Jump to content
Phil McGleno

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

0  

76 members have voted

  1. 1. Loosely Related Question (consider the thread topic-please dont just repeat the GOAT thread): Which is the more impressive feat?

    • Winning 20 majors in the 60s-80s.
      12
    • Winning 17 majors in the 90s-10s.
      139


740 posts / 46472 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

Wait, he said he played on tour but he's Phil McGleno, yet when I google Phil McGleno I get Mac O'Grady. Surely you can see how little ole me could be confused.👈👉

Common problem for you, being confused.

It’s his username. His signature says he’s not Mac.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Want to hide this ad? Register for free today!

16 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

Wait, he said he played on tour but he's Phil McGleno, yet when I google Phil McGleno I get Mac O'Grady. Surely you can see how little ole me could be confused.👈👉

Then take a break for a while. Collect yourself. And grow up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 hour ago, turtleback said:

A clue: people with avatars of their favorite golfer aren't that golfer.  And for the record, I am not 2 Muppets.

You sure? 😜

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 hour ago, sheepdog said:

Well the mystery guy says he played on tour, did he?

I do not know how you have not understood this since I have said it a bunch of times-I played as a club professional in many pga tour events. This is because a lot of the fields in the early decades of Jack Nicklaus were club pros-Local guys used to fill out the field and generate local interest so spectators would come out.

We rarely made the cut-And when we did it was because we played well for us and a few of the actual touring pros had a really off week-and since we were 70-80 people deep -The club pros I mean- some of us would make the cut each week even if every touring player did too.

Tiger has never really played against fields that had very many club pros. Just the PGA which still has the strongest field of all the majors, even with 20 club guys playing-And they had to win a national championship or finish top 20 just to get there. And they almost never make the cut now, and they are NATIONAL, not LOCAL like we were.

Remember people the PGA was still in charge of the Tour back then-Even after the PGA Tour split off the PGA still had a lot of control.-They wanted to look out for their members so the fields had a LOT of PGA club pros in them even into the 70s and 80s.

To deny that is the height of stupidity. I could qualify for Tour events back then.-Today I would not qualify if the field was 10x as large. -And I mean if I was the player I was then now, not as an old guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I feel like this is a topic that is pretty settled by reasonable people.

The number of wins from top players in both majors and regular tournaments drops every generation. That alone should make it obvious that it is harder to win. Every other aspect of life improves over time in relatively free societies. Athletics is no different. Walter Hagen and Bobby Jones and Byron Nelson should not be put ahead of Mickelson. I hate seeing these lists with all old players on them comparing numbers as if they are apples to apples.

That said, it doesn't automatically follow that Lebron had the better career than Michael or Tiger is ahead of Jack. It can be a strong indication if they put up equal numbers. But if numbers are much better for one person it makes the debates tough to call.

Edited by Fidelio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

I feel like this is a topic that is pretty settled by reasonable people.

The number of wins from top players in both majors and regular tournaments drops every generation. That alone should make it obvious that it is harder to win. Every other aspect of life improves over time in relatively free societies. Athletics is no different. Walter Hagen and Bobby Jones and Byron Nelson should not be put ahead of Mickelson. I hate seeing these lists with all old players on them comparing numbers as if they are apples to apples.

I agree with all of that. It's too bad we have too many unreasonable people, I suppose.

5 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

That said, it doesn't automatically follow that Lebron had the better career than Michael or Tiger is ahead of Jack. It can be a strong indication if they put up equal numbers. But if numbers are much better for one person it makes the debates tough to call.

14/79/etc. in the modern game is, to me, > 18/72/less etc. in the 60s/70s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

21 hours ago, iacas said:

I agree with all of that. It's too bad we have too many unreasonable people, I suppose.

14/79/etc. in the modern game is, to me, > 18/72/less etc. in the 60s/70s.

Not to mention all of the other ancillary stats where Tiger's record absolutely dominates Jack's, such as consecutive wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Just now, turtleback said:

Not to mention all of the other ancillary stats where Tiger's record absolutely dominates Jack's, such as consecutive wins.

That’s the “etc.”. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

5 hours ago, turtleback said:

Not to mention all of the other ancillary stats where Tiger's record absolutely dominates Jack's, such as consecutive wins.

There is one not so ancillary stat where Jack dominates Tiger.  47 top 3s in majors 164 starts.  And the gap is so large that it isn't just attributable to field strength. It is something Sir Nick (my favorite golfer) brings up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2LnaVsmYiM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Fidelio said:

There is one not so ancillary stat where Jack dominates Tiger.  47 top 3s in majors 164 starts.  And the gap is so large that it isn't just attributable to field strength. It is something Sir Nick (my favorite golfer) brings up.

I'm not willing to just give you that.

I'm also not going to over-think it, because I don't care about finishing third.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

7 hours ago, Fidelio said:

There is one not so ancillary stat where Jack dominates Tiger.  47 top 3s in majors 164 starts.  And the gap is so large that it isn't just attributable to field strength. It is something Sir Nick (my favorite golfer) brings up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2LnaVsmYiM

Nonsense.  15 of those 47 were British Opens at a time when Americans were the best golfers in the world, overall, yet not that many went to play across the sea.  And more than a dozen PGAs were in the era where club pros made up a chunk of the field.  Field strength had a huge amount to do with it.

A more impressive achievement is Tiger's 20 top 3 finishes in 45 WGC events entered, a much higher percentage than your stat.  Especially when each of those WGC events had substantially all of the 50 best players in the world in the field, something that was fairly rare, in Jack's day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

8 hours ago, Fidelio said:

There is one not so ancillary stat where Jack dominates Tiger.  47 top 3s in majors 164 starts.  And the gap is so large that it isn't just attributable to field strength. It is something Sir Nick (my favorite golfer) brings up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2LnaVsmYiM

If we want to bring up stats like that, can you tell me how many times Jack Nicklaus missed the cut playing against club pros? You also might not like the end result that comes from mentioning that stat, because it actually doesn't favor Jack at all.

