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

[9iron]

How about the rest of what he said?

The rest of what he said is opinion. It is a subjective opinion in answer to a subjective question. The whole Jack vs. Tiger thing, whether it be in this thread or any other is subjective. It can't be answered in any way that is not subjective. I have heard all of his arguments before and I don't agree with them. Not to any extent that I think this is any sort of settled issue. He gets upset when people don't just fall in line when he speaks, which is pretty funny if you ask me.

I don't care that he or anyone else disagrees with my point of view. Part of life.

[iacas]

The rest of what he said is opinion. It is a subjective opinion in answer to a subjective question.

No it wasn't. Quite a bit of it was fact IIRC. Things that Jack said were fact. Players Jack beat - who had leads and gave them away - are fact. Margins of victory - fact. Number of golfers - fact.

You're simply holding to your opinion in the face of facts. That's fine, but please don't do yourself the disservice of pretending it's 100% opinion and 100% subjective. People, perhaps not you, use facts to inform and guide their ultimate opinion.

[9iron]

No it wasn't. Quite a bit of it was fact IIRC. Things that Jack said were fact. Players Jack beat - who had leads and gave them away - are fact. Margins of victory - fact. Number of golfers - fact.

You're simply holding to your opinion in the face of facts. That's fine, but please don't do yourself the disservice of pretending it's 100% opinion and 100% subjective. People, perhaps not you, use facts to inform and guide their ultimate opinion.

Whoa now. Facts can be cherry picked to support any opinion, and that is what he is doing. He claims players folded against Jack, but players also failed to even show up against Tiger but that does not get mentioned. That is cherry picking data.

I'm not going to continue this debate because it is pointless. There is no way he, or you, are ever going to accept anything other than what you already believe. Your mind is made up, so there wouldn't be anything that anyone could say to change it.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

No it wasn't. Quite a bit of it was fact IIRC. Things that Jack said were fact. Players Jack beat - who had leads and gave them away - are fact. Margins of victory - fact. Number of golfers - fact.

You're simply holding to your opinion in the face of facts. That's fine, but please don't do yourself the disservice of pretending it's 100% opinion and 100% subjective. People, perhaps not you, use facts to inform and guide their ultimate opinion.

Whoa now. Facts can be cherry picked to support any opinion, and that is what he is doing. He claims players folded against Jack, but players also failed to even show up against Tiger but that does not get mentioned. That is cherry picking data.

I'm not going to continue this debate because it is pointless. There is no way he, or you, are ever going to accept anything other than what you already believe. Your mind is made up, so there wouldn't be anything that anyone could say to change it.

Just give up already then.

[iacas]

He claims players folded against Jack

Because you claimed that didn't happen.

Again, this is mostly off topic for this thread. This thread is not "Jack vs. Tiger." It's specifically about the strength of the field, and thus, the depth of the field too (at least as far as players are "competitive").

I'm not going to continue this debate because it is pointless. There is no way he, or you, are ever going to accept anything other than what you already believe. Your mind is made up, so there wouldn't be anything that anyone could say to change it.

If you could actually make a compelling case, I would change my mind. I think you are unable to actually make that compelling case.

I could say the same for you, except that you just rely on vague statements or mistruths more often. You say "players never folded against Nicklaus like they do all the time against Tiger" (paraphrased)… and when presented with a list of players who folded against Nicklaus or who stood up against Tiger Woods, you scream "that's subjective!"

I'd change my mind in a heartbeat if you made a compelling case. I think you're simply unable to do so. I think everyone's unable to do so… because I've thought about and considered things like the depth of field and strength of field (this thread's topic).

[9iron]

Because you claimed that didn't happen.

Again, this is mostly off topic for this thread. This thread is not "Jack vs. Tiger." It's specifically about the strength of the field, and thus, the depth of the field too (at least as far as players are "competitive").

If you could actually make a compelling case, I would change my mind. I think you are unable to actually make that compelling case.

I could say the same for you, except that you just rely on vague statements or mistruths more often. You say "players never folded against Nicklaus like they do all the time against Tiger"… and when presented with a list of players who folded against Nicklaus or who stood up against Tiger Woods, you scream "that's subjective!"

