger beat (finished second to him) in his 14 majors. Keep in mind that Tiger's record in the Majors is 14-6-4 compared to Nicklaus'

Tom Kite                       (1,4,1) HOF

Sergio Garcia               (0, 4,2)                                        possible HOF

Ernie Els                      (4, 6, 5)                                        probable HOF (if not already)

Miguel Angel Martinez (0,1, 1)                                         possible but improbable HOF

Bob May                      (0,1, 0 )                                        no shot; only played in 8 majors

David Duval                 (1,3, 1)                                         probable HOF ; former  no. 1

Retief Goosen              (2,2,2)                                          probable HOF

Phil Mickelson              (5, 9, 7) HOF in waiting (already in?)

Chris Dimarco              (0, 3,0)                                         no shot

C Montgomerie            (0, 5, 0) HOF ; but questionable to say the least.  won his berth off of European Tour Record and Ryder Cup

S. Micheel                    (1, 1, 0)                                        no shot

Woody Austin               (0, 1, 0)                                       not a shot in hell

Rocco Mediate             (0, 1, 0)                                        not a shot in hell

Totals                          (16-35-18 = 69)

Tiger has won 79 PGA tournaments, the first in 1997 (Las Vegas) and last in 2013 (Bridgestone Invitational), that's a 16 year spread.  He won his first major in 1997 (Masters) and his last in 2008 (US Open) a spread of 11 years and that was nearly 7 years ago. I will leave it to someone else to make the same strength of field comparisons that I made above at **.  Here are some of the other prominent players of the  Tiger Woods era.  Bubba Watson, Davis Love, Payne Stewart, Tom Lehman,  Vijay Singh, Jose Maria Olazabal, Miguel Angel Jiminez, Thomas Bjorn, Justin Leonard, Paul Azinger, Jim Furyk, David Toms, Mark O'Meara (HOF?), Luke Donald, Adam Scott, Steve Stricker, Padraig Harrington, John Daly, Graeme McDowell, Zach Johnson, Henrik Stenson, Justin Rose, Keegan Bradley, and OH YES, Rory McIlroy. How many HOF"s do you see in there?

Correct me if I am wrong, but Nicklaus through his first 17 majors never went more than 3 years without winning at least 1 major. Tiger was on a similar or better track until he stalled in 2008. Jack went 6 years between his 17th Major at age 40 until his 18th at age 46.  Tiger turns 40 12/30/2015.

Very much looking forward to replies from those who find Tiger's strength of field to have been more impressive than was Jack's.  Facts, please - not conjecture.

U.S. Amateur records: Tiger's won 3 to Jack's 2. Both impressive.

Tiger's Amateur Majors' records: Tiger 1997 Masters T42 low amateur  1998 WD

"    US Open WD                      "     T82

"     British Open CT68            "     T22 low amateur (how does an amateur afford this, just saying)

Jack  nearly finished college, just a few credits shy of graduating. He turned pro in 1962, at age 22.

Tiger did not come close to finishing college. He turned pro in 1996 at age 19 or 20.

Nicklaus' Amateur Majors' record as an amateur

1957 US Open  CUT

1958 T41

1959  Masters CUT

1960 Masters T13 low amateur

1960 US Open 2nd, low amateur (!) at age 20; Top that Tiger

1961  Masters T7

(Does anyone want to count Jack's 1960 Masters, 1960 US Open (2nd)  and 1961 Masters finishes as the equal of an US Amateur?)

Granted, Tiger's career is not yet over, at least I hope not.

For more information see:   Jack at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Nicklaus

Tiger at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Woods

[iacas]

IMO Jack played against more dominant, consistent majors competitors / contenders  than has Tiger.

This statement alone makes your post worth significantly less than you might think.

It's the entire premise of this thread. The entire purpose of this thread. You start off with the conclusion.

This isn't the "18 > 14" thread. This IS the "strength of field" thread. And you started off with the conclusion.

The depth of the field goes beyond what players played during the era. Particularly when you're going to cite people like Tom Kite and Greg Norman, who were - at best - barely overlapping.

The point that some of the players who finished second are no-names goes to the point that the strength of field is significantly stronger these days than in Jack's era. You've looked at this in a totally presumptive way. You know how they say stats lie? Well, this could be on the list of exhibits.

Very much looking forward to replies from those who find Tiger's strength of field to have been more impressive than was Jack's.  Facts, please - not conjecture.

There have already been numerous replies above as well as in the other thread. It's not like you've presented new information here.

Here's my position somewhat.

In Jack's day, there was one Jack, five Tom Watsons at any given time, and a whole bunch of nobodies.

In Tiger's day, there is one Tiger, fifty Tom Watsons at any given time, and a whole bunch of Bob Mays.

Given the numbers, the money, the explosion in worldwide participation, equipment, etc. - it's frankly a joke that anyone could possibly consider the strength of field as stronger in Jack's day than in Tiger's.

