Jack vs Tiger Major Win %

[JAMH03]

@LICC I cut it off there because those are the players who won the most on the PGA tour. I really don't understand why we would take it out to 10 wins?

 

 

[youdamantiger]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @Golfnutgalen said:

> > >

> > > > This “depth of field” stuff is a funny thing. Since it’s entirely subjective, proponents of it will have to bite their tongue when Brooks gets to 10 majors and his fans rate him the GOAT because the fields he faced were much tougher than Tiger’s era.

> > > Yes, that's a dangerous argument, and also dishonest. It would be like arguing Watson is better than Jack because he competed in a stronger era which nobody ever says. Also, most of Tiger's proponents don't think majors are everything and that his 81 wins total is more impressive than the 15 majors.

> > >

> >

> > That’s why I’ve said it would be incredibly interesting if Koepka had 19 majors and only 25 wins overall. It won’t happen, but it sure would pretzel the minds of the “18>15, and that’s the only argument” crowd.

> >

> >

> Well, if Koepka manage to get 19 majors with only 25 wins, that's when the goal post gets move. Jack must still be the GOAT because he had 19 seconds in majors.....LOL!

>

 

> @JAMH03 said:

> > @"A.Princey" said:

> > The one argument which is bulletproof of today's game, is there are a TON more players trying to get on tour than there ever was 40-50 years ago, and by simple logic it follows that a wider base of people attempting to do something will ultimately breed the best group of possible players that rise to "tour level". Why are large city, many student-based high schools often far superior in talent to the small, suburban towns? It's because of the much larger talent pool, and the same follows with golf today. You take 50 golfers and select their best 10, and put them against 10 of the best from 1000 candidates, the latter group will be better every time.

>

> True in most cases but not in every case, there are small schools that are particularly good at certain sports because of location, student body etc.

>

> Schools in close proximity to country clubs for golf are just one example but there are many more. Another might be that there are large schools that can't field a golf team others that have to have cuts. So not all bigger schools are more competitive in most things.

>

> Though in aggregate participation is way way up. Agree entirely there. Not only stateside but worldwide.

>

> I'd imagine the anti-crowd would be pushing the narrative that more doesn't mean more elite?

 

Participation isn't way up though. At least not in America. Golf has been hemorrhaging players in America since 2003. Here's annual participation for the years 1986-2009. In 2009 according to the table in this link there were about 27 million golfers in America.

 

http://leisurepropertiesgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NGF-Golf-Participation-in-America-2010-2020.pdf

 

In 2017 according to this Golf Digest article there were 23.8 million golfers in America. I don't know what the worldwide numbers look like but, at least in America, golf participation has been declining both in real numbers and in relation to population growth.

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/national-golf-foundation-sees-modest-signs-of-encouragement-in-latest-annual-participation-report

[LICC]

> @JAMH03 said:

> @LICC I cut it off there because those are the players who won the most on the PGA tour. I really don't understand why we would take it out to 10 wins?

>

>

 

But why the top 38 winners? That is just an arbitrary number. Why not top-50? Top 100? Ten wins is also arbitrary but people usually use ten as a cut-off.

[JAMH03]

@LICC

I picked top PGA winners all time and started with the guys who won the most. Seems especially germane to me because of what it does:


Immediately identifies Tiger and Jack towards the top
It measures winning on the PGA tour
It includes data that shows when the wins occurred
The birthdates of the golfers.And it's sort-able so I could make a few clicks and sort it


The pattern was so strong I stopped at 34 or 38.I didn't feel like guys who won so much less were going to show us as much as the ones who won the most.

[Titleist_PT23]

I only know that 18 > 15. And I don't care if Tiger takes 120 more tries until he's 73 to get #19. If he gets #19, then he will be #1. Until then, no.

[LICC]

> @JAMH03 said:>

@LICC

 

I picked top PGA winners all time and started with the guys who won the most. Seems especially germane to me because of what it does:

 

 

Immediately identifies Tiger and Jack towards the top

It measures winning on the PGA tour

It includes data that shows when the wins occurred

The birthdates of the golfers.> And it's sort-able so I could make a few clicks and sort it

 

 

The pattern was so strong I stopped at 34 or 38.I didn't feel like guys who won so much less were going to show us as much as the ones who won the most.

 

 

 

 

 

> > > > You stopped at a strange arbitrary number. Picking different numbers gives different results. The point you are making on this isn’t carrying much weight.

[JAMH03]

> @youdamantiger said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > @Golfnutgalen said:

> > > >

> > > > > This “depth of field” stuff is a funny thing. Since it’s entirely subjective, proponents of it will have to bite their tongue when Brooks gets to 10 majors and his fans rate him the GOAT because the fields he faced were much tougher than Tiger’s era.

> > > > Yes, that's a dangerous argument, and also dishonest. It would be like arguing Watson is better than Jack because he competed in a stronger era which nobody ever says. Also, most of Tiger's proponents don't think majors are everything and that his 81 wins total is more impressive than the 15 majors.

> > > >

> > >

> > > That’s why I’ve said it would be incredibly interesting if Koepka had 19 majors and only 25 wins overall. It won’t happen, but it sure would pretzel the minds of the “18>15, and that’s the only argument” crowd.

> > >

> > >

> > Well, if Koepka manage to get 19 majors with only 25 wins, that's when the goal post gets move. Jack must still be the GOAT because he had 19 seconds in majors.....LOL!

> >

>

> > @JAMH03 said:

> > > @"A.Princey" said:

> > > The one argument which is bulletproof of today's game, is there are a TON more players trying to get on tour than there ever was 40-50 years ago, and by simple logic it follows that a wider base of people attempting to do something will ultimately breed the best group of possible players that rise to "tour level". Why are large city, many student-based high schools often far superior in talent to the small, suburban towns? It's because of the much larger talent pool, and the same follows with golf today. You take 50 golfers and select their best 10, and put them against 10 of the best from 1000 candidates, the latter group will be better every time.

> >

> > True in most cases but not in every case, there are small schools that are particularly good at certain sports because of location, student body etc.

> >

> > Schools in close proximity to country clubs for golf are just one example but there are many more. Another might be that there are large schools that can't field a golf team others that have to have cuts. So not all bigger schools are more competitive in most things.

> >

> > Though in aggregate participation is way way up. Agree entirely there. Not only stateside but worldwide.

> >

> > I'd imagine the anti-crowd would be pushing the narrative that more doesn't mean more elite?

>

> Participation isn't way up though. At least not in America. Golf has been hemorrhaging players in America since 2003. Here's annual participation for the years 1986-2009. In 2009 according to the table in this link there were about 27 million golfers in America.

>

> http://leisurepropertiesgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NGF-Golf-Participation-in-America-2010-2020.pdf

>

> In 2017 according to this Golf Digest article there were 23.8 million golfers in America. I don't know what the worldwide numbers look like but, at least in America, golf participation has been declining both in real numbers and in relation to population growth.

>

> https://www.golfdigest.com/story/national-golf-foundation-sees-modest-signs-of-encouragement-in-latest-annual-participation-report

 

@youdamantiger

Thanks for the #'s

Last count I found there were 60m golfers not sure if that was US or the World? Let's save that for another time though.

 

For me it doesn't matter that much. 30 million or 25 million I'm pretty sure the worlds population has doubled since the 1960's. Not so big of a deal because golfers don't come from "the world" golfers come from the industrialized world but those places populations have sky rocketed too. Especially in the times we need to talk about concerning how many golfers the best were playing against golfers born from say 1930-1950

 

Since 1968 Say Jack's prime and even more so from the people who had to be seriously going in the 1950's and 1960's to have a chance to play Jack in his early, prime, mid prime and late prime.

 

I took a quick look at NGF and a few other places but didn't find anything that great for evidence. The number of USGA affiliated golf clubs from Bobby Jones time is about 10 times more. Which fits very neatly into the the narrative that those golfers didn't play vs as many fully time golfers. ;)

 

[JAMH03]

> @agolf1 said:

> I only know that 18 > 15. And I don't care if Tiger takes 120 more tries until he's 73 to get #19. If he gets #19, then he will be #1. Until then, no.