Jack Nicklaus missed 79 cuts against fields we all agree were much weaker. Tiger Woods has missed only 18 cuts. Jack played in 576 tournaments, and Tiger has played in 336. 

Tiger has a missed cut percentage of only 5.36%, compared to Jack's 13.72%. 

Jack had 47 top 3's in majors in 164 attempts, and Tiger has had 23 top 3's in only 77 starts. Jack has a top 3 percentage of 28.66% compared to Tiger's 29.87%

Jack is actually WORSE at placing in top 3's in the majors than Tiger, even playing against his weaker fields, while Tiger is less than half as likely to miss a cut compared to Jack (again, Tiger playing stronger fields than Jack ever did).

Edited by Pretzel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

5 hours ago, Pretzel said:

Jack had 47 top 3's in majors in 164 attempts, and Tiger has had 23 top 3's in only 77 starts. Jack has a top 3 percentage of 28.66% compared to Tiger's 29.87%

Jack is actually WORSE at placing in top 3's in the majors than Tiger, even playing against his weaker fields, while Tiger is less than half as likely to miss a cut compared to Jack (again, Tiger playing stronger fields than Jack ever did).

I find this thread hilarious - because people keep making the same points, as if the other side is ever going to acknowledge that the other may have a valid argument.

For the record, I think it is disingenuous to compare careers as Tiger is still playing and you are including the last 15 years (over 50 major starts) where Jack was more of an ambassador for the game. Like in 2000, his last year to start all 4 majors at 60 years old. But it makes the numbers seem to support your argument so keep on fighting the good fight.

Couple of things that are easy to state and support:
- Professional golf tour keeps getting deeper and deeper fields, both on the PGA tour and the European tour. Both tours have what are basically minor league tours that help develop players from around the world. As evidence of this the current OWGR lists over 900 players who have earned over 5 points, and glancing at the list almost all those players have played in over 30 events over the past 2 years.

- Tiger had the most dominant period that any golfer has ever had and Jack has had a longer career (though again I feel the need to point out to some that Tigers career is not over)

 

Carry on with your discussions, as no concessions will be made by either side in the ongoing discussion as this thread is now with in 300 pages of the GOAT thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

2 hours ago, Wally Fairway said:

For the record, I think it is disingenuous to compare careers as Tiger is still playing and you are including the last 15 years (over 50 major starts) where Jack was more of an ambassador for the game. Like in 2000, his last year to start all 4 majors at 60 years old.

Absolutely right.  There are plenty of legitimate ways to show that Tiger was more dominant than Jack, without looking at majors Jack played as a senior.  The 1986 Masters was Jack's last win in any PGA event, let alone a major, and that's where the cutoff should be. 

In fact, I'd say 1980 would be an even better place to stop.  Jack won two more tour events plus that '86 Masters in the following six years, but he was clearly no longer dominant, and possibly not even in the world top ten.

Which is another reason why I think "most majors" is such a dumb way to determine the GOAT.  Suppose the fairways are so dry at Carnoustie that Tiger doesn't need to use his driver, and manages to win the Open by a shot this month.  He spends the next couple of years missing cuts or finishing well out of contention, but then has a great putting week and wins the 2021 Masters by a shot.  More missed cuts and middle of the pack finishes, then in 2025 there is freakish weather at the PGA, and Tiger is on the right side of the draw while most of the big guns are on the wrong side, and he wins that by a shot.   And three years later, he backs into another Open win when he posts a number early and another freakish spot of weather destroys the scores of the third-round leaders.

So he bumbles into four more majors in the next ten years.   That ties him with Jack for most majors, and puts him ahead of Snead for most PGA wins.  Everybody finally agrees he's the GOAT.

But seriously, why should four wins in ten years make somebody the GOAT?  Don't get me wrong, it's not easy to do, but four wins in ten years isn't what you think of when you think GOAT.  You think of dominance, of blowing fields away, of being the favorite every time you tee it up, of never missing a cut and almost always contending, with multiple wins and the money and scoring titles virtually every year.

That's what Tiger did for over ten years, and that's why he should be the GOAT.  Not because he bumbled into four wins over a ten-year period.   The GOAT should be the guy who would beat anybody who ever played when both were at their best, not the guy who manages to keep winning once every couple or three years until he's 50.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Pretzel said:

Jack had 47 top 3's in majors in 164 attempts, and Tiger has had 23 top 3's in only 77 starts. Jack has a top 3 percentage of 28.66% compared to Tiger's 29.87%

Jack is actually WORSE at placing in top 3's in the majors than Tiger, even playing against his weaker fields, while Tiger is less than half as likely to miss a cut compared to Jack (again, Tiger playing stronger fields than Jack ever did).

1. This isn't the right thread for this discussion and I am ready to move onto other topics

2. Tiger is 42.  A cursory look shows Jack finished first, second or third 54% of the time as a pro up through age 42. I'll assume your numbers are correct. 30% vs 54%. That is a big gap and it is the deciding factor for me. (Not to mention one of those players missed quite a few tournaments on the back side of their career. Seems likely that gap would have been even wider.)

Edited by Fidelio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I think we're back to the same old discussion, where top 3 vs. 5 players that could regularly beat you compared to top 3 vs. 25 players that could regularly beat you, I would hope that the first person's percentage is much much much higher than the second.  If all things were equal, the second person shouldn't even be in the discussion unless they were extremely dominant...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...