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

[mvmac]

One has to wonder how Tiger would do on 1960 courses with a steel shafted, persimmon head driver, and wound balota (spelling) ball.

He probably would have dominated ever more. His ability to swing faster than most and hit it in the center of the face would have given him more of an advantage over the field. He won two majors (one by 12 shots) and three U.S. Amateurs with wound balls (Titleist Professionals), and a steel-shafted driver with a much smaller club head than pros use today. I don't think he switched to a graphite shaft in his driver until '03. Also he's always used muscleback irons with weaker lofts or "old" lofts.

[turtleback]

Because of the difference in course conditions, and equipment used by Jack, and Woody in their different eras of golf, this question will never have a complete, 100% answer.  It'not relevant, and is  the same as the discussion on slow play. It's has no definitive answer, and the various pro/con opinions are just that. Nothing more, but good for one's post count.

I agree with your conclusion that there will never be a 100% answer to that, but I don;t think it i because of differences in course conditions or equipment  Or at least no much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

There is an engineering adage, "if you cannot put a number on it you don't really understand it yet".

Strength of field is not an engineering problem.

Even if you try to turn it into one, with your definition, others will disagree with your definition and that changes all of the math.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

One has to wonder how Tiger would do on 1960 courses with a steel shafted, persimmon head driver, and wound balota (spelling) ball.

Well, he won three U.S. Ams with some pretty old equipment. I think he'd have done fine… and again, even Jack Nicklaus has said that better equipment narrows the gap between the poorer players and the elite players.

On the first part.  Engineers also know that assigning numbers that aren't based on measurements doesn't mean you DO know something about it.

On the second.  And wasn't the equipment he decimated the field with at the '97 Masters basically steel shafted, wound ball, persimmon (or at least small size) driver?  I remember watching a replay and wondering why he was hitting so many 3-woods off the tee until I remembered that was his driver.

[ccotenj]

iirc, a greg norman cobra driver.... googles... yup, i recall correctly.... http://mygolfspy.multi-programming.com/items/index/174/Cobra-Golf-King-Cobra-Deep-Face-Driver titleist professional ball, "real" blades... and a putter that obeyed his every command... :-)

[ghalfaire]

Strength of field is not an engineering problem.

Even if you try to turn it into one, with your definition, others will disagree with your definition and that changes all of the math.

Well, he won three U.S. Ams with some pretty old equipment. I think he'd have done fine… and again, even Jack Nicklaus has said that better equipment narrows the gap between the poorer players and the elite players.

Of course you're correct that Strength of field is not an engineering problem. It is a string of words that probably connote different things to different people, although probably most here relate theses words as being related to competitiveness of the field (which is also undefined). But from of the posts I can see that isn't true of everyone. Because there is not an accepted specific definition to what Strength of field means there is no answer to the OP's question. Anyway for me it certainly is not a problem as I believe you can only achieve in your own time and play the guys that show up. There isn't any question who was the best in Jack's hey day and neither is there a question of who was the best in Tiger's hey day (which may or may not be over) and that's good enough for me.

As to Tiger with old equipment on old courses, of course he would have been outstanding. No question he was an exceptionally skilled golfer and would have been great in any era. Maybe he would have been even more dominate, but maybe not. No one knows any more than they know how Jack would have done in today's mix of golfers with modern equipment. I really was alluding to the question of how would it have worked out if Jack's and Tiger's hey day had been the same time. Just a last comment and I have said it before on this forum, just because Jack says something does not make it so. Although I would intuitively think modern equipment would make the tour more competitive there is no proof that is true and intuition is often wrong.

[iacas]

Of course you're correct that Strength of field is not an engineering problem. It is a string of words that probably connote different things to different people, although probably most here relate theses words as being related to competitiveness of the field (which is also undefined). But from of the posts I can see that isn't true of everyone. Because there is not an accepted specific definition to what Strength of field means there is no answer to the OP's question. Anyway for me it certainly is not a problem as I believe you can only achieve in your own time and play the guys that show up. There isn't any question who was the best in Jack's hey day and neither is there a question of who was the best in Tiger's hey day (which may or may not be over) and that's good enough for me.