 

Don't really even have a problem with that. If you have a STANDARD then fine. Hopefully it's relatively fair and you judge other things similarly but that's much more useful than moving goal posts.

[LICC]

> @JAMH03 said:

> > @youdamantiger said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > @Golfnutgalen said:

> > > > >

> > > > > > This “depth of field” stuff is a funny thing. Since it’s entirely subjective, proponents of it will have to bite their tongue when Brooks gets to 10 majors and his fans rate him the GOAT because the fields he faced were much tougher than Tiger’s era.

> > > > > Yes, that's a dangerous argument, and also dishonest. It would be like arguing Watson is better than Jack because he competed in a stronger era which nobody ever says. Also, most of Tiger's proponents don't think majors are everything and that his 81 wins total is more impressive than the 15 majors.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > That’s why I’ve said it would be incredibly interesting if Koepka had 19 majors and only 25 wins overall. It won’t happen, but it sure would pretzel the minds of the “18>15, and that’s the only argument” crowd.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > Well, if Koepka manage to get 19 majors with only 25 wins, that's when the goal post gets move. Jack must still be the GOAT because he had 19 seconds in majors.....LOL!

> > >

> >

> > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > @"A.Princey" said:

> > > > The one argument which is bulletproof of today's game, is there are a TON more players trying to get on tour than there ever was 40-50 years ago, and by simple logic it follows that a wider base of people attempting to do something will ultimately breed the best group of possible players that rise to "tour level". Why are large city, many student-based high schools often far superior in talent to the small, suburban towns? It's because of the much larger talent pool, and the same follows with golf today. You take 50 golfers and select their best 10, and put them against 10 of the best from 1000 candidates, the latter group will be better every time.

> > >

> > > True in most cases but not in every case, there are small schools that are particularly good at certain sports because of location, student body etc.

> > >

> > > Schools in close proximity to country clubs for golf are just one example but there are many more. Another might be that there are large schools that can't field a golf team others that have to have cuts. So not all bigger schools are more competitive in most things.

> > >

> > > Though in aggregate participation is way way up. Agree entirely there. Not only stateside but worldwide.

> > >

> > > I'd imagine the anti-crowd would be pushing the narrative that more doesn't mean more elite?

> >

> > Participation isn't way up though. At least not in America. Golf has been hemorrhaging players in America since 2003. Here's annual participation for the years 1986-2009. In 2009 according to the table in this link there were about 27 million golfers in America.

> >

> > http://leisurepropertiesgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NGF-Golf-Participation-in-America-2010-2020.pdf

> >

> > In 2017 according to this Golf Digest article there were 23.8 million golfers in America. I don't know what the worldwide numbers look like but, at least in America, golf participation has been declining both in real numbers and in relation to population growth.

> >

> > https://www.golfdigest.com/story/national-golf-foundation-sees-modest-signs-of-encouragement-in-latest-annual-participation-report

>

> @youdamantiger

> Thanks for the #'s

> Last count I found there were 60m golfers not sure if that was US or the World? Let's save that for another time though.

>

> For me it doesn't matter that much. 30 million or 25 million I'm pretty sure the worlds population has doubled since the 1960's. Not so big of a deal because golfers don't come from "the world" golfers come from the industrialized world but those places populations have sky rocketed too. Especially in the times we need to talk about concerning how many golfers the best were playing against golfers born from say 1930-1950

>

> Since 1968 Say Jack's prime and even more so from the people who had to be seriously going in the 1950's and 1960's to have a chance to play Jack in his early, prime, mid prime and late prime.

>

> I took a quick look at NGF and a few other places but didn't find anything that great for evidence. The number of USGA affiliated golf clubs from Bobby Jones time is about 10 times more. Which fits very neatly into the the narrative that those golfers didn't play vs as many fully time golfers. ;)

>

 

From 1962-1971 Jack won 9 majors and finished in the top-4 22 times (the ten-year period from his first major win). From 1972-1981 (the next ten-year period) Jack won 8 majors and finished in the top-4 27 times. Was the depth of field worse in the 1970s than the 1960s? Better? At what year do you consider the depth of field became strong?

[cdnglf]

> @LICC said:

> > @JAMH03 said:

> > > @youdamantiger said:

> > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > @Golfnutgalen said:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > This “depth of field” stuff is a funny thing. Since it’s entirely subjective, proponents of it will have to bite their tongue when Brooks gets to 10 majors and his fans rate him the GOAT because the fields he faced were much tougher than Tiger’s era.

> > > > > > Yes, that's a dangerous argument, and also dishonest. It would be like arguing Watson is better than Jack because he competed in a stronger era which nobody ever says. Also, most of Tiger's proponents don't think majors are everything and that his 81 wins total is more impressive than the 15 majors.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > That’s why I’ve said it would be incredibly interesting if Koepka had 19 majors and only 25 wins overall. It won’t happen, but it sure would pretzel the minds of the “18>15, and that’s the only argument” crowd.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > Well, if Koepka manage to get 19 majors with only 25 wins, that's when the goal post gets move. Jack must still be the GOAT because he had 19 seconds in majors.....LOL!

> > > >

> > >

> > > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > > @"A.Princey" said:

> > > > > The one argument which is bulletproof of today's game, is there are a TON more players trying to get on tour than there ever was 40-50 years ago, and by simple logic it follows that a wider base of people attempting to do something will ultimately breed the best group of possible players that rise to "tour level". Why are large city, many student-based high schools often far superior in talent to the small, suburban towns? It's because of the much larger talent pool, and the same follows with golf today. You take 50 golfers and select their best 10, and put them against 10 of the best from 1000 candidates, the latter group will be better every time.

> > > >

> > > > True in most cases but not in every case, there are small schools that are particularly good at certain sports because of location, student body etc.

> > > >

> > > > Schools in close proximity to country clubs for golf are just one example but there are many more. Another might be that there are large schools that can't field a golf team others that have to have cuts. So not all bigger schools are more competitive in most things.

> > > >

> > > > Though in aggregate participation is way way up. Agree entirely there. Not only stateside but worldwide.

> > > >

> > > > I'd imagine the anti-crowd would be pushing the narrative that more doesn't mean more elite?

> > >

> > > Participation isn't way up though. At least not in America. Golf has been hemorrhaging players in America since 2003. Here's annual participation for the years 1986-2009. In 2009 according to the table in this link there were about 27 million golfers in America.

> > >

> > > http://leisurepropertiesgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NGF-Golf-Participation-in-America-2010-2020.pdf

> > >

> > > In 2017 according to this Golf Digest article there were 23.8 million golfers in America. I don't know what the worldwide numbers look like but, at least in America, golf participation has been declining both in real numbers and in relation to population growth.

> > >

> > > https://www.golfdigest.com/story/national-golf-foundation-sees-modest-signs-of-encouragement-in-latest-annual-participation-report

> >

> > @youdamantiger

> > Thanks for the #'s

> > Last count I found there were 60m golfers not sure if that was US or the World? Let's save that for another time though.

> >

> > For me it doesn't matter that much. 30 million or 25 million I'm pretty sure the worlds population has doubled since the 1960's. Not so big of a deal because golfers don't come from "the world" golfers come from the industrialized world but those places populations have sky rocketed too. Especially in the times we need to talk about concerning how many golfers the best were playing against golfers born from say 1930-1950

> >

> > Since 1968 Say Jack's prime and even more so from the people who had to be seriously going in the 1950's and 1960's to have a chance to play Jack in his early, prime, mid prime and late prime.

