Jack vs Tiger Major Win %

[tatertot]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @Lagavulin62 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Anchor44 said:

> > > > What shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that the PGA tour was VERY different when Jack played. There was only a handful of superstars and he didn't have to compete with near the depth that Tiger did. And, courses were shorter when Jack played.

> > > > I have great respect for Jack but Tiger is the GOAT.

> > >

> > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > >

> > >

> > > The current day fields are clearly much deeper than the 1960s and 1970s. But I don’t know how much that matters when evaluating Jack’s accomplishments vs Tiger, because even today the top 1/4th of players win almost all the tournaments. The talent levels are such that the bottom half to 3/4 of the fields don’t matter most of the time.

> >

> > Every sport they try and compare in this way. It never works out as it’s all relative. Everybody shoots for majors and the one with the most wins. I think Jack’s record is safe for a long time. Even Tiger’s at second.

>

> Cy Youngs win record will never be broken either. But it doesn't mean that we end the discussion on the greatest pitcher of all time with him.

>

> Lot's of things to look at with Jack. As some have pointed out, there were a handful of actual full time travelling tournament players and a lot of guys who were local pros playing events. Nowhere near the depth.

>

> And physically? Jack would be another big hitter now. He'd be out there with a bunch of guys his size or bigger hitting as far or farther.

>

> Look at 2 of his main competitors. Trevino and Gary player. They were both like 5' 6, 5'7. Besides Rory, and unlike LT and GP, Rory is a big hitter, is there anyone on the tour now that size who wins majors or even wins with any regularity?

 

You have absolutely no idea what your talking about. Like zero. Do you just make stuff up?

[bscinstnct]

> @Lagavulin62 said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > > @Lagavulin62 said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Anchor44 said:

> > > > > What shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that the PGA tour was VERY different when Jack played. There was only a handful of superstars and he didn't have to compete with near the depth that Tiger did. And, courses were shorter when Jack played.

> > > > > I have great respect for Jack but Tiger is the GOAT.

> > > >

> > > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > The current day fields are clearly much deeper than the 1960s and 1970s. But I don’t know how much that matters when evaluating Jack’s accomplishments vs Tiger, because even today the top 1/4th of players win almost all the tournaments. The talent levels are such that the bottom half to 3/4 of the fields don’t matter most of the time.

> > >

> > > Every sport they try and compare in this way. It never works out as it’s all relative. Everybody shoots for majors and the one with the most wins. I think Jack’s record is safe for a long time. Even Tiger’s at second.

> >

> > Cy Youngs win record will never be broken either. But it doesn't mean that we end the discussion on the greatest pitcher of all time with him.

> >

> > Lot's of things to look at with Jack. As some have pointed out, there were a handful of actual full time travelling tournament players and a lot of guys who were local pros playing events. Nowhere near the depth.

> >

> > And physically? Jack would be another big hitter now. He'd be out there with a bunch of guys his size or bigger hitting as far or farther.

> >

> > Look at 2 of his main competitors. Trevino and Gary player. They were both like 5' 6, 5'7. Besides Rory, and unlike LT and GP, Rory is a big hitter, is there anyone on the tour now that size who wins majors or even wins with any regularity?

>

> I just think it’s unfair to try and knock the competition of the past and then say that the star player back then couldn't dominate today. Well he couldn't if he were the same person with the same equipment back then trying to compete with today’s standards. It’s just as silly as knocking any historical figure for his ancient beliefs as compared to today.

>

> But I think if you take snapshots and compare how each did within their era that can be useful.

 

I don't think Jack would dominate to the same magnitude now as he did then. It's not a knock on him. I don't think TW would have dominated as much either now.

The players just keep getting bigger and better. Golf, baseball, football, track, swimming, whatever.

 

[LICC]

@bscinstnct A few years ago at the Northern Trust, 8 top PGA Tour players hit persimmon wood drivers as a test. Jason Kokrak- 6'4"- was one of them:

Launch angles with the throwback club were much lower, around 9 degrees instead of Kokrak’s usual 11. Spin rates were dramatically higher, 3,100 rpm versus the usual 2,200; thus, the curve balls everyone was hitting. Ball speed was 164 mph against the 179 Kokrak gets with his Titleist 917D2. As for distance: Kokrak’s tournament roll-included average of 304 yards contrasted with his max carry of 271 with the old club. Of his 10 drives, most flew in the low 260s.