"Best of their era" is obvious in this case when discussing Tiger and Jack.

Strength of field matters when you want to weigh the accomplishments of both to each other, across eras.

[Big Lex]

I definitely want to answer! It's a very subjective list....and they are very close. Sometimes I do think Tiger should be #1. 

I give the the nod to Jack because of overall performance in majors. Not only more wins, but the huge number of runner up finishes. I agree Tiger has had stronger competition overall, but Jack's competition was very strong in many ways. Also, as it appears Tiger may be finished as a major winner...possibly even ever winning again on tour...Jack would seem to also have more longevity than Tiger. But Tiger may prove me wrong on this count. 

[pganapathy]

For me Tiger has a deeper field (lots of people who could burn up the course one week and win a major and never do anything else ever again) but not that many close to him at the most competitive level, whereas it was the opposite for Jack.  Had 6 or 8 guys who were almost as good as him, but not much depth after that, relatively.

Put that down to improvement in equipment making golf easier and golf becoming a cheaper and more accessible game, thus broadening the field of available talent.

How to reconcile these two is the million dollar question.  Can't really figure out which is tougher.

[mvmac]

The current movement is being led by the World Ranking leading trio of Jordan Spieth, 22, McIlroy, 26, and Jason Day, 27. And there is the vaunted high school Class of 2011, consisting of Spieth, Daniel Berger, Justin Thomas, Grillo, Patrick Rodgers and Ollie Scheiderjans. But what’s happening is not so much about individuals as the collective.

There has been a discernible increase in truly competitive, younger-than-ever players who are ready to win. They might have names we barely know, but there are really no more upsets or even Cinderella stories in pro golf.

It’s evolution – from a litany of factors. Bigger and athletes drawn to the sport, following better fitness regimens, who have emulated physical specimens like Tiger, Dustin and Rory. There is more intense early competition, and equipment that can be tuned to minimize persistent flaws, breeding more confidence to swing harder.

The ultra-competitive landscape in the minor leagues of pro golf demands going low in order to graduate to the next level. Consistent top-25 finishes doesn’t get it, but occasionally getting hot and converting into wins does.

As a result young players almost uniformly employ a highly-aggressive style built on big-hitting, flag-hunting and bold putting. When such a player is “on”, rounds like Kaufman’s closing 61 at Las Vegas can happen.

And with an increasing number of such players entered each week, the 10 percent or so who are “hot” make up a bigger number. I’ve come to believe that on his week, a young player who is hot now has the advantage over a steadier but less explosive old guy, even factoring in experience.

[iacas]

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/feherty-leaving-cbs-his-new-gig-and-tiger-woods?page=1&simple=1

And even with the young talent coming up – Jordan Spieth, Jason Day, Rory McIlroy – you don’t think that your children and grandchildren will see that kind of golf again?

As phenomenal as those guys are, like Jordan and Jason and Rory and even Rickie – it’s harder to win a golf tournament than ever before because of the depth of the fields. It’s not just those guys. These days, every player is capable of winning that week, and legions of players that don’t even qualify are capable. It’s almost impossible to dominate today, but having said that, it’s definitely impossible to do what [Tiger] did. These kids are playing so well - they were eight, nine, 10 when Tiger was at the top and we’re seeing the result of that influence now. I think the game is in the best place it’s been in a long time.

[skydog]

@iacas I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the Feherty quote. Ealier in this thread you tried to refute my statement that I thought the fields today are meaningfully stronger/deeper than they were in Tiger's prime (early 2000s)...this is what Feherty seems to be saying here. He's drawing a big distinction between the quality of the fields today vs. 10 years ago as today we are seeing all the talent that Tiger's impact on the game produced (i.e. pros in their early 20s who grew up mimmicking Tiger). 

Yes, Tiger competed against stronger fields than Jack 25 years prior but the strengthening of the fields over the past 10 years (thanks to Tiger) has far surpassed what we saw in those 25 years.