> >

> > I took a quick look at NGF and a few other places but didn't find anything that great for evidence. The number of USGA affiliated golf clubs from Bobby Jones time is about 10 times more. Which fits very neatly into the the narrative that those golfers didn't play vs as many fully time golfers. ;)

> >

>

> From 1962-1971 Jack won 9 majors and finished in the top-4 22 times (the ten-year period from his first major win). From 1972-1981 (the next ten-year period) Jack won 8 majors and finished in the top-4 27 times. Was the depth of field worse in the 1970s than the 1960s? Better? At what year do you consider the depth of field became strong?

 

Jack sure got a lot better at finishing fourth in the second period.

 


 

[LICC]

> @cdnglf said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > @youdamantiger said:

> > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > @Golfnutgalen said:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > This “depth of field” stuff is a funny thing. Since it’s entirely subjective, proponents of it will have to bite their tongue when Brooks gets to 10 majors and his fans rate him the GOAT because the fields he faced were much tougher than Tiger’s era.

> > > > > > > Yes, that's a dangerous argument, and also dishonest. It would be like arguing Watson is better than Jack because he competed in a stronger era which nobody ever says. Also, most of Tiger's proponents don't think majors are everything and that his 81 wins total is more impressive than the 15 majors.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That’s why I’ve said it would be incredibly interesting if Koepka had 19 majors and only 25 wins overall. It won’t happen, but it sure would pretzel the minds of the “18>15, and that’s the only argument” crowd.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > Well, if Koepka manage to get 19 majors with only 25 wins, that's when the goal post gets move. Jack must still be the GOAT because he had 19 seconds in majors.....LOL!

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > > > @"A.Princey" said:

> > > > > > The one argument which is bulletproof of today's game, is there are a TON more players trying to get on tour than there ever was 40-50 years ago, and by simple logic it follows that a wider base of people attempting to do something will ultimately breed the best group of possible players that rise to "tour level". Why are large city, many student-based high schools often far superior in talent to the small, suburban towns? It's because of the much larger talent pool, and the same follows with golf today. You take 50 golfers and select their best 10, and put them against 10 of the best from 1000 candidates, the latter group will be better every time.

> > > > >

> > > > > True in most cases but not in every case, there are small schools that are particularly good at certain sports because of location, student body etc.

> > > > >

> > > > > Schools in close proximity to country clubs for golf are just one example but there are many more. Another might be that there are large schools that can't field a golf team others that have to have cuts. So not all bigger schools are more competitive in most things.

> > > > >

> > > > > Though in aggregate participation is way way up. Agree entirely there. Not only stateside but worldwide.

> > > > >

> > > > > I'd imagine the anti-crowd would be pushing the narrative that more doesn't mean more elite?

> > > >

> > > > Participation isn't way up though. At least not in America. Golf has been hemorrhaging players in America since 2003. Here's annual participation for the years 1986-2009. In 2009 according to the table in this link there were about 27 million golfers in America.

> > > >

> > > > http://leisurepropertiesgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NGF-Golf-Participation-in-America-2010-2020.pdf

> > > >

> > > > In 2017 according to this Golf Digest article there were 23.8 million golfers in America. I don't know what the worldwide numbers look like but, at least in America, golf participation has been declining both in real numbers and in relation to population growth.

> > > >

> > > > https://www.golfdigest.com/story/national-golf-foundation-sees-modest-signs-of-encouragement-in-latest-annual-participation-report

> > >

> > > @youdamantiger

> > > Thanks for the #'s

> > > Last count I found there were 60m golfers not sure if that was US or the World? Let's save that for another time though.

> > >

> > > For me it doesn't matter that much. 30 million or 25 million I'm pretty sure the worlds population has doubled since the 1960's. Not so big of a deal because golfers don't come from "the world" golfers come from the industrialized world but those places populations have sky rocketed too. Especially in the times we need to talk about concerning how many golfers the best were playing against golfers born from say 1930-1950

> > >

> > > Since 1968 Say Jack's prime and even more so from the people who had to be seriously going in the 1950's and 1960's to have a chance to play Jack in his early, prime, mid prime and late prime.

> > >

> > > I took a quick look at NGF and a few other places but didn't find anything that great for evidence. The number of USGA affiliated golf clubs from Bobby Jones time is about 10 times more. Which fits very neatly into the the narrative that those golfers didn't play vs as many fully time golfers. ;)

> > >

> >

> > From 1962-1971 Jack won 9 majors and finished in the top-4 22 times (the ten-year period from his first major win). From 1972-1981 (the next ten-year period) Jack won 8 majors and finished in the top-4 27 times. Was the depth of field worse in the 1970s than the 1960s? Better? At what year do you consider the depth of field became strong?

>

> Jack sure got a lot better at finishing fourth in the second period.

>

> 

>

 

His first ten-year period compared to his second ten-year period. Look at top-5 finishes and the results are about the same.You have no good response so you throw out cherry-picking. Sure ...

[Ashley Schaeffer]

One guy is looking at one player to try to make field depth arguments, another guy is looking at the population and the actual field to make field depth arguments. Just an observation. Carry on.

[JAMH03]

Where's my back-up? > @LICC said:

> > @JAMH03 said:

> > > @youdamantiger said:

> > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > @Golfnutgalen said:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > This “depth of field” stuff is a funny thing. Since it’s entirely subjective, proponents of it will have to bite their tongue when Brooks gets to 10 majors and his fans rate him the GOAT because the fields he faced were much tougher than Tiger’s era.

> > > > > > Yes, that's a dangerous argument, and also dishonest. It would be like arguing Watson is better than Jack because he competed in a stronger era which nobody ever says. Also, most of Tiger's proponents don't think majors are everything and that his 81 wins total is more impressive than the 15 majors.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > That’s why I’ve said it would be incredibly interesting if Koepka had 19 majors and only 25 wins overall. It won’t happen, but it sure would pretzel the minds of the “18>15, and that’s the only argument” crowd.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > Well, if Koepka manage to get 19 majors with only 25 wins, that's when the goal post gets move. Jack must still be the GOAT because he had 19 seconds in majors.....LOL!

> > > >

> > >

> > > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > > @"A.Princey" said:

> > > > > The one argument which is bulletproof of today's game, is there are a TON more players trying to get on tour than there ever was 40-50 years ago, and by simple logic it follows that a wider base of people attempting to do something will ultimately breed the best group of possible players that rise to "tour level". Why are large city, many student-based high schools often far superior in talent to the small, suburban towns? It's because of the much larger talent pool, and the same follows with golf today. You take 50 golfers and select their best 10, and put them against 10 of the best from 1000 candidates, the latter group will be better every time.

> > > >

> > > > True in most cases but not in every case, there are small schools that are particularly good at certain sports because of location, student body etc.

> > > >

> > > > Schools in close proximity to country clubs for golf are just one example but there are many more. Another might be that there are large schools that can't field a golf team others that have to have cuts. So not all bigger schools are more competitive in most things.

> > > >

> > > > Though in aggregate participation is way way up. Agree entirely there. Not only stateside but worldwide.

> > > >

> > > > I'd imagine the anti-crowd would be pushing the narrative that more doesn't mean more elite?

> > >

> > > Participation isn't way up though. At least not in America. Golf has been hemorrhaging players in America since 2003. Here's annual participation for the years 1986-2009. In 2009 according to the table in this link there were about 27 million golfers in America.

> > >

> > > http://leisurepropertiesgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NGF-Golf-Participation-in-America-2010-2020.pdf

> > >

> > > In 2017 according to this Golf Digest article there were 23.8 million golfers in America. I don't know what the worldwide numbers look like but, at least in America, golf participation has been declining both in real numbers and in relation to population growth.

> > >

> > > https://www.golfdigest.com/story/national-golf-foundation-sees-modest-signs-of-encouragement-in-latest-annual-participation-report

> >

> > @youdamantiger

> > Thanks for the #'s

> > Last count I found there were 60m golfers not sure if that was US or the World? Let's save that for another time though.

