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

[mvmac]

The poll option was Jack's majors vs. Tigers.

The thread is mostly dealing with strength of field, as the title thread and OP indicate.

For arguments sake, let's say the top 100 players are in a major. Scenario A, 40 of the top 50 make the cut and Joe wins

the tournament. Scenario B, 10 of the top 50 make the cut and Joe wins the tournament. Which is the greater win for Joe? I say Scenario B because Joe competed against a stronger field for all 4 rounds.

I've read this a few times trying to make sense of it. You're saying that having a field with less top players, scenario B, is the better win?

The field is the same for the first two days in both scenarios but then in B, 40 of the top 50 go home, and that's a stronger field than A?

As far as HOF competition, here's a list of some of the HOF players Jack went up against in Majors; Aoki, Casper, Charles, Crenshaw, Floyd, Green, Irwin,

Jacklin, Kite, Langer, Lyle, Miller, Nelson, Norman, Palmer, Player, Trevino, Thomson, Wadkins, Watson

How do you know there won't be close to that number for Tiger when his career is over? 10-20 years from now Matt Kuchar might have the same "status" as Billy Casper, Ray Floyd.

[albatross]

Definitely harder now than back then. Not even close.

[Ho Chi Chi Vinh]

Better equipment elevates the weak, it doesn't allow the top to separate themselves more.

Better equipment speaks to making it more difficult on Tiger, not on Jack. It was a GOOD thing for Jack that the equipment wasn't so good back then. It widened the gap between him and others.

It's an opinion, but I think Tiger is a better golfer than Jack.

All of what you have stated above is opinion....have you ever played with a persimmon or 'strata block' driver...have you ever played with a balata ball ? I disagree with your opinions...Technology has significantly made the game easier at the elite level...why then, if you say technology elevates the weak, has the average handicap of the average player stayed fixed around 17 ?

[k-troop]

How do you know there won't be close to that number for Tiger when his career is over? 10-20 years from now Matt Kuchar might have the same "status" as Billy Casper, Ray Floyd.

Yeah, this.  When we're looking back on this issue in 2040, here's a list of possible HoFers (given that the criteria seems to be 8+ wins with 2 majors or 15 wins with 1 major) that competed between 1997-2015.

Kuchar

Rory

GMac

Bubba

J. Rose

Mickelson

Goosen

Adam Scott

Ernie Els

Paddy Harrington

Vijay

Zach Johnson

Furyk

David Toms

Fred Couples

David Duval

Faldo

Mark O'Meara

DLIII

That's not comprehensive.  It also doesn't account for guys with lots of wins (Donald, Westwood come to mind) that might pull an O'Meara and card two majors at the end of their competitive years.  Also doesn't account for guys like Speith who are probably going to win a ton, or guys like Bill Haas, Martin Kaymer, Webb Simpson, Dustin Johnson, Nick Watney, Henrik Stenson, Brandt Snedeker, et al who are clearly capable of winning much more often than they do, haven't broken through with a major yet, or dominated for short periods and are certainly capable of coming back.

That list does include some Couples bubble guys, but maybe Freddy's induction is recognition that today's 15 wins and a major is just as good as 20 wins and 2 majors was 20 years ago.

[rehmwa]

All of what you have stated above is opinion....have you ever played with a persimmon or 'strata block' driver...have you ever played with a balata ball ? I disagree with your opinions...Technology has significantly made the game easier at the elite level...why then, if you say technology elevates the weak, has the average handicap of the average player stayed fixed around 17 ?

handicap staying for average players? - longer holes for the same par rating, faster greens, etc compensate for the handicaps pretty well - not surprising, course design was changed over time just for this purpose.....

for hitting the older stuff here's a comparison - http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=10737949 -  Rory hitting modern stuff vs 30 year old tech.  Not quite 50 year gap, but one data point is he loses about 30-40 yards with that gear (270 vs a 300 with his current driver typically?) - how far did the best of the pros hit back in the (2014-30) 80's then?

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=10737949

that's just distance - I have no idea how to assess putting, short game stuff in terms of help from tech - probably much less a factor

even more, now players are better just because the clothing fits better and have less facial hair weighing them down......

It's been mentioned before that a great tournament (fundraiser) would be one where the pros would wear the old clothes and hit the old equipment and play on a course laid out like the oldie courses from WAY back......I love the idea...maybe not a great comparison unless they get to train in that mode for some time, but we could likely get some clues anyway.

[iacas]

All of what you have stated above is opinion....have you ever played with a persimmon or 'strata block' driver...have you ever played with a balata ball ?

Yes. I've played with those.

They're not really opinions, no. Better, more forgiving equipment does more to elevate the weaker players than the better players. It closes the gap between poorer ballstrikers and better ballstrikers. You can prove this out statistically.

