jerryleal

i know..but given his issues with 'staying focused on each shot'..i would think that competitive playing would be the best prep for The US Open. I feel like I'm missing something.

I'm an avid golfer. I love the game and love to watch it. I'm sure that there are more devoted fans than myself in the Sand Trap group, but it would be hard to imagine that the average golf viewer is more dedicated than myself. I'm saying this because I have a confession. When Phil is playing I'm glued to every shot and when he isn't I tune in and out. I'd like to see him play more, and given how rusty he is I don't understand why he doesn't- unless he's hurt- and that doesn't seem to be the case. So...Why doesn't Phil Play more?

"We"....the voice of sand trap?-funny.

and you're saying that they are better over and over doesn't make it so- it is your opinion. You want to call your opinion a fact? You can measure the time of a runner and prove that todays are faster, they're running the same tracks. Not so with golfers. The competitive edge that makes a winner rise above the competition is the piece that makes greatness-sinking the 25 foot putt-when it counts- and that doesn't happen in the middle of the pack. My heroes are my heroes because they were great-Im not arguing that they were great because they're my heroes. And I hate to break it to you- as much as I love a GMac- they won't be talking about him 50 years from now. You say"that's not what anyone said-when I ask about Ricky Barnes vs. Palmer-but isn't that the natural extension of everything you've been saying?- it looks less than plausible in that light-because it isn't that defensible-but truly-it doesn't bother me that you believe what you believe-it bothers me that you present it as fact.

. The fact still remains that today has more golfers with more talent and clearly better golfers than in the 1970's. That is exactly the part that you take as fact and I am stating is an opinion that cannot be proven. I know that many people believe it , I know that many call it heresy that I call it an opinion. Of course you can argue that more players means more hurdles to pass, or more guys that might get a hot hand and shoot a 62. But if you took the top 20% of the players from every tournament --you see the same names 80% of the time. The vast majority of the time the winners are winning by beating a small field and it's the middle getting stretched out-not the top. Not always-but the vast majority of the time. I think for many people, praising todays field is just another way of praising Tiger. The very thread-" isn't todays 17 better than yesteryears 20?"-doesn't that really mean" isn't todays 14 better than yesteryears 18?" and I will say it one last time- it's america -you are free to believe what you like- but for me- being someone who is well versed in statistics and experimental methods- all of the arguments that I've seen here to 'prove' the point-fall short of being proofs-they remain opinions. Taking a modern player from the middle-who I admire-no insult intended- a Ricky Barnes for example-according to most of what I've read here-he's better than Arnold Palmer . He's competed against such 'deep' fields. I don't buy it.

Of course there's closer grouping of scores-there's more players in a tournament-no one denies this. The point is that on any given tournament the winner isn't playing against the densely packed averages, he's playing Sunday afternoon, for the few holes that count against the two or three that have risen to the top. I'm saying that there's no way to quantify if those few have risen higher than days of old-I'm not denying there are more in the middle.Of course there are.

graphite was introduced in 1973-all I'm saying is that you can't point to small differences in scoring averages and say "THERE IT IS-PROOF THAT TODAY'S PLAYERS ARE BETTER!!!"- different era used different balls and different equipment making comparisons fun to talk about but impossible to quantify

Tom Watson has my unequivocal support on this. I do wonder if Tiger takes this as motivation or as insult. After passing on the Players, would he rush to prove himself Ryder worthy or adopt a 'screw them if they don't want me attitude'? It's always been such a mystery to guess at what goes on in his mind. His place in history is assured, money isn't an issue, passing Sneed or even winning 100 seems like a lock, and chasing Jack's 18 has been put on hold for another day-so does he care about adding a couple of Ryder cup victories? Does he care about representing USA? Does he care about the press of appearing to care about team and country?-Who knows?

