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

[iacas]

11 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

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

You're still missing the point that this argues against your point.

Better equipment narrows the gap between the greats and those a notch or two below them. Better equipment made it more difficult for Tiger to win majors, by elevating those below him significantly more than it elevated him.

Tiger faced deeper, stronger fields than Jack even before you consider the equipment. Add in the equipment and it made it even more difficult for Tiger to separate himself.

[fishgolf]

8 hours ago, iacas said:

Better equipment made it more difficult for Tiger to win majors, by elevating those below him significantly more than it elevated him.

You and others keep throwing out this red herring argument. The same statement applies to Jack and his competitors.  Now the difference in equipment technology from the late 50's to the 90's - that is significant giving the advantage to those playing in most recent decades.

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, fishgolf said:

You and others keep throwing out this red herring argument. The same statement applies to Jack and his competitors.  Now the difference in equipment technology from the late 50's to the 90's - that is significant giving the advantage to those playing in most recent decades.

You clearly don’t understand what people are saying here.

I will again point out that Jack himself says that modern equipment has made it more difficult for the best to separate themselves.

[fishgolf]

10 minutes ago, iacas said:

You clearly don’t understand what people are saying here.

I will again point out that Jack himself says that modern equipment has made it more difficult for the best to separate themselves.

That's a bogus statement even from the GOAT.  I think Jack tries to be overly considerate in this whole Woods vs. Nicklaus debate.  He and Arnie are the games ultimate ambassadors and have always treaded lightly in these discussions.

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, fishgolf said:

That's a bogus statement even from the GOAT.  I think Jack tries to be overly considerate in this whole Woods vs. Nicklaus debate.  He and Arnie are the games ultimate ambassadors and have always treaded lightly in these discussions.

Not at all.

I don't think you understand - at all - what people are saying here re: equipment.

It's barely on topic, and the reason why it's on topic is what you don't seem to understand: that modern equipment strengthens and deepens the field while doing very little for the people at the top.

You seem to be thinking that it is about comparing the equipment Tiger played versus the equipment Jack played, but that's not the relevant comparison. The relevant comparison is what the equipment did for Jack's peers and what the equipment did for Tiger's peers.

[fishgolf]

32 minutes ago, iacas said:

Not at all.

I don't think you understand - at all - what people are saying here re: equipment.

It's barely on topic, and the reason why it's on topic is what you don't seem to understand: that modern equipment strengthens and deepens the field while doing very little for the people at the top.

You seem to be thinking that it is about comparing the equipment Tiger played versus the equipment Jack played, but that's not the relevant comparison. The relevant comparison is what the equipment did for Jack's peers and what the equipment did for Tiger's peers.

We'll, we are in disagreement on yet another topic.

[iacas]

Just now, fishgolf said:

We'll, we are in disagreement on yet another topic.

This falls into the realm of certainty. Thus you’re just wrong here.

It’s not really a matter of opinion.

Jack wasn’t just “being nice” when he “disagreed” with you either.

[Jack Watson]

11 hours ago, iacas said:

You're still missing the point that this argues against your point.

Better equipment narrows the gap between the greats and those a notch or two below them. Better equipment made it more difficult for Tiger to win majors, by elevating those below him.

@iacas

Easier to use equipment increases parity and deepens the competitive field.  It does not increase skill or talent.  Players who competed with vintage gear at the top consistently over time are stronger than say Dimarco,  Yang,  or Woody Austin.

97 was an interesting time in golf. Norman Kite Langer Faldo Price Watson were in their 40’s.  Proven persimmon great ballstrikers.  Who was the most dangerous guy to Tiger?  A guy in his prime who knew how to win?

Mickelsen hadn’t learned to win yet Els really should have been the guy but let’s face it milktoast.  Love 3 was a fine player but not a greatest all time player.

I believe if Tigers career had not coincided with the equipment evolution he would have at least tied the record.  Who would stand in his way?  2 outliers that could have been Tigers rival were May and Duval but they suffered from injury.  

[iacas]

:sigh:

I’ll let someone else take it this time.

I never said it increases talent.

[brocks]

4 hours ago, fishgolf said:

That's a bogus statement even from the GOAT.  I think Jack tries to be overly considerate in this whole Woods vs. Nicklaus debate.  He and Arnie are the games ultimate ambassadors and have always treaded lightly in these discussions.

Treaded lightly?  Jack stomped all over the greats of the past, with steel spikes, when he said that the only fair way to compare golfers of different eras was by majors.  By an amazing coincidence, that was shortly after he had the majors record.  Before then, he had said he thought Hogan was the GOAT, even though Hagen had won two more majors than Hogan, despite hitting his prime before the PGA Championship was founded, let alone the Masters.

And this was before Tiger was born, so Jack's competition for GOAT was the likes of Vardon, Jones, Hagen, Snead, and Hogan.  Men who all had several majors canceled for world wars, men who skipped playing majors outside of their own country more often than not.  Jack knew full well that they had far fewer opportunities to play majors than he did, but he stomped on them anyway.

[brocks]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

:sigh:

I’ll let someone else take it this time.

I never said it increases talent.