 

Human beings haven't advanced to a new level of evolution in 50 years.

[Lagavulin62]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @Lagavulin62 said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > @Lagavulin62 said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Anchor44 said:

> > > > > > What shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that the PGA tour was VERY different when Jack played. There was only a handful of superstars and he didn't have to compete with near the depth that Tiger did. And, courses were shorter when Jack played.

> > > > > > I have great respect for Jack but Tiger is the GOAT.

> > > > >

> > > > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > The current day fields are clearly much deeper than the 1960s and 1970s. But I don’t know how much that matters when evaluating Jack’s accomplishments vs Tiger, because even today the top 1/4th of players win almost all the tournaments. The talent levels are such that the bottom half to 3/4 of the fields don’t matter most of the time.

> > > >

> > > > Every sport they try and compare in this way. It never works out as it’s all relative. Everybody shoots for majors and the one with the most wins. I think Jack’s record is safe for a long time. Even Tiger’s at second.

> > >

> > > Cy Youngs win record will never be broken either. But it doesn't mean that we end the discussion on the greatest pitcher of all time with him.

> > >

> > > Lot's of things to look at with Jack. As some have pointed out, there were a handful of actual full time travelling tournament players and a lot of guys who were local pros playing events. Nowhere near the depth.

> > >

> > > And physically? Jack would be another big hitter now. He'd be out there with a bunch of guys his size or bigger hitting as far or farther.

> > >

> > > Look at 2 of his main competitors. Trevino and Gary player. They were both like 5' 6, 5'7. Besides Rory, and unlike LT and GP, Rory is a big hitter, is there anyone on the tour now that size who wins majors or even wins with any regularity?

> >

> > I just think it’s unfair to try and knock the competition of the past and then say that the star player back then couldn't dominate today. Well he couldn't if he were the same person with the same equipment back then trying to compete with today’s standards. It’s just as silly as knocking any historical figure for his ancient beliefs as compared to today.

> >

> > But I think if you take snapshots and compare how each did within their era that can be useful.

>

> I don't think Jack would dominate to the same magnitude now as he did then. It's not a knock on him. I don't think TW would have dominated as much either now.

> The players just keep getting bigger and better. Golf, baseball, football, track, swimming, whatever.

>

 

Yes but look how dominate BK has been in majors the last few years. Sure it’s not a long period but it is still phenomenal and nobody is going to knock his competition. At least not for another 10 years anyway. But as time passes and the inevitable of competition and technology improvements occur, what happened these last few years may not seem so phenomenal. But it won’t change the fact that it is and was.

[bscinstnct]

> @tatertot said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > > @Lagavulin62 said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Anchor44 said:

> > > > > What shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that the PGA tour was VERY different when Jack played. There was only a handful of superstars and he didn't have to compete with near the depth that Tiger did. And, courses were shorter when Jack played.

> > > > > I have great respect for Jack but Tiger is the GOAT.

> > > >

> > > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > The current day fields are clearly much deeper than the 1960s and 1970s. But I don’t know how much that matters when evaluating Jack’s accomplishments vs Tiger, because even today the top 1/4th of players win almost all the tournaments. The talent levels are such that the bottom half to 3/4 of the fields don’t matter most of the time.

> > >

> > > Every sport they try and compare in this way. It never works out as it’s all relative. Everybody shoots for majors and the one with the most wins. I think Jack’s record is safe for a long time. Even Tiger’s at second.

> >

> > Cy Youngs win record will never be broken either. But it doesn't mean that we end the discussion on the greatest pitcher of all time with him.

> >

> > Lot's of things to look at with Jack. As some have pointed out, there were a handful of actual full time travelling tournament players and a lot of guys who were local pros playing events. Nowhere near the depth.

