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

[mvmac]

7 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

@mvmac

Here’s some numbers.  Won’t be posting about field strength again.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1687496-the-myth-of-deeper-pga-tour-fields-during-tiger-woods-era

That's so bad it's laughable. 

You do get that there was a much larger pool of golfers in the world during Tiger's era compared to Jack's, right?

2 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

Sure depth overall is one component of field strength.  My question is more about winners or guys who know how to win.

And since the fields are deeper there are more of those guys now.

[Jack Watson]

@iacas @mvmac

Jack interviewed in 99.

 

[iacas]

@Jack Watson, your embarrassment continues. That video says more about Tiger's dominance than the rest of the field. It actually hurts your case, as many of Jack's own statements do.

I asked him at The Memorial once how much more difficult it was to win a major these days, or a golf tournament. This was one of the years Tiger would eventually win that tournament, but this was after his weekly (usually Tuesday, sometimes Wednesday) press conference.

He said "well, it's a lot tougher. I had to worry about four or five guys at a regular event, maybe ten at a major that I thought could win. Now you always had those surprise guys who played well that week, but these days they've got 50 guys who can win any tournament, majors included any week. 70 guys, maybe more for the regular events, even. I have a limited field here at this event and I can't tell you who is going to win, unless Tiger himself does it again which wouldn't surprise me."

Hey, Jack's own words.

You're pushing this weird narrative where the top guys or the regular guys or whatever are "incapable" of winning… and yet they have. A whole lot of them. More of them have won majors now - speaking to the strength and depth of field - than when it was more consolidated to Jack, Arnie, Tom, etc.

---

You've got nothing, @Jack Watson.

[turtleback]

5 hours ago, Phil McGleno said:

@Jack Watson-I played against Jack. Same field as him-Many times. Any event within about 200 miles me and the boys would pack up the car and qualify-Try to-and play. Got into the vast majority.

With the exception of some local kid who plays on one of three sponsor exemptions or whatever they have now-Every one of the guys playing in the Tiger era would have whupped our asses 99 times out of 100. No questions asked. We were playing on a lark-these guys these days are doing everything but treating their game like a lark. They are after serious money.

Why are guys like Leadbetter-Love him or hate him and I will do the latter-the first tour coaches? Cuz nobody could afford a tour coach back then. Gusy playing the tour back then did not have an entourage.-They could not fly their wives and girlfriends around. The women who were out there were driving the car through the nights so their husbands could sleep.

You have got to be one of the dumbest sons of bitches if you think the fields in the 70s even remotely compare to the fields in the 2000s.-I think someone said it in the other thread-But the Web.com tour guys could-On average-kick the snot out of the TOUR field in the 70s. Sure Jack and Tom and a few guys would beat their counterparts-But the majority would lose and say thank you sir may I have another in doing so to the Web.com guys.

Great post.  People should read Frank Beard's book Pro, which he wrote with Dick Schaap.  It is one of those day to day sports diary books that recounts the 1971 season when Beard ended up being the leading money winner.  The book provides a lot of insight into the life on tour in Jack's era.

http://amzn.to/2EDZvWx

4 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

@Phil McGleno

I am concerned with the top of the field.

Also how does an almost sixty year old Watson come inches from another major against the field in 2009?  

That should be impossible if what you imply is true.

At age 62, Snead came close to winning a PGA.  

[turtleback]

3 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

I’ll say one thing,  the fields today from say 08 on are much much stronger at the top than 97-2006 or so.

Sure depth overall is one component of field strength.  My question is more about winners or guys who know how to win.  I am not going on a simplistic assumption that the relationship of going forward in time and field strength are a 1-1 relationship.

Its already been pointed out about agronomy and equipment and if one were to assume the older equipment was harder to use,  I think that begins to poke holes in @klineka s argument and also is a testament to skill of older gen players.  

Golf is nothing like other sports,  @iacas so imo pointing to other sports athletes based on physicality does also not transfer 1-1 to golf.  Again,  your assumption about time vs field DEPTH is unarguable.  I simply make the distinction as well of depth vs strength.

 

 

Well there are 2 possible explanations.

1) You just THINK the 1997-2007 fields were weak because Tiger was beating the crap out of everyone, and you don't like Tiger, or

2) a strange vortex of the universe caused the fields to vacillate from strong (Jack's era), to weak (Tiger's era), and back to strong (post-Tiger era).

The readers can judge for themselves which is more plausible. 

Your post also demonstrates that you couldn't be bothered to read the material already posted.  Like the extensive quote FROM JACK, about how the improvements in equipment and technological advances make it harder for the cream to rise to the top.  It was one of his 3 reasons for the demise of the superstar in golf.  Which he wrote in 1996.  Right before Tiger took off on the most dominant 'superstar' run ever seen in golf.

