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

[Vinsk]

9 minutes ago, ghalfaire said:

The picture is not very sharp and I can't read the manufacture's logos.    But here is an old article on Tiger's equipment in 1997.  I leave it to the reader to decided if the picture and words in the article are consistent. 

https://www.pgatour.com/equipmentreport/2017/04/04/tiger-woods-unique-irons-1997-masters.html

 

The pic is from @1badbadger in the ‘Whst happened to Mizuno irons’ thread. It’s illustrating how being with a brand didn’t necessarily mean one played All clubs of that brand. 

[Jack Watson]

@Vinsk

1965 and 1997 Masters tourneys were played at the same length according to Augusta’s website. Tiger bested Jacks score by one stroke.  In 65 Player and Palmer finished at 8 under.  In 97 Kite managed -6 and I think Tolles was third and at age 48 Tom Watson finished next.  Looking over the whole board more guys in 97 shot around par than in 65.  So in comparing these 2 events which field was stronger?  The field that produced a -8 second place or the one that had -6?

Edited June 24, 2018 by Jack Watson
Error

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

@Vinsk

1965 and 1997 Masters tourneys were played at the same length according to Augusta’s website. Tiger bested Jacks score by one stroke.  In 65 Player and Palmer finished at 8 under.  In 97 Kite managed -6 and I think Tolles was third and at age 48 Tom Watson finished next.  Looking over the whole board more guys in 97 shot around par than in 65.  So in comparing these 2 events which field was stronger?  The field that produced a -8 second place or the one that had -6?

That's a terrible argument.

[Vinsk]

3 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

@Vinsk

1965 and 1997 Masters tourneys were played at the same length according to Augusta’s website. Tiger bested Jacks score by one stroke.  In 65 Player and Palmer finished at 8 under.  In 97 Kite managed -6 and I think Tolles was third and at age 48 Tom Watson finished next.  Looking over the whole board more guys in 97 shot around par than in 65.  So in comparing these 2 events which field was stronger?  The field that produced a -8 second place or the one that had -6?

 

. The course was benign, and the golfers were not. The weather was warm, dry and breezeless, and the tournament committee, perhaps deceived by predictions of rain or upset by increasing complaints that only long hitters can win the Masters anymore, had moved the tee markers up and put the pins in easy positions.

This is from an article in SI regarding the 1965 Masters. About as meaningless as your post but wanted to mention it. I won’t bother to respond as @turtleback or @iacas can much more eloquently do so and besides, you didn’t address what I was referring to; equipment.

You have repeatedly stated how equipment is what makes current golfers better and refuse to accept that it has only narrowed the gap by allowing the less talented ball strikers to compete. Today’s golfers are better athletes; better golfers. If you gave DJ ample time to play with Jacks clubs it would be a matter of a short time that he would hit shots those clubs had never seen. Jack never swung his driver 130mph.  

[brocks]

12 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

 So in comparing these 2 events which field was stronger?  The field that produced a -8 second place or the one that had -6?

Interesting question, but if you're talking about the stronger field, rather than the stronger runner-up, then I think it's pretty obvious that 1997 was stronger.  You mentioned that 1997 had more guys around par, but I think you played that down a bit.  In fact, there were twice as many players at par or better in 1997 ---  20 in 1997 vs 10 in 1965, even though the starting field had five more players in 1965.

By the way, the 1965 Masters was what made me switch to Jack (from Arnie) as my favorite golfer -- I was 12 then.  Jack remained my favorite golfer for over 30 years, until 1997.  I mention this just to remind people that not all Tiger fans think golf began in 1996, or have no appreciation for Jack.

The '65 Masters was arguably the high point of the "Big Three."  Jack winning by a mile, and Arnie and Gary tied for second three shots ahead of fourth, cemented in the minds of many golf fans that Jack had to battle Arnie and Gary down the stretch every week to win a title.  But the facts are otherwise.

Player didn't finish second to Jack in any other major, while Arnie finished second in two US Opens.   So Arnie and Gary finished second to Jack in a combined total of only three majors, and two of them were by such large margins (four and nine strokes) that it wasn't much of a battle.

 

[Jack Watson]

@brocks

I am pointing out that deep and strong are separate aspects of a field.

@Vinsk

Tiger made it a point to practice with the much harder to hit persimmon driver in the weeks before 97 Masters. And your weather quote applied only to Thursday in 65.

Edited June 27, 2018 by Jack Watson
Added word

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

I am pointing out that deep and strong are separate aspects of a field.