[boogielicious]

@iacas I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the Feherty quote. Ealier in this thread you tried to refute my statement that I thought the fields today are meaningfully stronger/deeper than they were in Tiger's prime (early 2000s)...this is what Feherty seems to be saying here. He's drawing a big distinction between the quality of the fields today vs. 10 years ago as today we are seeing all the talent that Tiger's impact on the game produced (i.e. pros in their early 20s who grew up mimmicking Tiger). 

Yes, Tiger competed against stronger fields than Jack 25 years prior but the strengthening of the fields over the past 10 years (thanks to Tiger) has far surpassed what we saw in those 25 years.

Disagree. The Pros in Tiger's early years were on average way better than Jack's years. The OP on this thread, who played in Jack's fields, stated he was not good enough to play in the fields in Tiger's day.

[skydog]

Disagree. The Pros in Tiger's early years were on average way better than Jack's years. The OP on this thread, who played in Jack's fields, stated he was not good enough to play in the fields in Tiger's day.

I never said otherwise. I said Tiger's fields were stronger than Jack's- I don't really think that is a debatable topic. I'm saying the strengthening of fields we've seen in the past 10 years (because of Tiger's impact and kids growing up watching him) is more meaningful than in the 25 years between Jack and Tiger's prime. This is not a proveable assertion, just my opinion, and Feherty's comments are speaking to how much talent there is now vs. Tiger's prime (again- because of Tiger).

 

Edited October 30, 2015 by skydog

[iacas]

@iacas I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the Feherty quote.

I wasn't making a point. I saw a relevant quote and posted it. It is yet another person (one who was in the arena) who agrees that the strength of field is significantly stronger today than in Jack's day.

Ealier in this thread you tried to refute my statement that I thought the fields today are meaningfully stronger/deeper than they were in Tiger's prime (early 2000s).

They're stronger, but they've seen nowhere near the strength improvements as from Jack's day to Tiger's day.

this is what Feherty seems to be saying here.

I think you're reading more into the answer than the question gave. He wasn't comparing Tiger's day to Jack's day. Yes, he's saying that it's tougher now and that nobody will do what Tiger did (as a Tiger fan he could also just be saying that in the semi-present tense, including the years Tiger was still winning regularly).

He's drawing a big distinction between the quality of the fields today vs. 10 years ago as today we are seeing all the talent that Tiger's impact on the game produced (i.e. pros in their early 20s who grew up mimmicking Tiger). 

The talent gap is still significantly larger (IMO) from 1960 to 2000 than 2000 to 2015.

Yes, Tiger competed against stronger fields than Jack 25 years prior but the strengthening of the fields over the past 10 years (thanks to Tiger) has far surpassed what we saw in those 25 years.

I continue to disagree. That position makes no sense from a numbers standpoint, etc. You could have a near infinite number of PGA Tour-quality pros, but since a field is only 154 players (or less!), that sets a maximum as to how difficult it can be to win a major.

I explained my thoughts on this before so I'm not going to rehash them again, but the curve I posted earlier is probably easily found.

I'm saying the strengthening of fields we've seen in the past 10 years (because of Tiger's impact and kids growing up watching him) is more meaningful than in the 25 years between Jack and Tiger's prime. This is not a proveable assertion, just my opinion, and Feherty's comments are speaking to how much talent there is now vs. Tiger's prime (again- because of Tiger).

I disagree that Feherty is commenting on that. You have no way of knowing how he feels about the 1960-2008 gap and the 2008-2015 gap. You think the latter gap saw a more meaningful jump in strength of field. I say that's crazy. Jack competed against local club pros for crying out loud.

Here's the post with the graphic:

I've previously stated in this thread (and others) that the number probably lies around 12 or so, yes. It's illogical to assume strength of field is linear.

I won't get into the reasons why in detail, but I think it's far more likely that strength of the field approaches a limit. I did this quickly just to illustrate my point, there's no scale, etc.:

[skydog]

I wasn't making a point. I saw a relevant quote and posted it. It is yet another person (one who was in the arena) who agrees that the strength of field is significantly stronger today than in Jack's day.

Again, I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise. I think you have to draw a distinction between three eras- Jack' Day, Tiger's day, and today. Feherty isn't commenting on Jack's day (I never said he was) but he is drawing a distinction in the strength of field today vs. Tiger's day that you seem to be ignoring.