Edited February 2, 2018 by turtleback

[Jack Watson]

@turtleback

http://www.espn.com/golf/masters07/news/story?id=2814780

Jack, a age 58,  with a bad hip almost won the Masters.  He beat Woods and almost the whole field.  

[saevel25]

@Jack Watson, in response to the article. 

Quote

According to former British Ryder Cup stalwart and current CBS broadcaster Peter Oosterhuis, a frequent competitor of Nicklaus and regular observer of Woods: "The immediate reaction is to say that the stars challenging Nicklaus were better than the talent chasing Tiger. Their names are well-known. 

Well known doesn't mean better. There are NFL players today who people will never be remembered, and they are way better than the players of the past. The only reason they stood out in the past is because the level of competition wasn't as high as it is today. Same with Jack. The reason he stood out is because the level of his competition was weaker. All transcendent players stand out because they are much better than their competition. The best athlete from a small town is a superstar. He goes to a big name college and he is just another athlete. 

Quote

"The players giving Tiger his competition are just as good as those who Jack faced in terms of pure talent, but they don't have the heart, the guts, the tenacity, maybe even the sense of pride that the [Tom] Watsons and [Lee] Trevinos had."

This is a BS comment. It again, speaks more to Tiger than to Jack. 

Jack played against players who didn't fear him. That speaks about how little Jack might have been above his competition. Then you have Tiger, who outright did things that no other golfer could. He dominated them. He beat them down. To say they didn't have any heart is missing the point that Tiger took that away from them. Jack never did that. 

Jack lead the Tour in scoring average 8 times from 1962 thru 1986 (his last major), which is 24 years. In a 12 year period, Tiger led the Tour in scoring average 9 times. He never had a scoring average under 70 during that time. 

Tiger was way more dominant. Maybe if Jack was more dominant he would have put more fear into his opponents. 

Tiger's scoring margin over his opponents in the majors was larger than Jacks. Given Jack did have some good comebacks. That just means his opponents got the best of him for most of the tournament. Tiger hardly ever let the opponents get the best of him. He never gave them a shot. Maybe Jack never had that killer instinct Tiger did. Again, this speaks more to Jack than Tiger. 

Quote

"It has to do with money," Barkow continues, "although no one likes to say that. But today's players are so rich they don't have the real need for money the previous generation had, and are also so incredibly pampered and spoiled from the day they took up the game that they don't know how to respond to the dominant player. Watson, Trevino et al, gave Jack a good go and took him a few times head-to-head. I can't see anyone out there today giving Tiger that sort of competition. They don't need to."

This could be true. Yet, it also could be a bonus for the players during Tiger's time. Money allows golfers the advantages of practicing more, better sports medicine, etc... There is much more to this idea than just what Barkow says.

Quote

Ever the gracious sportsman, Nicklaus has mostly taken a noncommittal approach to that question, stating recently: "We've got a lot of very, very good players today. They just don't seem to be able to beat Tiger when they have to. Whether Tiger is just that much better or they're just not quite there, I don't know."

There is no spinning this comment. Jack doesn't know. So, any comment on this in article is trying to take meaning were it isn't. 

 

[Parker0065]

Wow, a lot of "IGNORANCE" on this topic. 

 

Tiger most definitely brought golf to the main stream. Not because he was some kind of Gandi type figure for sure, but primarily because of mainstream liberal media.  They found a non-white golfer that could actually play at a high level and exploded that niche. The rest of the industry jumped in and took advantage of that angle(purely to make money). 

Look, I honestly think it's a cool thing that the media could find a way to promote the game to the minorities, but the way they did it is a little suspect in my opinion. Along with that it brought a large number of people into the game that felt like they could act like a ass-hat and get away with it. 

But to grow the game you have to be "ever changing". So simply the "idea" that Tiger was way better than Jack or any of the old guys sells equipment and rounds. 

 

At the end of the day you have to look at numbers, because that's all we have. Tiger most wins? NO! Tiger most Majors? NO!

 

So from a pure numbers game, Tiger is most definitely one of the greatest players to ever walk the face of the earth, no doubt!  He is by far the greatest player in the current "Modern Media Era", (look at me, look at me) Millenial world. 

So if he's as great as so many proclaim, he should easily be able to blow by all and any records. Perhaps he will. I don't think the sun has set on Tigers career yet. 

 

Personally, I see/expect at least one more major and a couple regular events from him. Either way, it will be a fun watch to see how it plays out. 