I'd change my mind in a heartbeat if you made a compelling case. I think you're simply unable to do so. I think everyone's unable to do so… because I've thought about and considered things like the depth of field and strength of field (this thread's topic).

I just checked the past 4 pages of this thread and I do not see where I wrote what you quoted. Please show me where I wrote that. Players folded or did not show up against both players. This isn't all one way or the other.

Also, I could make a very good case, but it isn't worth it because I know that no one is ever going to change their mind. The whole Tiger is the best ever theme borders on religion for some people, many of whom take it far too seriously. The fact we have an 8 year long thread here is proof of that.

[iacas]

I just checked the past 4 pages of this thread and I do not see where I wrote what you quoted. Please show me where I wrote that.

I paraphrased:

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

So, right there. That's what I was referring to.

Also, I could make a very good case, but it isn't worth it because I know that no one is ever going to change their mind. The whole Tiger is the best ever theme borders on religion for some people, many of whom take it far too seriously. The fact we have an 8 year long thread here is proof of that.

I don't believe you. And if you think you could, why on earth have you not? It's kind of the sole point of this type of discussion.

Also, for (hopefully) the last time… this is also not the "Tiger vs. Jack" thread.

[9iron]

C'mon, Erik. You took my prior posts and sort of twisted and contorted them. And as far as this thread is concerned, it comes as an offshoot of the other. To say that the other thread had dozens of posts, maybe even 100+ posts, devoted to the strength of field argument to support Tiger is pretty accurate. Yopu personally made many of those posts. So what is this thread? It is "Strength and Depth of Field in Jack's Day and Tiger's Day".

C'mon, the whole purpose of this thread is to settle the other debate. To suggest otherwise is pretty disengenuous.

[iacas]

C'mon, Erik. You took my prior posts and sort of twisted and contorted them.

I don't feel I did, but okay. You said players who played against Jack did not back down. That not only says that exactly, it implies that Tiger's competitors did back down.

And as far as this thread is concerned, it comes as an offshoot of the other. To say that the other thread had dozens of posts, maybe even 100+ posts, devoted to the strength of field argument to support Tiger is pretty accurate. Yopu personally made many of those posts. So what is this thread? It is "Strength and Depth of Field in Jack's Day and Tiger's Day".

C'mon, the whole purpose of this thread is to settle the other debate. To suggest otherwise is pretty disengenuous.

I imagine that's why this thread was started (you could ask @Phil McGleno ), but I'm glad this thread was started because it could isolate the two discussions.

You can disagree, but I see them as different discussions. This one applies to more than just Jack and Tiger - it applies to how we'll view Arnie, Hogan, Sarazen, Rory, and any golfer who might be dominating in 2065.

[iacas]

Erik, you quoted me thusly "players never folded against Nicklaus like they do all the time against Tiger"

No, I paraphrased you. If I had wanted to quote you, I'd have quoted you as I did above: by quoting you.

Enough of the meta discussion. Strength of field, please.

[jgreen85]

So how many majors does Rory need to get to be considered GOAT? Is the field now stronger or weaker than Tiger's? Has to be stronger, right? I think tour wins needs to carry more weight as well. I get that Snead won a bunch of nonsense tournaments, but Tiger and Rory will have played roughly the same quality of tournaments.

In other threads, I didn't think Rory had a shot of catching Tiger's level of dominance. I'm starting to think I was wrong.

[iacas]

So how many majors does Rory need to get to be considered GOAT? Is the field now stronger or weaker than Tiger's? Has to be stronger, right?

I think the general consensus among those who "believe" that the strength of field has increased from Jack's day to Tiger's day is about 12-13. They're overlapping, so they can't be too different.

[billchao]

So how many majors does Rory need to get to be considered GOAT? Is the field now stronger or weaker than Tiger's? Has to be stronger, right? I think tour wins needs to carry more weight as well. I get that Snead won a bunch of nonsense tournaments, but Tiger and Rory will have played roughly the same quality of tournaments. In other threads, I didn't think Rory had a shot of catching Tiger's level of dominance. I'm starting to think I was wrong.

