If Jack was born ’90 instead of ’40

[Irishman1979]

We already have Jack on tour , his name is Jordan Spieth. Only thing different is Jack knew how to close and Jordan doesn't.

[bladehunter]

Lol. How can I partially agree with this ? Somehow I do. But the part i disagree with isn’t what you think. Doesn’t know how to close ? Maybe go read the resume from junior to 2015.

 

He may never do anything again. But “ doesn’t know how to close “ won’t be the reason. It will be because he stayed in his own head too long.

[dlygrisse]

Lots of guys have talent. Jack was long, but probably not longer than say DJ of today or prime time Tiger.

Jack, like Tiger, separated himself from the pack for one reason. When the pressure was on, he remained calm and focused, while everyone else started choking. Both Tiger and Jack often won with their B game because others folded on Sunday afternoon.

Jack would be the best player in almost any era, there were years Tiger was better, and there were years Jack was better than Tiger. The point is, on Sunday afternoon when hanging out near the top of the leaderboard, the greats play better, the average player usually struggles. Jack put himself close to the top of the leaderboard more than most, and he played at a high level more than most. Sometimes he seized the day and won handily, sometimes it fell in his lap, and somedays the Tom Weiskopf's and the Rickie Fowlers in the world didn't fold like a lawn chair when it mattered.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Tons of variables, but if everything about him remained the same, I think he'd probably be like Rahm. A lot of talent, but everyone else has it too now. He definitely wouldn't have the distance advantage he enjoyed back then. His suboptimal short game probably wouldn't keep him off the tour, but would be much more exposed in the modern era. I'd guess he'd be a career 20-25 event winner with maybe a few majors sprinkled in.

[Hawkeye77]

Except growing up in this era he would have grown up practicing short game - it's not like he was genetically biased against having a short game.

 

Jack with ruthless power, incredible iron game and incredible putting plus short game? Change my 22 to 32!

[bscinstnct]

"I am at times only a fair short iron player and a pretty ordinary wedge player"

 

-Jack Nicklaus

 

Could it be that he just didn't practice his short game much? Maybe. Or maybe it was a weakness. Nobody is perfect. Well, TW was as close as you can get but.... ; )

 

[Hawkeye77]

He maintained because of his prowess at hitting greens he rarely needed to rely on short game and didn't practice it or focus on it.

When he turned 40 he turned to Phil Rodgers because it was so bad, in Jack's view, he really needed help. Helped him "come back" and win two majors that year.

I thought it was pretty cool and revealing in one of the Jack episodes when he talked about working on short game in 1980 that Rodgers taught him how to use the sole of the club instead of the leading edge - in other words at the age of 40 he discovered the bounce.

[bscinstnct]

Good info, Hawk. Yeah, Jack's ability is off the charts. And what he also had going for him is he was very durable/injury free and seems so comfortable in his own skin. Even if I think TW, in his prime, had an edge on Jack, it ain't by much at all. Insane to think of those 2 head to head at the top of their games.

[LICC]

Jack would be one of the two greatest players of the modern era, regardless of when he played. He would be regularly beating all these guys except Tiger.

[LICC]

Do you think players in the 1970s didn't have a lot of talent?

[mocokid]

Yes, JN was only a fair short iron player. On a 450 yd hole, today that is a short iron 2nd shot. In Jack's day mid to long iron. Things have changed.

[lowheel]

Im glad you`re still doing the same routine. Im impressed you're not bored with it yet.

[widow-maker]

Jack would have taken advantage of today's physical training regimen. He would have hired coaches to work on the weaknesses in his game. Today's game is bomb and gouge. He'd have worked on the gouge to be better at it. He had the bomb down. He was always a great putter. I doubt that would have changed. There's more competition out there now, but Jack had what Tiger has... the ability to rise to the occasion and the will to win that's just better than anyone else's. Winners win. Double digit majors for sure, especially if he hit the Tour right after Tiger's US Open win at Torrey. Without Tiger in the mix, he would be King of the hill.