NONSENSE!!! The scoring data validates nothing since the courses are played with different balls and different clubs. What does Tiger shoot with ballata and hickory? It sure isn't a 62- and of course he hasn't spent a lifetime practicing with it-which is my point - the comparisons are flight of fancy that are fun- but to confuse them with physics or topics that can be proven is and remains NONSENSE!!

there are none so blind as those who will not see......a 5 time winner from another generation-WHO WAS 59 years old at the time !!! and who beat all the top players except for one guy playing over his head. what does it mean to say-"he's experienced in that type of course"- a tough course on a windy day that tests every conceivable aspect of your game! You speak of strategy and experience-like they're minor things that don't really count. By the way, an 'outlier' is a statistical abberation- it's not an abberation when a great player plays great- it only appears to be an abberation to someone who picks and chooses data based on whether or not is supports his own theories. That's called 'fudging'. The real point is that there is no data to support or deny an impossible experiment. Aren't we really asking if Jack or the other greats would be so great against today's fields- and isn't that by definition impossible to test- so anyone that picks and chooses the bits of data or statistics to defend or support their opinion- is missing the point-and anyone who's looking for data is really missing the point. This is all about opinion. Go and find data to support whether or not Superman would beat the Flash in a race. It's fantasy not science, and statisticians who think that statistics will answer the question are way off base.

If todays' players are sooo much better-why did a 59 year old Tom Watson come within a stroke of winning the Open? Had he been in his prime he would have won by 20- against the so called deeper better field.

"opinions" ?- do you imply that they aren't opinions-or more importantly -would you be quoting Jack if he didn't agree with your "opinions"? Lee Trevino does and Byron Nelson doesn't ( I made that up to make a point)-who cares?-these are opinions.

You're comparing apples and oranges- in the old days only the best of the best played professionally because only a small handful could make a living at it. The large crowd that competes today would've been pros at a club if they all played in 1950 or 1930. How many composers of music are there today? How many people write? How many people are there in countless fields of endeavor compare to 50 or 100 years ago. I'm simply stating that just because there are more doesn't make them better, more importantly doesn't make the average better. 50,000 people with songs on youtube-how many Beethovens or Mozarts are there? 100,000 people taking writing classes-how many Shakespeares? Genius comes along once in a generation or once every few generations. There is no way to actually test either end of the hypotheses- so it remains just an opinion- and my opinion is that Jack or Arnie or Lee or Tom Watson or Ben Hogan or Sam Sneed or Bobbie Jones would've challenged Tiger. They wouldn't have wilted like soooo many of todays legions did year after year. You have to admit- and it's been quoted many times that Tiger has seen-the worst golf ever-that makes him a winner, a competitor, a master of the mind game-yes,yes,yes-but a better golfer? 90 wins would've been 50 if the competition played average golf on Sunday. Where does that get fitted into the analysis? So the fields were bigger?-sure=deeper-by definition-yes-better?- I don't buy it.

'stats and facts' that can be used in any which way to prove either side of an argument are not stats and facts..they are ploys.

I don't buy the argument that today's players are better, or that that more players equates to more depth of field and therefore harder competition. Tiger was shooting to beat Jack's total of 18 majors without apostrophes until it started looking difficult for him to do so. Tiger is still shooting for 18. It's all of the Tigerettes that argue that 14 is really better than 18. This has been discussed ad nauseum in a hundred sports -"today's vs. yesterdays' " and I think that in a sport like golf -where it's you against yourself, it's a fruitless discussion. If we were to be fair, we would give a young healthy Jack today's clubs and balls to compete with a young healthy Tiger for this mythical match-up- BUT WHY DO WE DENY THIS YOUNG MYTHICAL JACK TODAY'S TRAINING TOOLS? and if we give the young mythical Jack today's high speed computers and high speed slow mo camera's-WHY DON'T WE GIVE THIS YOUNG JACK THE EXTRA 8 HOURS EVERY DAY THAT HE WOULDN'T HAVE USED FIGURING OUT THE MECHANICS OF A SWING OR LOOKING FOR GLITCHES,8 HOURS EVERY DAY THAT HE WOULD'VE TRAINED WITH- and then we'd have to give him the benefits of sports psychologist-just to make it an even playing field, AS WELL AS JETTING HIM TO EACH EVENT. My point is, that if you want a 'fair' comparison between players or fields, there are so many variables that would have to be tweeked, that the competition wouldn't resemble reality from today or from yesterday-it's a senseless, pointless debate with no end or answer. Was Lincoln a lesser leader because he only led 50 million? I believe in the mythic quality of history. I don't want my heroes brought down to real size by statistical analysis.