You're really not.

[saevel25]

13 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Tiger made it a point to practice with the much harder to hit persimmon driver in the weeks before 97 Masters. And your weather quote applied only to Thursday in 65.

They are not that much harder to hit than what the drivers that where available in 97. 

I hit my Grandpa’s persimmon driver before, no practice, striped it 270 yards. 

You over estimate the difficulty of hitting older clubs. 

[Jack Watson]

@saevel25

I am not making an estimate.  That was all I used for years.  Fowler’s best with persimmon? 292.  DJ got 308.  That’s using a modern ball not a 65 Mccgregor tourney.  The persimmon requires a more precise strike period not up for debate.

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

@saevel25

I am not making an estimate.  That was all I used for years.  Fowler’s best with persimmon? 292.  DJ got 308.  That’s using a modern ball not a 65 Mccgregor tourney.  The persimmon requires a more precise strike period not up for debate.

All of which hurts your point. #Oops

Tiger’s majors were tougher to win.

[brocks]

36 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

@saevel25

Fowler’s best with persimmon? 292.

Best out of how many attempts?  5? 10, maybe?  The article doesn't say.

It does say that fooling around with a club he never uses, he got about 10 yards less than with the club he practices for hours on end.  I don't think that shows what you think it shows.

But you're right about one thing: "The persimmon requires a more precise strike period not up for debate."  Which is why it's harder for the best golfers today to separate themselves from the good golfers.

Edited June 27, 2018 by brocks

[Shorty]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

They are not that much harder to hit than what the drivers that where available in 97. 

I hit my Grandpa’s persimmon driver before, no practice, striped it 270 yards. 

 

Now here's a scientific study that's hard to refute!

For the record, anyone who claims to "bomb" or "stripe" it has next to zero credibility in my opinion.

Further, there is a world of difference between your Grandpa's persimmon/laminated driver and a modern driver.

[saevel25]

2 minutes ago, Shorty said:

Further, there is a world of difference between your Grandpa's persimmon/laminated driver and a modern driver.

In design, sure. In terms of how hard they are to hit, not so much. That persimmon didn't look much bigger than a hybrid. 

[Shorty]

9 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

In design, sure. In terms of how hard they are to hit, not so much. That persimmon didn't look much bigger than a hybrid. 

Try hitting a persimmon or laminated driver an inch and a half off the centre and compare how far it goes compared to hitting a 460cc driver an inch and a half off centre. You're talking about 100 metres. I've hit 200m drives off the toe of a 460cc driver that would have been airswings with my Cobra laminated driver in the 1970s.

Edited June 27, 2018 by Shorty

[saevel25]

Just now, Shorty said:

Try hitting a persimmon or laminated driver an inch and a half off the centre and compare how far it goes compared to hitting a 460cc driver an inch and a half off centre. You're talking about 100 metres.

http://www.golfwrx.com/167927/impact-location-by-handicap/

How often is a PGA Tour player hitting an inch to a half inch off center? So it really doesn't matter besides the rare off-center strike and the club not optimized for distance with modern club fitting. 

Tougher to use equipment lets better golfers gain wider separation on the field. It's easier for them to win using tougher equipment. They don't have to worry as much about the off-center hits. 

[Jack Watson]

The other thing is it’s not just the club.  The ball has an even greater effect.  Balata marshmallows curve.

[brocks]

"In 1927, when I won the British Open at St. Andrews, one of the old-time professionals, described as 'the grand old man of Scottish golf,' was quoted in the newspapers as follows:

'I knew and played with Tom Morris, and he was every bit as good as Jones. Young Tom had to play with a gutty ball, and you could not make a mistake and get away with it. This rubber-cored ball we have now only requires a tap and it runs a mile.'"

--- Bobby Jones

 

Edited June 27, 2018 by brocks

[Vinsk]

2 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

@brocks

I am pointing out that deep and strong are separate aspects of a field.

@Vinsk

Tiger made it a point to practice with the much harder to hit persimmon driver in the weeks before 97 Masters. And your weather quote applied only to Thursday in 65.

 

In terms of equipment, he plays stuff that looks a lot like what I used to play. He even uses a ball that spins a lot, which is closer to the old balata ball than what almost every other player plays. It's interesting that the club he has the most trouble with is his most high tech: the driver. Jack Nicklaus 2008.

He didn’t just practice, he played. This is from Nicklaus himself. But I suppose you feel you have better insight to this than Jack does.

Edited June 27, 2018 by Vinsk