> >

> > For me it doesn't matter that much. 30 million or 25 million I'm pretty sure the worlds population has doubled since the 1960's. Not so big of a deal because golfers don't come from "the world" golfers come from the industrialized world but those places populations have sky rocketed too. Especially in the times we need to talk about concerning how many golfers the best were playing against golfers born from say 1930-1950

> >

> > Since 1968 Say Jack's prime and even more so from the people who had to be seriously going in the 1950's and 1960's to have a chance to play Jack in his early, prime, mid prime and late prime.

> >

> > I took a quick look at NGF and a few other places but didn't find anything that great for evidence. The number of USGA affiliated golf clubs from Bobby Jones time is about 10 times more. Which fits very neatly into the the narrative that those golfers didn't play vs as many fully time golfers. ;)

> >

>

> From 1962-1971 Jack won 9 majors and finished in the top-4 22 times (the ten-year period from his first major win). From 1972-1981 (the next ten-year period) Jack won 8 majors and finished in the top-4 27 times. Was the depth of field worse in the 1970s than the 1960s? Better? At what year do you consider the depth of field became strong?

 

Data would suggest the 80's

[cdnglf]

> @LICC said:

> > @cdnglf said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > > @youdamantiger said:

> > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > @Golfnutgalen said:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > This “depth of field” stuff is a funny thing. Since it’s entirely subjective, proponents of it will have to bite their tongue when Brooks gets to 10 majors and his fans rate him the GOAT because the fields he faced were much tougher than Tiger’s era.

> > > > > > > > Yes, that's a dangerous argument, and also dishonest. It would be like arguing Watson is better than Jack because he competed in a stronger era which nobody ever says. Also, most of Tiger's proponents don't think majors are everything and that his 81 wins total is more impressive than the 15 majors.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > That’s why I’ve said it would be incredibly interesting if Koepka had 19 majors and only 25 wins overall. It won’t happen, but it sure would pretzel the minds of the “18>15, and that’s the only argument” crowd.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > Well, if Koepka manage to get 19 majors with only 25 wins, that's when the goal post gets move. Jack must still be the GOAT because he had 19 seconds in majors.....LOL!

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > > > > @"A.Princey" said:

> > > > > > > The one argument which is bulletproof of today's game, is there are a TON more players trying to get on tour than there ever was 40-50 years ago, and by simple logic it follows that a wider base of people attempting to do something will ultimately breed the best group of possible players that rise to "tour level". Why are large city, many student-based high schools often far superior in talent to the small, suburban towns? It's because of the much larger talent pool, and the same follows with golf today. You take 50 golfers and select their best 10, and put them against 10 of the best from 1000 candidates, the latter group will be better every time.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > True in most cases but not in every case, there are small schools that are particularly good at certain sports because of location, student body etc.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Schools in close proximity to country clubs for golf are just one example but there are many more. Another might be that there are large schools that can't field a golf team others that have to have cuts. So not all bigger schools are more competitive in most things.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Though in aggregate participation is way way up. Agree entirely there. Not only stateside but worldwide.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I'd imagine the anti-crowd would be pushing the narrative that more doesn't mean more elite?

> > > > >

> > > > > Participation isn't way up though. At least not in America. Golf has been hemorrhaging players in America since 2003. Here's annual participation for the years 1986-2009. In 2009 according to the table in this link there were about 27 million golfers in America.

> > > > >

> > > > > http://leisurepropertiesgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NGF-Golf-Participation-in-America-2010-2020.pdf

> > > > >

> > > > > In 2017 according to this Golf Digest article there were 23.8 million golfers in America. I don't know what the worldwide numbers look like but, at least in America, golf participation has been declining both in real numbers and in relation to population growth.

> > > > >

> > > > > https://www.golfdigest.com/story/national-golf-foundation-sees-modest-signs-of-encouragement-in-latest-annual-participation-report

> > > >

> > > > @youdamantiger

> > > > Thanks for the #'s

> > > > Last count I found there were 60m golfers not sure if that was US or the World? Let's save that for another time though.

> > > >

> > > > For me it doesn't matter that much. 30 million or 25 million I'm pretty sure the worlds population has doubled since the 1960's. Not so big of a deal because golfers don't come from "the world" golfers come from the industrialized world but those places populations have sky rocketed too. Especially in the times we need to talk about concerning how many golfers the best were playing against golfers born from say 1930-1950

> > > >

> > > > Since 1968 Say Jack's prime and even more so from the people who had to be seriously going in the 1950's and 1960's to have a chance to play Jack in his early, prime, mid prime and late prime.

> > > >

> > > > I took a quick look at NGF and a few other places but didn't find anything that great for evidence. The number of USGA affiliated golf clubs from Bobby Jones time is about 10 times more. Which fits very neatly into the the narrative that those golfers didn't play vs as many fully time golfers. ;)

> > > >

> > >

> > > From 1962-1971 Jack won 9 majors and finished in the top-4 22 times (the ten-year period from his first major win). From 1972-1981 (the next ten-year period) Jack won 8 majors and finished in the top-4 27 times. Was the depth of field worse in the 1970s than the 1960s? Better? At what year do you consider the depth of field became strong?

> >

> > Jack sure got a lot better at finishing fourth in the second period.

> >

> > 

> >

>

> His first ten-year period compared to his second ten-year period. Look at top-5 finishes and the results are about the same.You have no good response so you throw out cherry-picking. Sure ...

 

Why did you pick top 4s? Couldn’t be because the data didn’t work for wins, top 2s, or top 3s, could it?

 

Not sure what looking at Jack’s results is supposed to demonstrate anyway. Phil was better in majors in the second ten years of his career; Tiger was better in the first ten. So what?

[JAMH03]

Where did everybody go?

[LICC]

> @cdnglf said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > > > @youdamantiger said:

> > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > @Golfnutgalen said:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > This “depth of field” stuff is a funny thing. Since it’s entirely subjective, proponents of it will have to bite their tongue when Brooks gets to 10 majors and his fans rate him the GOAT because the fields he faced were much tougher than Tiger’s era.

> > > > > > > > > Yes, that's a dangerous argument, and also dishonest. It would be like arguing Watson is better than Jack because he competed in a stronger era which nobody ever says. Also, most of Tiger's proponents don't think majors are everything and that his 81 wins total is more impressive than the 15 majors.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > That’s why I’ve said it would be incredibly interesting if Koepka had 19 majors and only 25 wins overall. It won’t happen, but it sure would pretzel the minds of the “18>15, and that’s the only argument” crowd.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Well, if Koepka manage to get 19 majors with only 25 wins, that's when the goal post gets move. Jack must still be the GOAT because he had 19 seconds in majors.....LOL!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > > > > > @"A.Princey" said:

> > > > > > > > The one argument which is bulletproof of today's game, is there are a TON more players trying to get on tour than there ever was 40-50 years ago, and by simple logic it follows that a wider base of people attempting to do something will ultimately breed the best group of possible players that rise to "tour level". Why are large city, many student-based high schools often far superior in talent to the small, suburban towns? It's because of the much larger talent pool, and the same follows with golf today. You take 50 golfers and select their best 10, and put them against 10 of the best from 1000 candidates, the latter group will be better every time.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > True in most cases but not in every case, there are small schools that are particularly good at certain sports because of location, student body etc.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Schools in close proximity to country clubs for golf are just one example but there are many more. Another might be that there are large schools that can't field a golf team others that have to have cuts. So not all bigger schools are more competitive in most things.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Though in aggregate participation is way way up. Agree entirely there. Not only stateside but worldwide.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I'd imagine the anti-crowd would be pushing the narrative that more doesn't mean more elite?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Participation isn't way up though. At least not in America. Golf has been hemorrhaging players in America since 2003. Here's annual participation for the years 1986-2009. In 2009 according to the table in this link there were about 27 million golfers in America.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > http://leisurepropertiesgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NGF-Golf-Participation-in-America-2010-2020.pdf

> > > > > >

> > > > > > In 2017 according to this Golf Digest article there were 23.8 million golfers in America. I don't know what the worldwide numbers look like but, at least in America, golf participation has been declining both in real numbers and in relation to population growth.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > https://www.golfdigest.com/story/national-golf-foundation-sees-modest-signs-of-encouragement-in-latest-annual-participation-report

> > > > >

> > > > > @youdamantiger

> > > > > Thanks for the #'s

> > > > > Last count I found there were 60m golfers not sure if that was US or the World? Let's save that for another time though.