[JonMA1]

10 minutes ago, Parker0065 said:

but primarily because of mainstream liberal media.

I don't disagree with everything you posted, and I'm not a fan of the mainstream media, but it's not like "they" took an average golfer and hyped him up.

12 minutes ago, Parker0065 said:

They found a non-white golfer that could actually play at a high level and exploded that niche.

 IMO, this argument would be happening regardless of Woods' skin color. To me, the whole thing is more of a pissing contest between generations.

[Jack Watson]

@saevel25

So you are just calling Barkow a bs artist?  

Another way to look at field strength is course length relative to club and ball tech.  Augusta for example played the same length in 2000 as 1950.  

Then look at scoring at the top.

[saevel25]

9 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Another way to look at field strength is course length relative to club and ball tech.  Augusta for example played the same length in 2000 as 1950.

Not that easy, 

Is the course condition the same every year? What about the weather? What about the fact that the greens were not cut as short back in Jack's time, versus today?

Clearly Augusta didn't take the shape of the course as pristine as they do today. Look at old images from the 1970's, Raes Creek is muddy brown. Today the creek is pristine blue because they dye the water. They clearly take more care in the course then they use to. 

Also, pointing out one course doesn't validate your argument. If you were able to cross-reference multiple courses, across multiple generations, and be able to take into account the factors that effect score, then you might have a leg to stand on. 

A course can easily tame any field. Especially when it's a 2nd shot type of course. The thing that protects Augusta are the severe greens, and the uneven lies. It really isn't that difficult of a test from the tee box. That is why bombers, and players who hit the ball high in the air tend to play better there. Both of which Jack and Tiger excelled at. Augusta had to lengthen the course. That speaks to their want to protect the course from BETTER PLAYERS. They want to maintain a standard. 

[Jack Watson]

@saevel25

1960 PGA at Firestone par 70 almost 7200 yards 1960.

Hogan vs Singh Augusta...53 Hogan playing 53 gear would have beaten Singh on a course the same exact length but with Singh with 2000 equipment.  If you start looking at the course lengths it becomes apparent.

Its self evident that 1950 tech is not as good as the stuff from 2000.  

[skydog]

3 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

 

Jack, a age 58,  with a bad hip almost won the Masters.  He beat Woods and almost the whole field.  

Totally forgot about that. 

I don’t really care to get into this battle but I’ve never really understood how many on here believe the period from let’s say the mid 70s (jack’ prime) to the mid 90s saw this exponential jump in field strength that has since subsided. It was somehow this miraculous 20 year period that the game of golf has never seen before or since- I can’t but that. Now I certainly thinks fields improved a lot during that time but I think top to bottom they’ve improved more over the last 20 years....because of the huge inflow of young talent that grew up watching Tiger and decided to play golf you’ve now got amazing athletes playing the game. 

 

I bring this up because people say 14>18 because of SOF. That may or may not be the case- I don’t really know. But what if someone like Spieth racks up 10-12 ( which I think he will). I’m guessing those same people won’t follow the same math.

 

[saevel25]

10 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Hogan vs Singh Augusta...53 Hogan playing 53 gear would have beaten Singh on a course the same exact length but with Singh with 2000 equipment.  If you start looking at the course lengths it becomes apparent.

You've gotten to the point you are nit picking to try to get any point in. Hogan versus Singh doesn't matter. 

[Jack Watson]

4 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

You've gotten to the point you are nit picking to try to get any point in. Hogan versus Singh doesn't matter. 

Ok, what do you say to course length club tech.  Pebble 72 same length as 2000 US Open.  I could go on,  but it’s obvious there was a huge difference in relative length played due to tech.  

Dismissing facts and saying everything another poster says is a joke is not making a counterpoint. 

[saevel25]

4 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Ok, what do you say to course length club tech.  Pebble 72 same length as 2000 US Open.  I could go on,  but it’s obvious there was a huge difference in relative length played due to tech.  

Course length has changed to take into account that players have gotten better. 

Technology benefits worse players than better players. Jack has been quoted on saying this same point. Tech has advanced to help golfers on off-center hits. What do the best players in the world do the best at, hit the center of the club face. So technology makes it harder on Tiger to win because he doesn't help him nearly as much as his competition. Jack benefited from being a great ball striker and having tech that doesn't help his competition. 

 

[Jack Watson]

@saevel25

It’s a fact that for a given course for a given length it’s tougher to shoot 66 with gear from 66 than with gear from 2000.  So,  the skill of fields in 66 is being hugely underestimated round these parts.

[MrGolfguy67]

20 majors in the 60s-80s is more impressive, not really even close.