Yes, it is hard to play consistently, day to day, for an entire summer, WHEN YOU ARE 60 YEARS OLD!!! I'm curious, how old are you?
I'm not saying it means everything, I'm saying it means A LOT, over the course of four days. The fact that Watson can come back, as a "part-time" golfer and full-time OLD GUY and hang with the best in the world for four straight days at the age of 60 is absolutely huge, ON ANY COURSE! And he isn't even Jack Nicklaus.
Your arguments that "back then there were only a few guys on tour" and that "now there are thousands of pro's all over the world trying their best to get on tour" are the typical arguments always used to make your point. I hear you. However, there WERE quite a few players trying to get on, and win tournaments back then, and the best still rose to the top. It's not like the 1975 Masters was a club championship. Additionally, many would argue that overall the older generation of players were mentally tougher and attitudinally superior to many of today's tour "prima donnas". Tiger's intimidation factor is huge because as far as mental toughness, he is a giant, and in regular tournament play and playoffs, world-class players often and obviously wilt like drying daisies in his presence (where are the "battles" of Nicklaus' era?).
I'm not going to regurgitate the typical arguments by those who agree with my point of view. I would just offer this idea:
Go out and play one round of golf with a set of irons and balls from Nicklaus' era. Just one round. Even if you have done this before, say 10 years ago, try it now. Leather grips, crappy steel shafts so comparatively poor that they easily bend and snap over the knee, sharp/straight blades with zero/negative bounce and comparatively crappy grooves, tiny persimmon woods, an "L" putter, and those ridiculous wound balls that cut and deform upon impact or get surface tearing when someone like Jack hit them 300 yards on the screws (he then had to hit that deformed ball in to the green and putt with it), etc. etc. etc.
Then think about this; Tiger Woods' low score in the Masters is 18 under; Jack's is 17 under. ONE STROKE separates those records over the course of four days and around 270 shots. After playing that round with Jack-era equipment, you tell me how many strokes you think Tiger gained on Jack, due to equipment, and nothing more (we won't even go into superior course conditioning, health/dietary/fitness technology improvements, Lasik, computer club fitting etc.).
32 years separates 17 under and 18 under. I have to wonder, not just how Tiger would have done with Jack-era equipment, but how Jack would have done had he had those advantages. One stroke? I think Tiger's advantage is worth more than that. I realize this is just one example, from one tournament. This is just one way to try and compare. Heck, Hogan was 14 under in 1953, and I think that was after the bus wreck.
There is a temptation to think that one's own generation is superior, especially since technological innovation makes today's players LOOK superior to yesterday's legends.
Golf is a foremost a mental game. As for this discussion, the size of the field of POTENTIAL contenders throughout the world isn't what is important. This is a discussion about the greatest golfers of all time. What matters is the size of the field in terms of ACTUAL contenders who could post a challenge to Tiger or Jack. Jack had to fight off legendary players on a regular basis, and those guys didn't just fall apart when he stepped up to the tee for a playoff.