> > > > >

> > > > > For me it doesn't matter that much. 30 million or 25 million I'm pretty sure the worlds population has doubled since the 1960's. Not so big of a deal because golfers don't come from "the world" golfers come from the industrialized world but those places populations have sky rocketed too. Especially in the times we need to talk about concerning how many golfers the best were playing against golfers born from say 1930-1950

> > > > >

> > > > > Since 1968 Say Jack's prime and even more so from the people who had to be seriously going in the 1950's and 1960's to have a chance to play Jack in his early, prime, mid prime and late prime.

> > > > >

> > > > > I took a quick look at NGF and a few other places but didn't find anything that great for evidence. The number of USGA affiliated golf clubs from Bobby Jones time is about 10 times more. Which fits very neatly into the the narrative that those golfers didn't play vs as many fully time golfers. ;)

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > From 1962-1971 Jack won 9 majors and finished in the top-4 22 times (the ten-year period from his first major win). From 1972-1981 (the next ten-year period) Jack won 8 majors and finished in the top-4 27 times. Was the depth of field worse in the 1970s than the 1960s? Better? At what year do you consider the depth of field became strong?

> > >

> > > Jack sure got a lot better at finishing fourth in the second period.

> > >

> > > 

> > >

> >

> > His first ten-year period compared to his second ten-year period. Look at top-5 finishes and the results are about the same.You have no good response so you throw out cherry-picking. Sure ...

>

> Why did you pick top 4s? Couldn’t be because the data didn’t work for wins, top 2s, or top 3s, could it?

>

> Not sure what looking at Jack’s results is supposed to demonstrate anyway. Phil was better in majors in the second ten years of his career; Tiger was better in the first ten. So what?

 

Look at wins, top-2s, top-3s, top-4s, top-5s, it's roughly the same result. You're not contributing much value to this discussion.

In 1980, at 40 years old, Jack won two majors and finished 4th in a third. Were the field depths not any better than from 1962? Again, what is your magic year that all of a sudden field depth means Jack wouldn't be as successful?

[LICC]

> @JAMH03 said:

> Where did everybody go?

 

Everyone went to play golf, to make the fields deeper ...

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Jay Don Blake won an event by 2 strokes in 1991.

[cdnglf]

> @LICC said:

> > @cdnglf said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > > > > @youdamantiger said:

> > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Golfnutgalen said:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > This “depth of field” stuff is a funny thing. Since it’s entirely subjective, proponents of it will have to bite their tongue when Brooks gets to 10 majors and his fans rate him the GOAT because the fields he faced were much tougher than Tiger’s era.

> > > > > > > > > > Yes, that's a dangerous argument, and also dishonest. It would be like arguing Watson is better than Jack because he competed in a stronger era which nobody ever says. Also, most of Tiger's proponents don't think majors are everything and that his 81 wins total is more impressive than the 15 majors.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > That’s why I’ve said it would be incredibly interesting if Koepka had 19 majors and only 25 wins overall. It won’t happen, but it sure would pretzel the minds of the “18>15, and that’s the only argument” crowd.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Well, if Koepka manage to get 19 majors with only 25 wins, that's when the goal post gets move. Jack must still be the GOAT because he had 19 seconds in majors.....LOL!

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > > > > > > @"A.Princey" said:

> > > > > > > > > The one argument which is bulletproof of today's game, is there are a TON more players trying to get on tour than there ever was 40-50 years ago, and by simple logic it follows that a wider base of people attempting to do something will ultimately breed the best group of possible players that rise to "tour level". Why are large city, many student-based high schools often far superior in talent to the small, suburban towns? It's because of the much larger talent pool, and the same follows with golf today. You take 50 golfers and select their best 10, and put them against 10 of the best from 1000 candidates, the latter group will be better every time.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > True in most cases but not in every case, there are small schools that are particularly good at certain sports because of location, student body etc.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Schools in close proximity to country clubs for golf are just one example but there are many more. Another might be that there are large schools that can't field a golf team others that have to have cuts. So not all bigger schools are more competitive in most things.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Though in aggregate participation is way way up. Agree entirely there. Not only stateside but worldwide.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I'd imagine the anti-crowd would be pushing the narrative that more doesn't mean more elite?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Participation isn't way up though. At least not in America. Golf has been hemorrhaging players in America since 2003. Here's annual participation for the years 1986-2009. In 2009 according to the table in this link there were about 27 million golfers in America.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > http://leisurepropertiesgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NGF-Golf-Participation-in-America-2010-2020.pdf

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > In 2017 according to this Golf Digest article there were 23.8 million golfers in America. I don't know what the worldwide numbers look like but, at least in America, golf participation has been declining both in real numbers and in relation to population growth.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > https://www.golfdigest.com/story/national-golf-foundation-sees-modest-signs-of-encouragement-in-latest-annual-participation-report

> > > > > >

> > > > > > @youdamantiger

> > > > > > Thanks for the #'s

> > > > > > Last count I found there were 60m golfers not sure if that was US or the World? Let's save that for another time though.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > For me it doesn't matter that much. 30 million or 25 million I'm pretty sure the worlds population has doubled since the 1960's. Not so big of a deal because golfers don't come from "the world" golfers come from the industrialized world but those places populations have sky rocketed too. Especially in the times we need to talk about concerning how many golfers the best were playing against golfers born from say 1930-1950

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Since 1968 Say Jack's prime and even more so from the people who had to be seriously going in the 1950's and 1960's to have a chance to play Jack in his early, prime, mid prime and late prime.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I took a quick look at NGF and a few other places but didn't find anything that great for evidence. The number of USGA affiliated golf clubs from Bobby Jones time is about 10 times more. Which fits very neatly into the the narrative that those golfers didn't play vs as many fully time golfers. ;)

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > From 1962-1971 Jack won 9 majors and finished in the top-4 22 times (the ten-year period from his first major win). From 1972-1981 (the next ten-year period) Jack won 8 majors and finished in the top-4 27 times. Was the depth of field worse in the 1970s than the 1960s? Better? At what year do you consider the depth of field became strong?

> > > >

> > > > Jack sure got a lot better at finishing fourth in the second period.

> > > >

> > > > 

> > > >

> > >

> > > His first ten-year period compared to his second ten-year period. Look at top-5 finishes and the results are about the same.You have no good response so you throw out cherry-picking. Sure ...

> >

> > Why did you pick top 4s? Couldn’t be because the data didn’t work for wins, top 2s, or top 3s, could it?

> >

> > Not sure what looking at Jack’s results is supposed to demonstrate anyway. Phil was better in majors in the second ten years of his career; Tiger was better in the first ten. So what?

>

> Look at wins, top-2s, top-3s, top-4s, top-5s, it's roughly the same result. You're not contributing much value to this discussion.

> In 1980, at 40 years old, Jack won two majors and finished 4th in a third. Were the field depths not any better than from 1962? Again, what is your magic year that all of a sudden field depth means Jack wouldn't be as successful?

 

Your decision to pick "top 4" was amusing because he had only 1 in the first ten years, but 6 in the second ten years.

If you're looking for a single magic year, you're doing it wrong.

 

 

[LICC]

> @cdnglf said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > > > > > @youdamantiger said:

> > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @Golfnutgalen said:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > This “depth of field” stuff is a funny thing. Since it’s entirely subjective, proponents of it will have to bite their tongue when Brooks gets to 10 majors and his fans rate him the GOAT because the fields he faced were much tougher than Tiger’s era.

> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that's a dangerous argument, and also dishonest. It would be like arguing Watson is better than Jack because he competed in a stronger era which nobody ever says. Also, most of Tiger's proponents don't think majors are everything and that his 81 wins total is more impressive than the 15 majors.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > That’s why I’ve said it would be incredibly interesting if Koepka had 19 majors and only 25 wins overall. It won’t happen, but it sure would pretzel the minds of the “18>15, and that’s the only argument” crowd.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Well, if Koepka manage to get 19 majors with only 25 wins, that's when the goal post gets move. Jack must still be the GOAT because he had 19 seconds in majors.....LOL!

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"A.Princey" said:

> > > > > > > > > > The one argument which is bulletproof of today's game, is there are a TON more players trying to get on tour than there ever was 40-50 years ago, and by simple logic it follows that a wider base of people attempting to do something will ultimately breed the best group of possible players that rise to "tour level". Why are large city, many student-based high schools often far superior in talent to the small, suburban towns? It's because of the much larger talent pool, and the same follows with golf today. You take 50 golfers and select their best 10, and put them against 10 of the best from 1000 candidates, the latter group will be better every time.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > True in most cases but not in every case, there are small schools that are particularly good at certain sports because of location, student body etc.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Schools in close proximity to country clubs for golf are just one example but there are many more. Another might be that there are large schools that can't field a golf team others that have to have cuts. So not all bigger schools are more competitive in most things.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Though in aggregate participation is way way up. Agree entirely there. Not only stateside but worldwide.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I'd imagine the anti-crowd would be pushing the narrative that more doesn't mean more elite?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Participation isn't way up though. At least not in America. Golf has been hemorrhaging players in America since 2003. Here's annual participation for the years 1986-2009. In 2009 according to the table in this link there were about 27 million golfers in America.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > http://leisurepropertiesgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NGF-Golf-Participation-in-America-2010-2020.pdf

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > In 2017 according to this Golf Digest article there were 23.8 million golfers in America. I don't know what the worldwide numbers look like but, at least in America, golf participation has been declining both in real numbers and in relation to population growth.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > https://www.golfdigest.com/story/national-golf-foundation-sees-modest-signs-of-encouragement-in-latest-annual-participation-report

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > @youdamantiger

> > > > > > > Thanks for the #'s

> > > > > > > Last count I found there were 60m golfers not sure if that was US or the World? Let's save that for another time though.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > For me it doesn't matter that much. 30 million or 25 million I'm pretty sure the worlds population has doubled since the 1960's. Not so big of a deal because golfers don't come from "the world" golfers come from the industrialized world but those places populations have sky rocketed too. Especially in the times we need to talk about concerning how many golfers the best were playing against golfers born from say 1930-1950

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Since 1968 Say Jack's prime and even more so from the people who had to be seriously going in the 1950's and 1960's to have a chance to play Jack in his early, prime, mid prime and late prime.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I took a quick look at NGF and a few other places but didn't find anything that great for evidence. The number of USGA affiliated golf clubs from Bobby Jones time is about 10 times more. Which fits very neatly into the the narrative that those golfers didn't play vs as many fully time golfers. ;)

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > From 1962-1971 Jack won 9 majors and finished in the top-4 22 times (the ten-year period from his first major win). From 1972-1981 (the next ten-year period) Jack won 8 majors and finished in the top-4 27 times. Was the depth of field worse in the 1970s than the 1960s? Better? At what year do you consider the depth of field became strong?

> > > > >

> > > > > Jack sure got a lot better at finishing fourth in the second period.

> > > > >

> > > > > 

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > His first ten-year period compared to his second ten-year period. Look at top-5 finishes and the results are about the same.You have no good response so you throw out cherry-picking. Sure ...

> > >

> > > Why did you pick top 4s? Couldn’t be because the data didn’t work for wins, top 2s, or top 3s, could it?

> > >

> > > Not sure what looking at Jack’s results is supposed to demonstrate anyway. Phil was better in majors in the second ten years of his career; Tiger was better in the first ten. So what?

> >

> > Look at wins, top-2s, top-3s, top-4s, top-5s, it's roughly the same result. You're not contributing much value to this discussion.

> > In 1980, at 40 years old, Jack won two majors and finished 4th in a third. Were the field depths not any better than from 1962? Again, what is your magic year that all of a sudden field depth means Jack wouldn't be as successful?

>

> Your decision to pick "top 4" was amusing because he had only 1 in the first ten years, but 6 in the second ten years.

> If you're looking for a single magic year, you're doing it wrong.

>

>

 

I’m not the one pushing a deficient depth of field over time argument. Jack’s success was remarkably consistent for over 20 years. Do you have anything of value to add?

[cdnglf]

> @LICC said:

> > @cdnglf said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > > > > > > @youdamantiger said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @Golfnutgalen said:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > This “depth of field” stuff is a funny thing. Since it’s entirely subjective, proponents of it will have to bite their tongue when Brooks gets to 10 majors and his fans rate him the GOAT because the fields he faced were much tougher than Tiger’s era.

> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that's a dangerous argument, and also dishonest. It would be like arguing Watson is better than Jack because he competed in a stronger era which nobody ever says. Also, most of Tiger's proponents don't think majors are everything and that his 81 wins total is more impressive than the 15 majors.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > That’s why I’ve said it would be incredibly interesting if Koepka had 19 majors and only 25 wins overall. It won’t happen, but it sure would pretzel the minds of the “18>15, and that’s the only argument” crowd.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Well, if Koepka manage to get 19 majors with only 25 wins, that's when the goal post gets move. Jack must still be the GOAT because he had 19 seconds in majors.....LOL!

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @"A.Princey" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > The one argument which is bulletproof of today's game, is there are a TON more players trying to get on tour than there ever was 40-50 years ago, and by simple logic it follows that a wider base of people attempting to do something will ultimately breed the best group of possible players that rise to "tour level". Why are large city, many student-based high schools often far superior in talent to the small, suburban towns? It's because of the much larger talent pool, and the same follows with golf today. You take 50 golfers and select their best 10, and put them against 10 of the best from 1000 candidates, the latter group will be better every time.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > True in most cases but not in every case, there are small schools that are particularly good at certain sports because of location, student body etc.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Schools in close proximity to country clubs for golf are just one example but there are many more. Another might be that there are large schools that can't field a golf team others that have to have cuts. So not all bigger schools are more competitive in most things.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Though in aggregate participation is way way up. Agree entirely there. Not only stateside but worldwide.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I'd imagine the anti-crowd would be pushing the narrative that more doesn't mean more elite?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Participation isn't way up though. At least not in America. Golf has been hemorrhaging players in America since 2003. Here's annual participation for the years 1986-2009. In 2009 according to the table in this link there were about 27 million golfers in America.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > http://leisurepropertiesgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NGF-Golf-Participation-in-America-2010-2020.pdf

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > In 2017 according to this Golf Digest article there were 23.8 million golfers in America. I don't know what the worldwide numbers look like but, at least in America, golf participation has been declining both in real numbers and in relation to population growth.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > https://www.golfdigest.com/story/national-golf-foundation-sees-modest-signs-of-encouragement-in-latest-annual-participation-report

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > @youdamantiger

> > > > > > > > Thanks for the #'s

> > > > > > > > Last count I found there were 60m golfers not sure if that was US or the World? Let's save that for another time though.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > For me it doesn't matter that much. 30 million or 25 million I'm pretty sure the worlds population has doubled since the 1960's. Not so big of a deal because golfers don't come from "the world" golfers come from the industrialized world but those places populations have sky rocketed too. Especially in the times we need to talk about concerning how many golfers the best were playing against golfers born from say 1930-1950

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Since 1968 Say Jack's prime and even more so from the people who had to be seriously going in the 1950's and 1960's to have a chance to play Jack in his early, prime, mid prime and late prime.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I took a quick look at NGF and a few other places but didn't find anything that great for evidence. The number of USGA affiliated golf clubs from Bobby Jones time is about 10 times more. Which fits very neatly into the the narrative that those golfers didn't play vs as many fully time golfers. ;)

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > From 1962-1971 Jack won 9 majors and finished in the top-4 22 times (the ten-year period from his first major win). From 1972-1981 (the next ten-year period) Jack won 8 majors and finished in the top-4 27 times. Was the depth of field worse in the 1970s than the 1960s? Better? At what year do you consider the depth of field became strong?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Jack sure got a lot better at finishing fourth in the second period.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > His first ten-year period compared to his second ten-year period. Look at top-5 finishes and the results are about the same.You have no good response so you throw out cherry-picking. Sure ...