Technology has significantly made the game easier at the elite level...

I don't know about "significantly" but yes, it's made it easier - its narrowed the gap between the 100th best player and the best player in the world.

why then, if you say technology elevates the weak, has the average handicap of the average player stayed fixed around 17 ?

A) This thread is not talking about about the average golfer.

B) You're wrong: the average handicap has dropped .

[Pave]

What a stupid poll. Let's argue the obvious. World population has increased, amount of golfers has increased, amount of Professional golfers has increased, depth of field has increased.

[Phil McGleno]

What a stupid post.-The poll doesnt ask if 20 now is better than 20 then. It asks if 17 now is better than 20 then and the thread purpose is to find numbers and prove out how much better golfers are today now than then.[quote name="Pave" url="/t/74049/strength-of-field-in-jacks-day-and-tigers-day/54#post_981434"]What a stupid poll. Let's argue the obvious. World population has increased, amount of golfers has increased, amount of Professional golfers has increased, depth of field has increased. [/quote] And as stupid as it may seem to you there are alot of people who keep citing the multiple major winners Jack competed against-Ignoring that they benefited from the same weak fields as JN.

[Ernest Jones]

Full disclaimer: didn't read any of the thread. I voted for the 17 modern major wins. The fields are way deeper, without question.

[Pave]

What a stupid post.-The poll doesnt ask if 20 now is better than 20 then. It asks if 17 now is better than 20 then and the thread purpose is to find numbers and prove out how much better golfers are today now than then.

And as stupid as it may seem to you there are alot of people who keep citing the multiple major winners Jack competed against-Ignoring that they benefited from the same weak fields as JN.

The poll is a thinly veiled loaded question as to whether Jack's 20 is better than Tigers 17, you might have well asked," who's the GOAT", which there is already a thread about. If the purpose of the thread was to prove how much better golfers are today, why not ask that? There is no right or wrong answer to the poll, it's purely a personal opinion, however, there is a correct definitive answer to the purpose of your thread.

[k-troop]

The poll is a thinly veiled loaded question as to whether Jack's 20 is better than Tigers 17, you might have well asked," who's the GOAT", which there is already a thread about. If the purpose of the thread was to prove how much better golfers are today, why not ask that? There is no right or wrong answer to the poll, it's purely a personal opinion, however, there is a correct definitive answer to the purpose of your thread.

Strength of field is a factor in that equation, but it's decisive only if you think majors are the only relevant factor to GOAT.

[americanfighter]

I will always argue that the golfers of long ago were better than the golfers of today because of what they did with what they had verses what is available today. I mean its no secret Golfers of today have better equipment better training better travel capabilities more time to train better medical care better living arrangements better everything.  with the evolution of technology it is logical that scores would get better but as technology gets better the skill and creativity of the player gets worse. Technology makes us stupid and lazy. it make things easier and makes for a better life and allows us to evolve but we lose some of our skill along the way. .

I would argue that the competition is tighter today but not tougher today sure the have better scores but the reason for that is that with the advancement of technology the skill multiplayer has lessened and the gap between a good golfer versus a great golfer will continue to get smaller until there is a new breakthrough in the game and or talent. Hell the average weekend golfer is doing better today than they were back then. In other words just because a race is tight doesn't mean the racers are more talented than another race that isn't so tight.

[Spyder]

I voted for 17 majors "today". I just think, in general, it's an easy question for me to answer. I say this because fitness and performance today is much more focused and important to athletes than it was in years past. Just look at the physique of baseball players, football players, golfers, bowlers, etc. from that era and compare that to today. Physical strength and conditioning will vastly improve performance. I won't even touch the obvious equipment question, as that brings everyone "closer" in terms of the degree of separation between players #100 and #1, not farther apart as I've seen a few people state. Course maintenance is also more technically sound today and this sets up for more difficult conditions, which can help offset the increased technology in clubs. Courses are longer in distance, faster in green and fairway speed, they're narrower with regards to OB lenience (for the most part), and the list goes on and on. For these reasons, 17 majors "today" is more impressive to me than winning 20 majors through 1960s-1980s.