I'd be willing to give him the crown if he wins 14. I hope he wins 19 so all this nonsense will go away ;-)

[Wally Fairway]

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.

I've tried to stay out of this and the GOAT 18 vs 14 thread, but I would like to where in the hell the 50 Tom Watsons are that Tiger competed against?

You really lose me with a comment like that; maybe Phil - but Phil isn't even in Watsons league.

Look at the all time major winners list and the only ones in the top 20 (four or more majors) are Phil and Ernie; Jack overlapped with Player, Watson, Palmer,Trevino and Ray Floyd.

I exclude Seve from competing with Jack, because Jack winning the Masters in 86 is an outlier, and I don't consider Tiger competing with Rory is valid until their winning majors overlaps.

I will grant that overall talent is deeper on the tour; I do not think that means that there are more winners - too many guys live making a check and not being able to finish for the win.

[k-troop]

I think the general consensus among those who "believe" that the strength of field has increased from Jack's day to Tiger's day is about 12-13. They're overlapping, so they can't be too different.

I think the difference between 2000 and present is as significant as the difference between 1970 and 2000. Rory is competing against a generation that grew up wanting to be Tiger. Kids that were 10 years old when Tiger won his slam are on tour now. Those kids grew up with physical training and equipment advantages, to include swing analysis and clubfitting tech, that has produced a level of competition that didn't exist when Tiger started. Tiger created an explosion of interest in the game among US minorities and in Asia. Tiger is competing against a generation of talent that his feats created. If Rory wins 8 more in that environment that will be incredibly significant (IMO).

[colin007]

"You really lose me with a comment like that; maybe Phil - but Phil isn't even in Watsons league." This is just me and my opinion, but I feel that Phil is ABSOLUTELY in Watson's league.

[iacas]

I've tried to stay out of this and the GOAT 18 vs 14 thread, but I would like to where in the hell the 50 Tom Watsons are that Tiger competed against?

You really lose me with a comment like that; maybe Phil - but Phil isn't even in Watsons league.

I feel like that question would require an entire re-hashing of things. So instead, I'll share this story that illustrates my point.

Imagine a town of 5,000 kids aged 13-15. They want to set up a recreational basketball league. Each team has six players. You want eight teams, so, 48 players. The 48 best kids aged 13-15.

The league will have an MVP (there's your Jack Nicklaus). It'll have a star player on each team (there are your Tom Watsons).

Now you create the same league in a larger city. Instead of 5,000 kids, you have 500,000. But you keep the same number of teams and players . This creates the situation where the third best player on any given TEAM is likely to be better than perhaps even the MVP of the smaller city's league. He's almost surely better than some of the other team's stars.

So that's what I mean.

IMO, Phil is absolutely in Tom's league.

Look at the all time major winners list and the only ones in the top 20 (four or more majors) are Phil and Ernie; Jack overlapped with Player, Watson, Palmer,Trevino and Ray Floyd.

Do you not see the way in which such a rudimentary analysis, such a barely-skin-deep look at things fails? The small league still has an MVP. It still has a star player on every team. That star player is going to look like a beast against the other weaker members… but the overall level of competition is lower.

How many people did Vardon have to beat in order to win some of his major championships? Five? Ten?

The other guys playing in the 50s, 60s, 70s benefitted by playing against weaker fields too. The star player on "Small City Team #7" might not even make one of the teams as the first substitute in the 500,000-possible-players city.

I think the difference between 2000 and present is as significant as the difference between 1970 and 2000.

I don't, and I doubt the numbers would support you on that.

[Aflighter]

Bottom line is back then you had around 10 guys who could win and today i think you have about 20 so all in all its not too much different than back then.The reality is when you have the top 5 or so in a tournament then there isnt gonna be as many with a chance but its when them top 5 are not playing when you can get a tossup on a winner.Im pretty sure when Jack,Tom,Arnie and few others were in a tourny then the rest stood not much of a chance.I know they say about anyone in the field can win but thats very doubtful.Even if a lower guy leads after a round or 2 hes more than likely gonna fade away on weekend.