Let me take a whack at it.

Fishgolf, have you ever heard of Abebe Bikila?  He won the gold medal in the  Rome Olympics marathon.  He ran barefoot, I guess because he had grown up doing that in his native Ethiopia.

Now suppose that up to then, it was a rule that everybody had to run the marathon barefoot.  And suppose that starting in 1964, they changed the rule, and allowed competitors to wear running shoes.

Who do you think that would help more, Bikila, or his competitors?

Or take archery.  In the 1300's, when I was a kid, you just had a curved wooden slat for a bow.  Nowadays, the bows are made of some space-age composite, and have all kinds of scopes and pulleys and counterweights to make it easier to pull the bow, aim, and hold it steady.

If you took the 100 best archers of 1300 and gave them all modern bows, do you think the best archer of 1300 would have an easier or harder time defending his title?

[Pretzel]

2 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

Easier to use equipment increases parity and deepens the competitive field.

And thus you've proved the point we're all making.

Player A and player B are both equally dominant in the same sport during their respective eras. Player B, however, played during an era where the playing field between all of the best players was more even than it was during Player A's era. This is due to a technological advance that makes it harder for Player B to set himself or herself above the rest. Player B, despite this disadvantage compared to Player A, was every bit as dominant as Player A.

Tell me, which of those two player (Player A or Player B) had more skill even though they both were equally dominant during their respective times?

[Ty_Webb]

The way I think of this is to reduce it to an extreme. Take player A. He is the “perfect” golfer. He hits every fairway and every green. He holes every putt he looks at. His scoring average is in the low 50s depending on how many eagles he makes. Everyone else is as they currently are. He wins every tournament. By miles. 

Then suppose someone invents equipment that enables you to hit every fairway and every green and hole every putt. That equipment has an enormous impact on the field. They can now shoot low 50s on average. How much does player A benefit from this? He improves not at all. He has lost out enormously because his opposition can now match him. 

The closer you are to player A as equipment improves the less you benefit as a result. Therefore the improvements in equipment make it harder to distance yourself from the field. So ignore you do distance yourself from the field in an era of improved equipment then that is a more impressive achievement. 

[boogielicious]

4 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

The way I think of this is to reduce it to an extreme. Take player A. He is the “perfect” golfer. He hits every fairway and every green. He holes every putt he looks at. His scoring average is in the low 50s depending on how many eagles he makes. Everyone else is as they currently are. He wins every tournament. By miles. 

Then suppose someone invents equipment that enables you to hit every fairway and every green and hole every putt. That equipment has an enormous impact on the field. They can now shoot low 50s on average. How much does player A benefit from this? He improves not at all. He has lost out enormously because his opposition can now match him. 

The closer you are to player A as equipment improves the less you benefit as a result. Therefore the improvements in equipment make it harder to distance yourself from the field. So ignore you do distance yourself from the field in an era of improved equipment then that is a more impressive achievement. 

Very nice analogy. They will still disregard it though because they are closed minded to any suggestion that someone could be better than Mr. Nicklaus.

[fishgolf]

1 hour ago, boogielicious said:

Very nice analogy. They will still disregard it though because they are closed minded to any suggestion that someone could be better than Mr. Nicklaus.

The analogy and argument still is only relevant for the era in which player A or B is competing. The same scenario plays out in Jack's era.  To suggest that advances in equipment only apply to TW's is ridiculous.  But then, when you're trying desperately to make a case that cannot be made, at least with current records, it's totally understandable.

[boogielicious]

1 minute ago, fishgolf said:

The analogy and argument still is only relevant for the era in which player A or B is competing. The same scenario plays out in Jack's era.  To suggest that advances in equipment only apply to TW's is ridiculous.  But then, when you're trying desperately to make a case that cannot be made, at least with current records, it's totally understandable.

It has been made countless times in this thread. You just choose to ignore the math. And no one said it just applies to Woods. You are just interpreting every post your own way. 

[Jack Watson]

 

@Pretzel

Is your example purely hypothetical?

@Ty_Webb

There is no perfect golfer.  Assume a and b have peak human talent and skill.  You can give tech to their competitors which will make things closer,  but it does not automatically increase the skill/talent part.  There’s at least a minimum there required to compete consistently with a or b.

No one responded to my question.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Jack Watson
Added last comment

[iacas]

31 minutes ago, fishgolf said:

The analogy and argument still is only relevant for the era in which player A or B is competing. The same scenario plays out in Jack's era.  To suggest that advances in equipment only apply to TW's is ridiculous.  But then, when you're trying desperately to make a case that cannot be made, at least with current records, it's totally understandable.

Your streak of continually misunderstanding things remains unbroken.

Nobody is comparing Jack to Bobby Jones here. The comparison is Jack vs. his peers and Tiger vs. his.

1 minute ago, Jack Watson said:

There is no perfect golfer.  Assume a and b have peak human talent and skill.  You can give tech to their competitors which will make things closer,  but it does not automatically increase the skill/talent part.

 

The point missing is becoming an epidemic. Oh wait, it’s just three of you.

He didn’t say there was a “perfect” golfer.