[americanfighter]

I voted for 17 majors "today". I just think, in general, it's an easy question for me to answer. I say this because fitness and performance today is much more focused and important to athletes than it was in years past. Just look at the physique of baseball players, football players, golfers, bowlers, etc. from that era and compare that to today. Physical strength and conditioning will vastly improve performance. I won't even touch the obvious equipment question, as that brings everyone "closer" in terms of the degree of separation between players #100 and #1, not farther apart as I've seen a few people state. Course maintenance is also more technically sound today and this sets up for more difficult conditions, which can help offset the increased technology in clubs. Courses are longer in distance, faster in green and fairway speed, they're narrower with regards to OB lenience (for the most part), and the list goes on and on. For these reasons, 17 majors "today" is more impressive to me than winning 20 majors through 1960s-1980s.

the problem you have is you don't take into account the resources available to the golfer take the golfers of today and limit them to the the technology and knowledge of the 60s and the would be lost

[Spyder]

the problem you have is you don't take into account the resources available to the golfer take the golfers of today and limit them to the the technology and knowledge of the 60s and the would be lost

That is not true at all. Golfers have submitted to studies where they've used old clubs. As an earlier post stated, Rory lost maybe 30 yards using a persimmon. You also can't just "drop" golfers from today in the past. You need to take Era A relative to their time and compare them to Era B relative to our time. In the end, the vast improvements in terms of physical strength, technology (trackman, club technology, ball technology, technology in general, etc.), training, ball flight laws, etc. I think it is more impressive to win today for these reasons. This is why I can easily determine that Era B's golfers (including all professional golfers on tour today) are better than they were in Era A. Thus, this would make winning more difficult and would ultimately make winning 17 majors more impressive and more difficult.

FYI: There were also literally no golfers averaging drives greater than 280 yards in 1980. I mention this as a reference point that a superior athlete in Rory was still performing at an outstanding level with equipment of the past. Mostly, in part, due to to technological advances which make him a superior athlete and thus harder to beat (just like most of the field today). I don't mean this to sound snide, but I hope you understand where I'm going with my point.

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=10737949

[RH31]

The thread is mostly dealing with strength of field, as the title thread and OP indicate.

I've read this a few times trying to make sense of it. You're saying that having a field with less top players, scenario B, is the better win?

The field is the same for the first two days in both scenarios but then in B, 40 of the top 50 go home, and that's a stronger field than A?

How do you know there won't be close to that number for Tiger when his career is over? 10-20 years from now Matt Kuchar might have the same "status" as Billy Casper, Ray Floyd.

No. Scenario A. I need to proof read...

[dsc123]

I believe there is a large disparity due to advances in club/ball technology, more athletic focus, better technology to analyze swing. Golf is more of a science than a feel anymore. With all these facts taken into consideration, there is less separation between the best and worst nowadays. You could be ranked dead last at average score and first place could be beating you by only a mere 1 or 2 strokes.

I don't think this really matters.  Yes, technology, teaching, nutrition, and fitness are all improved today.  But I tend to think that if Jack was born in 1980 and Tiger in 1950, they both would have been the best of their generations.  In other words, based on those factors alone, Jack born in 1980 would have benefited from those improvements.  Its not like he would be playing with persimmon while everyone else is on the TaylorMade distance train.

The influx of talent through the growth of the game is different--more talented players entering the field.  Its like if soccer suddenly became the most popular sport in the USA today, our national team would probably be one of the best in the world because we're a wealthy country with 300 million people.  Technology, nutrition and fitness would be the same, but more talent would flow into the sport.

[iacas]

The poll is a thinly veiled loaded question as to whether Jack's 20 is better than Tigers 17, you might have well asked," who's the GOAT", which there is already a thread about. If the purpose of the thread was to prove how much better golfers are today, why not ask that? There is no right or wrong answer to the poll, it's purely a personal opinion, however, there is a correct definitive answer to the purpose of your thread.

It's not "thinly veiled" - it's pretty obvious what it is. It's not veiled at all. And he says the poll is a tangential question. The bold is what he said in the first post.

I will always argue that the golfers of long ago were better than the golfers of today because of what they did with what they had verses what is available today.

That doesn't make any sense. I responded to you in the other thread, but the executive summary version is simply this: courses got more difficult too.

with the evolution of technology it is logical that scores would get better but as technology gets better the skill and creativity of the player gets worse. Technology makes us stupid and lazy. it make things easier and makes for a better life and allows us to evolve but we lose some of our skill along the way.

False assumptions.

Simple, quick counter-argument: there are ten, twenty, even thirty times as many players trying to get to the PGA Tour these days. If today's players are "stupid and lazy" then someone who wasn't "stupid and lazy" could absolutely CLEAN UP, and yet… that doesn't happen.

Why? Because the increased competition has produced better players.

The top 1% of 10,000 people is highly unlikely to be better than the top 0.002% of 500,000 people, regardless of the tools they're given.

the problem you have is you don't take into account the resources available to the golfer take the golfers of today and limit them to the the technology and knowledge of the 60s and the would be lost

We don't have to limit them. That's part of the whole point. The modern athlete (in all sports) is BETTER due in part to those types of advances.

That's why Olympic records keep getting broken. Humans keep becoming better athletes - they're better at training, they're better at using technology, etc.