> > > >

> > > > Why did you pick top 4s? Couldn’t be because the data didn’t work for wins, top 2s, or top 3s, could it?

> > > >

> > > > Not sure what looking at Jack’s results is supposed to demonstrate anyway. Phil was better in majors in the second ten years of his career; Tiger was better in the first ten. So what?

> > >

> > > Look at wins, top-2s, top-3s, top-4s, top-5s, it's roughly the same result. You're not contributing much value to this discussion.

> > > In 1980, at 40 years old, Jack won two majors and finished 4th in a third. Were the field depths not any better than from 1962? Again, what is your magic year that all of a sudden field depth means Jack wouldn't be as successful?

> >

> > Your decision to pick "top 4" was amusing because he had only 1 in the first ten years, but 6 in the second ten years.

> > If you're looking for a single magic year, you're doing it wrong.

> >

> >

>

> I’m not the one pushing a deficient depth of field over time argument. Jack’s success was remarkably consistent for over 20 years. Do you have anything of value to add?

 

Jack's success in majors was remarkable but he rarely (if ever) had to face all the best players of his time at once. Contrast with ~1990-present, where every major has all the top 50 or more.

[JAMH03]

 

 

Good one!

I don't know much about JDB but I looked up that event at first I thought the field was weak but upon further reflection there were a ton of players I'm a fan of and that I think were really strong in their primes.

 

Also appears like 1991 was JDB's best year

 

 

 

https://www.pgatour.com/tournaments/farmers-insurance-open/past-results.1991.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LICC]

> @cdnglf said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > > > > > > > @youdamantiger said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @Golfnutgalen said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This “depth of field” stuff is a funny thing. Since it’s entirely subjective, proponents of it will have to bite their tongue when Brooks gets to 10 majors and his fans rate him the GOAT because the fields he faced were much tougher than Tiger’s era.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that's a dangerous argument, and also dishonest. It would be like arguing Watson is better than Jack because he competed in a stronger era which nobody ever says. Also, most of Tiger's proponents don't think majors are everything and that his 81 wins total is more impressive than the 15 majors.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > That’s why I’ve said it would be incredibly interesting if Koepka had 19 majors and only 25 wins overall. It won’t happen, but it sure would pretzel the minds of the “18>15, and that’s the only argument” crowd.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Well, if Koepka manage to get 19 majors with only 25 wins, that's when the goal post gets move. Jack must still be the GOAT because he had 19 seconds in majors.....LOL!

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @"A.Princey" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > The one argument which is bulletproof of today's game, is there are a TON more players trying to get on tour than there ever was 40-50 years ago, and by simple logic it follows that a wider base of people attempting to do something will ultimately breed the best group of possible players that rise to "tour level". Why are large city, many student-based high schools often far superior in talent to the small, suburban towns? It's because of the much larger talent pool, and the same follows with golf today. You take 50 golfers and select their best 10, and put them against 10 of the best from 1000 candidates, the latter group will be better every time.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > True in most cases but not in every case, there are small schools that are particularly good at certain sports because of location, student body etc.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Schools in close proximity to country clubs for golf are just one example but there are many more. Another might be that there are large schools that can't field a golf team others that have to have cuts. So not all bigger schools are more competitive in most things.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Though in aggregate participation is way way up. Agree entirely there. Not only stateside but worldwide.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I'd imagine the anti-crowd would be pushing the narrative that more doesn't mean more elite?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Participation isn't way up though. At least not in America. Golf has been hemorrhaging players in America since 2003. Here's annual participation for the years 1986-2009. In 2009 according to the table in this link there were about 27 million golfers in America.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > http://leisurepropertiesgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NGF-Golf-Participation-in-America-2010-2020.pdf

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > In 2017 according to this Golf Digest article there were 23.8 million golfers in America. I don't know what the worldwide numbers look like but, at least in America, golf participation has been declining both in real numbers and in relation to population growth.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > https://www.golfdigest.com/story/national-golf-foundation-sees-modest-signs-of-encouragement-in-latest-annual-participation-report

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > @youdamantiger

> > > > > > > > > Thanks for the #'s

> > > > > > > > > Last count I found there were 60m golfers not sure if that was US or the World? Let's save that for another time though.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > For me it doesn't matter that much. 30 million or 25 million I'm pretty sure the worlds population has doubled since the 1960's. Not so big of a deal because golfers don't come from "the world" golfers come from the industrialized world but those places populations have sky rocketed too. Especially in the times we need to talk about concerning how many golfers the best were playing against golfers born from say 1930-1950

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Since 1968 Say Jack's prime and even more so from the people who had to be seriously going in the 1950's and 1960's to have a chance to play Jack in his early, prime, mid prime and late prime.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I took a quick look at NGF and a few other places but didn't find anything that great for evidence. The number of USGA affiliated golf clubs from Bobby Jones time is about 10 times more. Which fits very neatly into the the narrative that those golfers didn't play vs as many fully time golfers. ;)

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > From 1962-1971 Jack won 9 majors and finished in the top-4 22 times (the ten-year period from his first major win). From 1972-1981 (the next ten-year period) Jack won 8 majors and finished in the top-4 27 times. Was the depth of field worse in the 1970s than the 1960s? Better? At what year do you consider the depth of field became strong?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Jack sure got a lot better at finishing fourth in the second period.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > His first ten-year period compared to his second ten-year period. Look at top-5 finishes and the results are about the same.You have no good response so you throw out cherry-picking. Sure ...

> > > > >

> > > > > Why did you pick top 4s? Couldn’t be because the data didn’t work for wins, top 2s, or top 3s, could it?

> > > > >

> > > > > Not sure what looking at Jack’s results is supposed to demonstrate anyway. Phil was better in majors in the second ten years of his career; Tiger was better in the first ten. So what?

> > > >

> > > > Look at wins, top-2s, top-3s, top-4s, top-5s, it's roughly the same result. You're not contributing much value to this discussion.

> > > > In 1980, at 40 years old, Jack won two majors and finished 4th in a third. Were the field depths not any better than from 1962? Again, what is your magic year that all of a sudden field depth means Jack wouldn't be as successful?

> > >

> > > Your decision to pick "top 4" was amusing because he had only 1 in the first ten years, but 6 in the second ten years.

> > > If you're looking for a single magic year, you're doing it wrong.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > I’m not the one pushing a deficient depth of field over time argument. Jack’s success was remarkably consistent for over 20 years. Do you have anything of value to add?

>

> Jack's success in majors was remarkable but he rarely (if ever) had to face all the best players of his time at once. Contrast with ~1990-present, where every major has all the top 50 or more.

 

At the 1972 US Open, the players finishing 47-55 (including ties) were: Hubert Green, Tommy Aaron, David Graham, Bobby Cole, Gibby Gilbert, John Schroeder, Bobby Greenwood, Ron Letellier, Bob Brue, Tim Collins and Tom Jenkins. At the 1992 US Open (20 years later, same course), the players finishing 51-60, including ties: Scott Gump, Bob Wolcott, Hale Irwin, Sandy Lyle, Ted Schulz, Payne Stewart, Darryl Donovan, Jim Gallagher Jr., Duffy Waldorf, Davis Love III, and Dan Forsman.