> >

> > And physically? Jack would be another big hitter now. He'd be out there with a bunch of guys his size or bigger hitting as far or farther.

> >

> > Look at 2 of his main competitors. Trevino and Gary player. They were both like 5' 6, 5'7. Besides Rory, and unlike LT and GP, Rory is a big hitter, is there anyone on the tour now that size who wins majors or even wins with any regularity?

>

> You have absolutely no idea what your talking about. Like zero. Do you just make stuff up?

 

What exactly do you argue with?

 

That fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now?

 

That Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then?

 

That there are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors?

 

 

 

 

 

[Lagavulin62]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @tatertot said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > @Lagavulin62 said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Anchor44 said:

> > > > > > What shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that the PGA tour was VERY different when Jack played. There was only a handful of superstars and he didn't have to compete with near the depth that Tiger did. And, courses were shorter when Jack played.

> > > > > > I have great respect for Jack but Tiger is the GOAT.

> > > > >

> > > > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > The current day fields are clearly much deeper than the 1960s and 1970s. But I don’t know how much that matters when evaluating Jack’s accomplishments vs Tiger, because even today the top 1/4th of players win almost all the tournaments. The talent levels are such that the bottom half to 3/4 of the fields don’t matter most of the time.

> > > >

> > > > Every sport they try and compare in this way. It never works out as it’s all relative. Everybody shoots for majors and the one with the most wins. I think Jack’s record is safe for a long time. Even Tiger’s at second.

> > >

> > > Cy Youngs win record will never be broken either. But it doesn't mean that we end the discussion on the greatest pitcher of all time with him.

> > >

> > > Lot's of things to look at with Jack. As some have pointed out, there were a handful of actual full time travelling tournament players and a lot of guys who were local pros playing events. Nowhere near the depth.

> > >

> > > And physically? Jack would be another big hitter now. He'd be out there with a bunch of guys his size or bigger hitting as far or farther.

> > >

> > > Look at 2 of his main competitors. Trevino and Gary player. They were both like 5' 6, 5'7. Besides Rory, and unlike LT and GP, Rory is a big hitter, is there anyone on the tour now that size who wins majors or even wins with any regularity?

> >

> > You have absolutely no idea what your talking about. Like zero. Do you just make stuff up?

>

> What exactly do you argue with?

>

 

>

>

>

>

>

 

That’s the point that’s trying to be made.

 

You can take snippets of time and compare the record to the past and I think it has some meaning.

 

For example: By the age of 30 Tiger had so many majors.

 

Or: After 40 majors played, Jack won blank percentage.

 

Then the grandaddy of them all: Jack won 18 majors, Tiger has 15.

 

See thats fine because you can compare and the comparison is not dependent on knocking down the perceived strength of competition.

Tiger can probably best Jack in many categories based on that type of comparison. It stands alone, the record doesn’t need any help.

 

But try saying Tiger’s 15 is better than Jack’s 18 and the only way to do that is to somehow knock Jack’s competition down. A very subjective game at best.

[tatertot]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @tatertot said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > @Lagavulin62 said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Anchor44 said:

> > > > > > What shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that the PGA tour was VERY different when Jack played. There was only a handful of superstars and he didn't have to compete with near the depth that Tiger did. And, courses were shorter when Jack played.

> > > > > > I have great respect for Jack but Tiger is the GOAT.

> > > > >

> > > > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > The current day fields are clearly much deeper than the 1960s and 1970s. But I don’t know how much that matters when evaluating Jack’s accomplishments vs Tiger, because even today the top 1/4th of players win almost all the tournaments. The talent levels are such that the bottom half to 3/4 of the fields don’t matter most of the time.

> > > >

> > > > Every sport they try and compare in this way. It never works out as it’s all relative. Everybody shoots for majors and the one with the most wins. I think Jack’s record is safe for a long time. Even Tiger’s at second.

> > >

> > > Cy Youngs win record will never be broken either. But it doesn't mean that we end the discussion on the greatest pitcher of all time with him.

> > >

> > > Lot's of things to look at with Jack. As some have pointed out, there were a handful of actual full time travelling tournament players and a lot of guys who were local pros playing events. Nowhere near the depth.

