How Many Consecutive Weeks Would Jack have Been OWGR #1?

[fishgolf]

Perhaps this has been discussed before, but I was recently in a discussion with some friends about how many consecutive weeks Jack Nicklaus would have held the #1 ranking had the current system been in place back then.  Thus far, I've not found anything on-line that covers this - does anyone know? 

[iacas]

Nobody can know unless they put in a helluva lot of effort. It's just guessing.

And weighting the majors the same way they're weighted now would be folly - few top players played in all of the majors like they do now.

[brocks]

13 minutes ago, iacas said:

Nobody can know unless they put in a helluva lot of effort. It's just guessing.

And weighting the majors the same way they're weighted now would be folly - few top players played in all of the majors like they do now.

Actually nobody can know, period.  No amount of effort could answer the question, because it was a different golf world then.  You didn't have all the good international players competing in PGA events, and for the first dozen years or so of Jack's career, you didn't even have most of the top players in the world at the majors.  There would simply be no basis for comparing golfers that would be statistically valid.

 

[fishgolf]

13 minutes ago, iacas said:

Nobody can know unless they put in a helluva lot of effort. It's just guessing.

And weighting the majors the same way they're weighted now would be folly - few top players played in all of the majors like they do now.

I just noticed the pinned thread on "Who's Better Tiger or Jack".  After skipping through the pages, it appears we're no closer to answering this question .

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, brocks said:

Actually nobody can know, period.  No amount of effort could answer the question, because it was a different golf world then.  You didn't have all the good international players competing in PGA events, and for the first dozen years or so of Jack's career, you didn't even have most of the top players in the world at the majors.  There would simply be no basis for comparing golfers that would be statistically valid.

You could apply the same formula used now.

Then you'd see that Tiger competed in majors in which few top players played while 50% of the field wasn't even ranked in the top 500.