[cdnglf]

> @LICC said:

> > @cdnglf said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @youdamantiger said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Golfnutgalen said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This “depth of field” stuff is a funny thing. Since it’s entirely subjective, proponents of it will have to bite their tongue when Brooks gets to 10 majors and his fans rate him the GOAT because the fields he faced were much tougher than Tiger’s era.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that's a dangerous argument, and also dishonest. It would be like arguing Watson is better than Jack because he competed in a stronger era which nobody ever says. Also, most of Tiger's proponents don't think majors are everything and that his 81 wins total is more impressive than the 15 majors.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > That’s why I’ve said it would be incredibly interesting if Koepka had 19 majors and only 25 wins overall. It won’t happen, but it sure would pretzel the minds of the “18>15, and that’s the only argument” crowd.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Well, if Koepka manage to get 19 majors with only 25 wins, that's when the goal post gets move. Jack must still be the GOAT because he had 19 seconds in majors.....LOL!

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @"A.Princey" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > The one argument which is bulletproof of today's game, is there are a TON more players trying to get on tour than there ever was 40-50 years ago, and by simple logic it follows that a wider base of people attempting to do something will ultimately breed the best group of possible players that rise to "tour level". Why are large city, many student-based high schools often far superior in talent to the small, suburban towns? It's because of the much larger talent pool, and the same follows with golf today. You take 50 golfers and select their best 10, and put them against 10 of the best from 1000 candidates, the latter group will be better every time.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > True in most cases but not in every case, there are small schools that are particularly good at certain sports because of location, student body etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Schools in close proximity to country clubs for golf are just one example but there are many more. Another might be that there are large schools that can't field a golf team others that have to have cuts. So not all bigger schools are more competitive in most things.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Though in aggregate participation is way way up. Agree entirely there. Not only stateside but worldwide.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I'd imagine the anti-crowd would be pushing the narrative that more doesn't mean more elite?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Participation isn't way up though. At least not in America. Golf has been hemorrhaging players in America since 2003. Here's annual participation for the years 1986-2009. In 2009 according to the table in this link there were about 27 million golfers in America.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > http://leisurepropertiesgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NGF-Golf-Participation-in-America-2010-2020.pdf

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > In 2017 according to this Golf Digest article there were 23.8 million golfers in America. I don't know what the worldwide numbers look like but, at least in America, golf participation has been declining both in real numbers and in relation to population growth.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > https://www.golfdigest.com/story/national-golf-foundation-sees-modest-signs-of-encouragement-in-latest-annual-participation-report

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > @youdamantiger

> > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the #'s

> > > > > > > > > > Last count I found there were 60m golfers not sure if that was US or the World? Let's save that for another time though.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > For me it doesn't matter that much. 30 million or 25 million I'm pretty sure the worlds population has doubled since the 1960's. Not so big of a deal because golfers don't come from "the world" golfers come from the industrialized world but those places populations have sky rocketed too. Especially in the times we need to talk about concerning how many golfers the best were playing against golfers born from say 1930-1950

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Since 1968 Say Jack's prime and even more so from the people who had to be seriously going in the 1950's and 1960's to have a chance to play Jack in his early, prime, mid prime and late prime.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I took a quick look at NGF and a few other places but didn't find anything that great for evidence. The number of USGA affiliated golf clubs from Bobby Jones time is about 10 times more. Which fits very neatly into the the narrative that those golfers didn't play vs as many fully time golfers. ;)

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > From 1962-1971 Jack won 9 majors and finished in the top-4 22 times (the ten-year period from his first major win). From 1972-1981 (the next ten-year period) Jack won 8 majors and finished in the top-4 27 times. Was the depth of field worse in the 1970s than the 1960s? Better? At what year do you consider the depth of field became strong?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Jack sure got a lot better at finishing fourth in the second period.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > His first ten-year period compared to his second ten-year period. Look at top-5 finishes and the results are about the same.You have no good response so you throw out cherry-picking. Sure ...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Why did you pick top 4s? Couldn’t be because the data didn’t work for wins, top 2s, or top 3s, could it?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Not sure what looking at Jack’s results is supposed to demonstrate anyway. Phil was better in majors in the second ten years of his career; Tiger was better in the first ten. So what?

> > > > >

> > > > > Look at wins, top-2s, top-3s, top-4s, top-5s, it's roughly the same result. You're not contributing much value to this discussion.

> > > > > In 1980, at 40 years old, Jack won two majors and finished 4th in a third. Were the field depths not any better than from 1962? Again, what is your magic year that all of a sudden field depth means Jack wouldn't be as successful?

> > > >

> > > > Your decision to pick "top 4" was amusing because he had only 1 in the first ten years, but 6 in the second ten years.

> > > > If you're looking for a single magic year, you're doing it wrong.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > I’m not the one pushing a deficient depth of field over time argument. Jack’s success was remarkably consistent for over 20 years. Do you have anything of value to add?

> >

> > Jack's success in majors was remarkable but he rarely (if ever) had to face all the best players of his time at once. Contrast with ~1990-present, where every major has all the top 50 or more.

>

> At the 1972 US Open, the players finishing 47-55 (including ties) were: Hubert Green, Tommy Aaron, David Graham, Bobby Cole, Gibby Gilbert, John Schroeder, Bobby Greenwood, Ron Letellier, Bob Brue, Tim Collins and Tom Jenkins. At the 1992 US Open (20 years later, same course), the players finishing 51-60, including ties: Scott Gump, Bob Wolcott, Hale Irwin, Sandy Lyle, Ted Schulz, Payne Stewart, Darryl Donovan, Jim Gallagher Jr., Duffy Waldorf, Davis Love III, and Dan Forsman.

 

Did Jack wear a yellow shirt in both tournaments? Must be the same then.

[JAMH03]

[Ashley Schaeffer]

It’s become very apparent that Nicklaus played against deeper fields. With arguments like, “players were hungrier then”, and, “the equipment was worse”, and, “there were more multiple major champions back then”, who could refute it? It doesn’t matter that the latter two necessarily cut against the argument, Jackie must’ve done the most against the best because, well, just because. I’m convinced. Long live Bill Russell.

[JAMH03]

Bill Russell is one of the GOATS 100%

 

[Pent08]

 

 

> @JAMH03 said:

> Where did everybody go?

The debate never goes anywhere, and for good reason. In some sports, one only needs to control for a few variables to see how past greats and their fields stack up against today's game. This is the case with swimming and track, but certainly not golf.

 

[JAMH03]

Hmmm,

I thought @youdamantiger @LICC and I were moving closer to some common ground. Though @cdnglf was making salient and rational arguments. I agreed with some other posters conclusions if not their methodologies. I thought that @agolf1 took a position that maybe doesn't represent me but certainly has an objective resolution.

 

So many others that I can't recall or tag right now. @Pent08 Seems to me that the vast majority of us don't believe that win% in the majors is what decides who the best golfers are for us.

 

Reason why I asked where was everybody? Was that I thought I might have been in trouble for a moment and I wanted some feedback from the people who thought excellent play from 96-2012 trumped excellent play from 60-82 or whatever.

 

Thanks Pent08. I may not have changed anybody's mind but I think it's important to have fair standards.

 

 

 

[LICC]

> @JAMH03 said:

> Hmmm,

> I thought @youdamantiger @LICC and I were moving closer to some common ground. Though @cdnglf was making salient and rational arguments. I agreed with some other posters conclusions if not their methodologies. I thought that @agolf1 took a position that maybe doesn't represent me but certainly has an objective resolution.

>

> So many others that I can't recall or tag right now. @Pent08 Seems to me that the vast majority of us don't believe that win% in the majors is what decides who the best golfers are for us.

>

> Reason why I asked where was everybody? Was that I thought I might have been in trouble for a moment and I wanted some feedback from the people who thought excellent play from 96-2012 trumped excellent play from 60-82 or whatever.

>

> Thanks Pent08. I may not have changed anybody's mind but I think it's important to have fair standards.

>

>

>

 

I really don't think we are that far off in our views. As far as I can tell, we both would favor Tiger's career accomplishments over Jack's, though for slightly different reasons, and percentage winning of the majors isn't the key factor for either of us. You seem to put more weight on the strength of field argument than I do.