> > >

> > > And physically? Jack would be another big hitter now. He'd be out there with a bunch of guys his size or bigger hitting as far or farther.

> > >

> > > Look at 2 of his main competitors. Trevino and Gary player. They were both like 5' 6, 5'7. Besides Rory, and unlike LT and GP, Rory is a big hitter, is there anyone on the tour now that size who wins majors or even wins with any regularity?

> >

> > You have absolutely no idea what your talking about. Like zero. Do you just make stuff up?

>

> What exactly do you argue with?

>

> That fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now?

>

> That Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then?

>

> That there are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors?

>

>

>

>

>

 

Everyone of your points can be argued ...

 

In the '60s, guys didn't play for top 10s. You played for first place. Guys were hungrier. There was more turnover on Tour, more young guys constantly trying to gun down top players.

 

There are ALWAYS guys longer than everybody else. Daly was longer. Tiger was longer. Rory is longer. It's the way it is. Jack was long then, he'd be long now. Until he got old, just like Tiger.

 

You have this mistaken idea Jack was long because he was big, and Player was short because he was, well, short. Jack was 5-10, tops. He wasn't a giant. He was long because he could swing that much faster than everybody ... again, just like Tiger, just like Rory. And how tall is Rory?

 

Point is, you're talking just to hear yourself talk. It's silly to compare careers till they're over. When Tiger is done, let's look at what he's accomplished and see how he compares. Is he 1A or 1B ... still TBD.

[lowheel]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @tatertot said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > @Lagavulin62 said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Anchor44 said:

> > > > > > What shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that the PGA tour was VERY different when Jack played. There was only a handful of superstars and he didn't have to compete with near the depth that Tiger did. And, courses were shorter when Jack played.

> > > > > > I have great respect for Jack but Tiger is the GOAT.

> > > > >

> > > > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > The current day fields are clearly much deeper than the 1960s and 1970s. But I don’t know how much that matters when evaluating Jack’s accomplishments vs Tiger, because even today the top 1/4th of players win almost all the tournaments. The talent levels are such that the bottom half to 3/4 of the fields don’t matter most of the time.

> > > >

> > > > Every sport they try and compare in this way. It never works out as it’s all relative. Everybody shoots for majors and the one with the most wins. I think Jack’s record is safe for a long time. Even Tiger’s at second.

> > >

> > > Cy Youngs win record will never be broken either. But it doesn't mean that we end the discussion on the greatest pitcher of all time with him.

> > >

> > > Lot's of things to look at with Jack. As some have pointed out, there were a handful of actual full time travelling tournament players and a lot of guys who were local pros playing events. Nowhere near the depth.

> > >

> > > And physically? Jack would be another big hitter now. He'd be out there with a bunch of guys his size or bigger hitting as far or farther.

> > >

> > > Look at 2 of his main competitors. Trevino and Gary player. They were both like 5' 6, 5'7. Besides Rory, and unlike LT and GP, Rory is a big hitter, is there anyone on the tour now that size who wins majors or even wins with any regularity?

> >

> > You have absolutely no idea what your talking about. Like zero. Do you just make stuff up?

>

> What exactly do you argue with?

>

> That fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now?

>

> That Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then?

>

> **That there are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors**?

>

>

>

>

>

the average soldiers size that took part in the d-day invasion in normandy was 5-8 145 pounds... were they less marines or soldiers then those today who average 5-10 180? or are agricultural/farming industrialization and genetic evolution simply responsible. At that time in america poverty post great depression led to alot of malnutrition. Meat was a luxury for large swaths of the population. today Obesity is more a problem than famine. Molinari is barely 5-8 and almost won several majors in short order.Gary Player and Trevino would get it done today just slighlty differently.

By the same token i think without you realizing it youre saying that if tiger came in today instead of 1996 he wouldnt be as good because the fields are so much better now.I know you dont believe that.

[LICC]

> @lowheel said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > > @tatertot said:

> > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > @Lagavulin62 said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @Anchor44 said:

> > > > > > > What shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that the PGA tour was VERY different when Jack played. There was only a handful of superstars and he didn't have to compete with near the depth that Tiger did. And, courses were shorter when Jack played.