[MadGolfer76]

He'd still be b-chn that the ball goes too far.

[Rieflin]

This is a bit off-topic, so my apologies for that. But it's a hobby horse of mine, so I thought this thread might be the place to share it.

In my estimation, the 5 greatest golfers of all time* (in chronological

order) are:

Harry Vardon - 7 Majors, won between 1896 - 1914.

Bobby Jones - 13 Majors, won between 1923 - 1930.

Ben Hogan - 9 Majors, won between 1946 - 1953

Jack Nicklaus - 18 Majors, won between 1962 - 1986

Tiger Woods - 15 Majors, won between 1997 - 2019.

(I've rated these as the 5 GOATS not just because of their records, but because each has changed the game of golf & the way it was played - Vardon with the first "modern" swing & transition to gutta percha balls, Jones's further refinement of the swing, transition from hickory to steel, Hogan's understanding of the swing & setting the bar for practice, Nicklaus the first real Golfer as Athlete & his power game, Woods continuing & developing that etc.)

If you look at the period between each golfer, there's consistently a gap of about 10 - 15 years between when Golfer A won his last major & Golfer B won his first major - eg 9 years between 1914 & 1923 for Vardon & Jones; 16 years between 1930 & 1946 for Jones & Hogan; 9 years between 1953 & 1962 for Hogan and Nicklaus.

Which brings us to Nicklaus & Woods - 11 years between 1986 & 1997. However, even if Nicklaus's 1986 Masters win is seen as a "fluke" (because it came 6 years after 1980, his last great year as a golfer in his prime), the pattern still holds - 17 years between Nicklaus's 2 majors in 1980 & Woods's first in 1997.

The point of this? In their day, each of these golfers were hailed as the Greatest Of All Time, their like never to be seen again. Yet, with machine-like regularity, the next GOAT consistently comes along about 10-15 years after the last GOAT.

As Woods is the current GOAT, the next GOAT may well be in High School right now. Or, if we regard Woods's 2019 Masters win to be a "fluke" (like Nicklaus's 1986 Masters win), and measure from his last major win, the 2008 U.S. Open, the next GOAT is due about now.

Anyway, I don't believe you can separate the Golfer from the era they played in but, if Jack Nicklaus was born in 1990, he'd still be one of the 5 GOATS, IMHO.

[farmer]

You've been around long enough to know better than to throw facts into a perfectly speculative topic. For shame, sir, for shame!

[puttingmatt]

He would be building his career as the GOAT.

With todays modern equipment, and his talent,

Today's era of golf, would be an entirely different landscape

[Brock Savage]

It's impossible to know how good Jack would be with modern technology and training. But he had several advantages over the fields of the 60's and 70's that he wouldn't have today.

First and most important, he was the first golfer who played all four majors every year, from the day he turned pro, and he was the only one for a long time. Throughout the 60's and for most of the 70's, few Americans played the Open, and few non-Americans played the other three majors. The other two of the Big Three, Palmer and Player, were among the few who attempted to play four majors most years, but even they only played two or three majors a year early in their pro careers.

The reason was that majors were not the standard of greatness back then. In the 60's, the debate for GOAT was generally between Hogan and Snead, with 9 and 7 majors respectively. Hagen, who won 11 majors in spite of having many of them cancelled for WWI, and in spite of hitting his prime before the PGA and Masters were even founded, and in spite of having to take a month off the tour to travel by ship to play the Open, was considered a great, but not in the running for GOAT.

Jack not only played all four majors every year, but he took time off from regular tour events to scout and practice at the major venues weeks in advance. Another big advantage over almost everybody else.

Today, the top players play every major they are physically able to play, and most of them put in advance work at the venues. Jack's advantage in the majors would be gone.

Second, he was funded. In his autobiography, he says he was guaranteed $100K in endorsements his rookie year, even if he didn't win a nickel on the course. Jack recently made headlines saying the kids today don't have to win on tour to make a good living, but he was in that situation when few of his opponents were.