.

I think you're reading more into the answer than the question gave. He wasn't comparing Tiger's day to Jack's day

Again, I never said he was.

 

 

I disagree that Feherty is commenting on that. You have no way of knowing how he feels about the 1960-2008 gap and the 2008-2015 gap. You think the latter gap saw a more meaningful jump in strength of field.

Again, I never said Feherty was making a comment about the strength of field delta between Jack and Tiger. He was commenting on the big surge between now and Tiger's day IMO and I said it was my opinion that the increase we've seen over the past 10 years has been more meaningful than the delta between Jack and Tiger. Again, I acknowledge this is not a provable assertion on my part (even though you think you can prove your assertion).

Edited October 30, 2015 by skydog

[iacas]

Again, I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise.

They clearly do.

I think you have to draw a distinction between three eras- Jack' Day, Tiger's day, and today. Feherty isn't commenting on Jack's day (I never said he was) but he is drawing a distinction in the strength of field today vs. Tiger's day that you seem to be ignoring.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm saying you can't possibly know the limits and bounds of what he was saying as it relates to the larger question of 1960-2008 (or 2013) versus 2008-2015 (or 2013-2015).

I think you're assuming, too, that he is excluding Tiger from the era about which he's talking. I think he probably is, but… If you had told him in the year 2000 that Tiger would win 14 majors and 70+ PGA Tour events by the year 2013, he might have said then that "nobody (except Tiger) could do that" then, making basically the same statement.

Again, I never said he was.

I never said you did.

I was posting it here not as a comment on Jack vs. Tiger per se, but just as a general "fields are strong today." For all we know, the word "today" includes 2000-2015 in Feherty's mind. We don't know.

And again, it's very weird of you to say "I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise" in a very thread where people have argued otherwise.

Again, I never said Feherty was making a comment about the strength of field delta between Jack and Tiger.

Here's what happened.

1. I posted a comment that generally spoke to the strength of field "today." We don't know what Feherty includes in "today" but we have some little clues. Regardless, we're pretty sure it doesn't go back to 1960.
2. You posted about how you think this goes toward the idea that the delta between 1960 and 2000 is larger than the one between 2000 and 2015 (or whatever years you want to pick).

To the last little point, I doubt Feherty is including only the years 2014 and 2015, given how Tiger won five times and was POTY in 2013. I doubt Feherty thinks there was a significant increase in strength of field overnight, or within a year. Rory McIlroy has been winning for at least a few years, after all.

He was commenting on the big surge between now and Tiger's day IMO and I said it was my opinion that the increase we've seen over the past 10 years has been more meaningful than the delta between Jack and Tiger.

And… I still disagree that the delta from whatever year you pick in Tiger's era to 2015 is larger than the delta from a similar year in Jack's career to that year you've picked for Tiger.

Again, I acknowledge this is not a provable assertion on my part (even though you think you can prove your assertion).

No. I've never said I can prove it, but I've at least given reasons behind my opinions. Like the graph, and mathematical ideas.

[skydog]

 

And again, it's very weird of you to say "I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise" in a very thread where people have argued otherwise.

OK....we feel the same way on this one. I don't think I've read the whole thread but I can't recall anyone that has made the outright claim that fields were stronger in Jack's day than Tiger's. I'm sure someone has, but again, I don't see how any objective observer could come to that conclusion. I don't think it's weird to say that.

I think a lot of the discussion has centered around how much stronger the Tiger fields were than Jack's...and how that relates to the OP's question.

[iacas]

OK....we feel the same way on this one. I don't think I've read the whole thread but I can't recall anyone that has made the outright claim that fields were stronger in Jack's day than Tiger's. I'm sure someone has, but again, I don't see how any objective observer could come to that conclusion. I don't think it's weird to say that.

Many, many, many people have, both here and in the Jack vs. Tiger thread. They'll cite Watson, Trevino, Palmer, etc.

[mvmac]

Many, many, many people have, both here and in the Jack vs. Tiger thread. They'll cite Watson, Trevino, Palmer, etc.

Yep.