> > > > > > > I have great respect for Jack but Tiger is the GOAT.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The current day fields are clearly much deeper than the 1960s and 1970s. But I don’t know how much that matters when evaluating Jack’s accomplishments vs Tiger, because even today the top 1/4th of players win almost all the tournaments. The talent levels are such that the bottom half to 3/4 of the fields don’t matter most of the time.

> > > > >

> > > > > Every sport they try and compare in this way. It never works out as it’s all relative. Everybody shoots for majors and the one with the most wins. I think Jack’s record is safe for a long time. Even Tiger’s at second.

> > > >

> > > > Cy Youngs win record will never be broken either. But it doesn't mean that we end the discussion on the greatest pitcher of all time with him.

> > > >

> > > > Lot's of things to look at with Jack. As some have pointed out, there were a handful of actual full time travelling tournament players and a lot of guys who were local pros playing events. Nowhere near the depth.

> > > >

> > > > And physically? Jack would be another big hitter now. He'd be out there with a bunch of guys his size or bigger hitting as far or farther.

> > > >

> > > > Look at 2 of his main competitors. Trevino and Gary player. They were both like 5' 6, 5'7. Besides Rory, and unlike LT and GP, Rory is a big hitter, is there anyone on the tour now that size who wins majors or even wins with any regularity?

> > >

> > > You have absolutely no idea what your talking about. Like zero. Do you just make stuff up?

> >

> > What exactly do you argue with?

> >

> > That fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now?

> >

> > That Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then?

> >

> > **That there are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors**?

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> the average soldiers size that took part in the d-day invasion in normandy was 5-8 145 pounds...

>

 

The average height of a WWII US soldier is the same as the average height of a US soldier today, roughly 5'9".

[lowheel]

> @LICC said:

> > @lowheel said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > @tatertot said:

> > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > @Lagavulin62 said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @Anchor44 said:

> > > > > > > > What shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that the PGA tour was VERY different when Jack played. There was only a handful of superstars and he didn't have to compete with near the depth that Tiger did. And, courses were shorter when Jack played.

> > > > > > > > I have great respect for Jack but Tiger is the GOAT.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > > > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The current day fields are clearly much deeper than the 1960s and 1970s. But I don’t know how much that matters when evaluating Jack’s accomplishments vs Tiger, because even today the top 1/4th of players win almost all the tournaments. The talent levels are such that the bottom half to 3/4 of the fields don’t matter most of the time.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Every sport they try and compare in this way. It never works out as it’s all relative. Everybody shoots for majors and the one with the most wins. I think Jack’s record is safe for a long time. Even Tiger’s at second.

> > > > >

> > > > > Cy Youngs win record will never be broken either. But it doesn't mean that we end the discussion on the greatest pitcher of all time with him.

> > > > >

> > > > > Lot's of things to look at with Jack. As some have pointed out, there were a handful of actual full time travelling tournament players and a lot of guys who were local pros playing events. Nowhere near the depth.

> > > > >

> > > > > And physically? Jack would be another big hitter now. He'd be out there with a bunch of guys his size or bigger hitting as far or farther.

> > > > >

> > > > > Look at 2 of his main competitors. Trevino and Gary player. They were both like 5' 6, 5'7. Besides Rory, and unlike LT and GP, Rory is a big hitter, is there anyone on the tour now that size who wins majors or even wins with any regularity?

> > > >

> > > > You have absolutely no idea what your talking about. Like zero. Do you just make stuff up?

> > >

> > > What exactly do you argue with?

> > >

> > > That fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now?

> > >

> > > That Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then?

> > >

> > > **That there are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors**?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > the average soldiers size that took part in the d-day invasion in normandy was 5-8 145 pounds...

> >

>

> The average height of a WWII US soldier is the same as the average height of a US soldier today, roughly 5'9".

 

I got these #s from the pentagon archives and from Victor Davis Hansons book on D-day. Not trying to quibble about it.