[9iron]

Jack played against plenty of strong players, and plenty of GREAT players. Players that did not back down.

I think that a lot of people reflexively and almost subconsciously knock Jack's playing competition in an effort to elevate Tiger's record. It won't matter because at the end of the day, except for places like TST, it is still going to come down to 18 > 14. The masses of people who watch golf on TV or play golf will still view things this way.

[saevel25]

Jack played against plenty of strong players, and plenty of GREAT players. Players that did not back down.

I think that a lot of people reflexively and almost subconsciously knock Jack's playing competition in an effort to elevate Tiger's record. It won't matter because at the end of the day, except for places like TST, it is still going to come down to 18 > 14. The masses of people who watch golf on TV or play golf will still view things this way.

In terms of basic math 18>14.

Yet if you look at lest say NCAA football. Some years some conferences are better than others. For the past decade the SEC has been the toughest conference. Even though a team can go undefeated in another conference and they might have more wins, a two loss team from the SEC would probably be the better team.

Just saying, number of wins can be trumped by QUALITY of the wins.

The downfall of looking at who Jack played against in terms of number of Majors his competition won or the number of wins they won is that we are looking at a total career of those players. A lot of Tiger's competitors have not even finished their careers yet.

Also, when you have a deeper field the average number of wins and majors won by the competitors to Tiger is reduced as well. This is why comparing the two fields they played against in terms of wins and majors is not a logical way of doing it.

If you know the top 10 in Jack's time are really good and the rest are not so good, then those top 10 including jack at the top would eat up the competition and split all those wins between themselves.

If you have the top 50 in Tiger's time that are really good, then all those available wins are distributed out more evenly. So the top 10 in Tiger's time would have less opportunities because of the chance that a sub top 10 would play really well for that tournament.

[iacas]

Jack played against plenty of strong players, and plenty of GREAT players. Players that did not back down.

Those same people benefitted from weaker fields too. Also, plenty backed down. Heck, consider how many did in the '86 Masters alone. Jack played boring final rounds and let his competitors wilt. He said it many times. Bob May didn't back down. Rocco didn't. Dimarco. Sergio in 1999. Jack never won by 12 or 15 shots either. [quote name="9iron" url="/t/74049/strength-and-depth-of-field-in-jacks-day-and-tigers-day/210#post_1101144"]I think that a lot of people reflexively and almost subconsciously knock Jack's playing competition in an effort to elevate Tiger's record. It won't matter because at the end of the day, except for places like TST, it is still going to come down to 18 > 14. The masses of people who watch golf on TV or play golf will still view things this way.  [/quote] So what if they don't actually care to think and consider things, instead opting to be mentally lazy? I choose not to be. If you wanna be lazy, be my guest. BTW, almost all off topic for this thread. Strength of field…

[9iron]

In terms of basic math 18>14.

Yet if you look at lest say NCAA football. Some years some conferences are better than others. For the past decade the SEC has been the toughest conference. Even though a team can go undefeated in another conference and they might have more wins, a two loss team from the SEC would probably be the better team.

Just saying, number of wins can be trumped by QUALITY of the wins.

The downfall of looking at who Jack played against in terms of number of Majors his competition won or the number of wins they won is that we are looking at a total career of those players. A lot of Tiger's competitors have not even finished their careers yet.

Also, when you have a deeper field the average number of wins and majors won by the competitors to Tiger is reduced as well. This is why comparing the two fields they played against in terms of wins and majors is not a logical way of doing it.

If you know the top 10 in Jack's time are really good and the rest are not so good, then those top 10 including jack at the top would eat up the competition and split all those wins between themselves.

If you have the top 50 in Tiger's time that are really good, then all those available wins are distributed out more evenly. So the top 10 in Tiger's time would have less opportunities because of the chance that a sub top 10 would play really well for that tournament.

And yet that did not happen. Plenty of off the radar guys won majors during Jack's era. We have been thur this argument ad nauseum, and I accept that here on TST that Tiger's record is sacrosanct so I'm not going to belabor this any longer.

By the logic used here, pretty soon we'll all be able to say Rory played against tougher players there fore he is the greatest. Won't be too long.

[mvmac]

Very much looking forward to replies from those who find Tiger's strength of field to have been more impressive than was Jack's.  Facts, please - not conjecture.

Just start from the first page, there have already been a lot of great posts to support that the strength of the field is stronger today than it was in the 60's and 70's.

http://thesandtrap.com/t/74049/strength-and-depth-of-field-in-jacks-day-and-tigers-day/18#post_980829

http://thesandtrap.com/t/74049/strength-and-depth-of-field-in-jacks-day-and-tigers-day/198#post_1091208

http://thesandtrap.com/b/thrash_talk/tiger_vs_jack

Given the numbers, the money, the explosion in worldwide participation, equipment, etc. - it's frankly a joke that anyone could possibly consider the strength of field as stronger in Jack's day than in Tiger's.