Third, actually a corollary of the second, is that he didn't have to drive to events. Like Arnie, he had his own plane. Unlike Arnie, he didn't fly himself, he hired a pilot. So he had it even better than Arnie -- flying a plane is at best tiring, and at worst highly stressful. Jack could just put his seat back and chill or snooze.

Today, all the top golfers don't have to worry about money, and most either have their own planes or fly first class, so again, Jack's advantage over most of the field is gone.

Fourth, the equipment. Jack could hit 1-irons; most of his opponents weren't as good with them. Today, they don't need to, they just hit hybrids. Advantage gone.

Fifth, the swing technology. Jack played against guys who learned by trial and error. A few players, like Snead, have a great natural swing. A very few, like Hogan, were willing to practice 8 hours a day and dig it out of the dirt. And a few, like Jack, found great teachers. The rest of his competition probably never found their optimal swing.

Today, everybody practices like Hogan, everybody has access to the best teachers, and everybody has access to tech that shows them, instantly, what a tweak does to their swing. Clubhead speed, launch angle, spin rate, you name it. Stuff that nobody in Jack's era had a clue about. The result is that almost everybody in the field is able to find their optimal swing.

Swing tech is the only thing in this list that isn't a clear advantage that Jack would be losing. It's possible that Jack had a lousy swing compared to what it could have been, and that knowing his spin rate or whatever would have helped him considerably. No way to know.

But everything else listed above is a definite advantage that Jack had over his opposition that he wouldn't have today. So even if you think that the larger talent pools and increased purses haven't attracted more and better players to the game, it still stands to reason that Jack would not win as often today as he did in his era.

[c7015]

It's the will power and drive champions have that sets them apart, the only question is would Jack be intimidated by Tiger or perhaps the bigger question without Jack to chase is Tiger the same Tiger?

[Hawkeye77]

^^^^^ LOL

Yep, no singular talents. Just along for the ride.

Trevino, Palmer, Weiskopf, Miller, Casper, Crampton, Norman, Kite, Watson, Devlin, Jacklin, Thomson, Irwin, Floyd, Seve, could go and on and on --- never found their "optimal" swings.

 

 

[Brock Savage]

You said that; I didn't. All I said was there are more top pros today who have taken advantage of technology developed since the Jack era to optimize their swings, and I don't see how that can be disputed. Whether the top golfers of Jack's era had swings that couldn't have been improved cannot be known, but since almost everyone else in this thread is arguing that Jack would be better today because he would put more effort into his short game, train differently, etc., it seems like the way to bet is that they didn't.

I'll also note that Tiger felt he could improve his swing at the time he was playing what even Brandel Chamblee calls the best golf the world has ever seen, so there's that.

[cardoustie]

Jack would still have the most majors

[Ashley Schaeffer]

“But, if everything about him remained the same...”

I think that’s what I said.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

I’m most glad that you always respond. It is my opinion. Bother that you can’t handle it. Rent free.

[bscinstnct]

If he was born in ‘90, sure

 

But not if he was born in 1975 ; )

[lowheel]

you sure showed me!! how will i ever recover... you truly are a master of your craft

[Dave230]

He would be like Koepka in the majors and like Dustin Johnson in regular PGA Tour events.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

If Jack was born in 1990 instead there might not be a Tiger Wood's or many others whose parents got their young children into golf.

[Hawkeye77]

No that's not all. It was the plane and the sponsors and the clubs and the launch monitors.

 

All the players you claim would make Jack an also ran have the same advantages - Tiger start out "unfunded"? No plane? LOL. There should be no Tiger according to you - everybody optimizing those swings.

 

Tiger is a singular talent. Jack is a singular talent. Compared to anyone of any era, just like a few other players, a combination of things made them the best of the best.

[gvogel]

Sorry, Jack was so much longer and straighter. Poor analogy. Jack had talent.