QFT

Jack played against plenty of strong players, and plenty of GREAT players. Players that did not back down.

So has Tiger. Phil, Ernie, Vijay, Adam Scott, Rory, Bubba, Padraig.

Also it's tough to "not back down" when Tiger is leading by 6, 8, 15 shots.

By the logic used here, pretty soon we'll all be able to say Rory played against tougher players there fore he is the greatest. Won't be too long.

If he gets in the neighborhood of 14 majors and a bunch of tour events, sure.

[Silent]

Personally I think there's no doubt that today's field is stronger. But also I strongly believe if Jack would be a golfer today, he would be a better golfer then he was (better training methods, better guidance, better (mental) coaching, better material). And Tiger back then would be less good than he was in recent history. Would Tiger win 18 back then, and Jack 14 now if they could trade places? Obviously we'll never know. They are both great, and the best player of their time.

[9iron]

Personally I think there's no doubt that today's field is stronger. But also I strongly believe if Jack would be a golfer today, he would be a better golfer then he was (better training methods, better guidance, better (mental) coaching, better material). And Tiger back then would be less good than he was in recent history. Would Tiger win 18 back then, and Jack 14 now if they could trade places? Obviously we'll never know. They are both great, and the best player of their time.

Pete Rose used to say that whomever the best were in one era, they'd have been the best in another era too. By that measure, Ty Cobb would have been great had he played in the 60's and 70's, and Rose would have been great playing in the dead ball era that Cobb played in.

Babe Ruth might have had 80 homers playing on juice and with amped up baseballs. Nolan Ryan would have struck out 1000's of batters in the 1920's. If you are good enough to be the best in one era, who is to say you would have worked any less hard to be the best in any other era. This is why objective evidence matters. Everything else is just an opinion.

[turtleback]

Jack played against plenty of strong players, and plenty of GREAT players. Players that did not back down.

Bullshit.

I've posted over and over again the way these supposed greats fell apart in competition against Jack starting with his very first major, year the US Open playoff against Arnie.  But there would never have even been a playoff if Arnie had not putted crappy - 10 3-putts in 4 rounds?

Then there is Doug Sanders who gifted Jack with a British Open.

Then there are Greg Norman and Seve who both had to throw up on themselves to make Jack closing round in 1986 more than just a nice footnote.

1968 Masters - Palmer shoots 38 on the back nine to finish 2 shots back.

Those who argue for Jack on these (they don't back down) have an essential problem.  Jack's statement that he just played to hang around in majors knowing his competitors would self-destruct.  So unlike you Jack apparently did not think, at the time, that those players in his era were the kind of steely-eyed competitors that, looking back through rose-colored glasses, some people seem to now think they were.

How ironic, most of the "tough competitor" talk is based on the times Watson and Trevino beat him.  Maybe if Tiger had lost to Bob May and Rocco Mediate, both of whom played a LOT tougher than many of those past greats played against Jack, . . . .

[9iron]

Bullshit.

Always a compelling argument.

[billchao]

Always a compelling argument.

He called you out and gave a bunch of reasons in support of his argument and you choose to respond? LOL

[9iron]

He called you out and gave a bunch of reasons in support of his argument and you choose to respond? LOL

Yep.

[colin007]

Yep.

It's too bad you can't hear us laughing at you. The kids would say "you got pwned".

[mvmac]

Always a compelling argument.

How about the rest of what he said?

I've posted over and over again the way these supposed greats fell apart in competition against Jack starting with his very first major, year the US Open playoff against Arnie.  But there would never have even been a playoff if Arnie had not putted crappy - 10 3-putts in 4 rounds?

Then there is Doug Sanders who gifted Jack with a British Open.

Then there are Greg Norman and Seve who both had to throw up on themselves to make Jack closing round in 1986 more than just a nice footnote.

1968 Masters - Palmer shoots 38 on the back nine to finish 2 shots back.

Those who argue for Jack on these (they don't back down) have an essential problem.  Jack's statement that he just played to hang around in majors knowing his competitors would self-destruct.  So unlike you Jack apparently did not think, at the time, that those players in his era were the kind of steely-eyed competitors that, looking back through rose-colored glasses, some people seem to now think they were.

How ironic, most of the "tough competitor" talk is based on the times Watson and Trevino beat him.  Maybe if Tiger had lost to Bob May and Rocco Mediate, both of whom played a LOT tougher than many of those past greats played against Jack, . . . .

[turtleback]

He called you out and gave a bunch of reasons in support of his argument and you choose to respond? LOL

It's too bad you can't hear us laughing at you. The kids would say "you got pwned".

How about the rest of what he said?

Thanks, guys.  I had an absolutely devastating rebuttal all ready, but you three have made it superfluous.