[Darth Putter]

To update

Brooks Koepka 4/23

17.39%

Tiger Woods 15/83

18.07%

[bscinstnct]

 

 

 

 

> @lowheel said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > > @tatertot said:

> > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > @Lagavulin62 said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @Anchor44 said:

> > > > > > > What shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that the PGA tour was VERY different when Jack played. There was only a handful of superstars and he didn't have to compete with near the depth that Tiger did. And, courses were shorter when Jack played.

> > > > > > > I have great respect for Jack but Tiger is the GOAT.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The current day fields are clearly much deeper than the 1960s and 1970s. But I don’t know how much that matters when evaluating Jack’s accomplishments vs Tiger, because even today the top 1/4th of players win almost all the tournaments. The talent levels are such that the bottom half to 3/4 of the fields don’t matter most of the time.

> > > > >

> > > > > Every sport they try and compare in this way. It never works out as it’s all relative. Everybody shoots for majors and the one with the most wins. I think Jack’s record is safe for a long time. Even Tiger’s at second.

> > > >

> > > > Cy Youngs win record will never be broken either. But it doesn't mean that we end the discussion on the greatest pitcher of all time with him.

> > > >

> > > > Lot's of things to look at with Jack. As some have pointed out, there were a handful of actual full time travelling tournament players and a lot of guys who were local pros playing events. Nowhere near the depth.

> > > >

> > > > And physically? Jack would be another big hitter now. He'd be out there with a bunch of guys his size or bigger hitting as far or farther.

> > > >

> > > > Look at 2 of his main competitors. Trevino and Gary player. They were both like 5' 6, 5'7. Besides Rory, and unlike LT and GP, Rory is a big hitter, is there anyone on the tour now that size who wins majors or even wins with any regularity?

> > >

> > > You have absolutely no idea what your talking about. Like zero. Do you just make stuff up?

> >

> > What exactly do you argue with?

> >

> > That fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now?

> >

> > That Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then?

> >

> > **That there are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors**?

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> the average soldiers size that took part in the d-day invasion in normandy was 5-8 145 pounds... were they less marines or soldiers then those today who average 5-10 180? or are agricultural/farming industrialization and genetic evolution simply responsible. At that time in america poverty post great depression led to alot of malnutrition. Meat was a luxury for large swaths of the population. today Obesity is more a problem than famine. Molinari is barely 5-8 and almost won several majors in short order.Gary Player and Trevino would get it done today just slighlty differently.

> By the same token i think without you realizing it youre saying that if tiger came in today instead of 1996 he wouldnt be as good because the fields are so much better now.I know you dont believe that.

 

lowheel! Happy Friday ; )

 

Let's not get too crazy here. Athletes get bigger, stronger, faster, and better generation to generation.

 

We see it most clearly in track and field and swimming where the world records of old are times that high school athletes can beat now.

 

Golf is not raw athleticism but it still follows the trend as far as quality of talent pools just getting deeper and better.

 

 

 

[dlygrisse]

> @Dpavs said:

> One thing I think is always ignored in these Jack vs Tiger threads is the effect global warming has on golf and how that would obviously more severely impact Tiger's record vs Jack's.

 

Yeah. Now that the earth is so warm and dried out Tiger gets way more roll on his tee shots. Tiger would have been a short hitter in Jacks day. ?

[bscinstnct]

> @tatertot said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > > @tatertot said:

> > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > @Lagavulin62 said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @Anchor44 said:

> > > > > > > What shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that the PGA tour was VERY different when Jack played. There was only a handful of superstars and he didn't have to compete with near the depth that Tiger did. And, courses were shorter when Jack played.

> > > > > > > I have great respect for Jack but Tiger is the GOAT.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The current day fields are clearly much deeper than the 1960s and 1970s. But I don’t know how much that matters when evaluating Jack’s accomplishments vs Tiger, because even today the top 1/4th of players win almost all the tournaments. The talent levels are such that the bottom half to 3/4 of the fields don’t matter most of the time.

> > > > >

> > > > > Every sport they try and compare in this way. It never works out as it’s all relative. Everybody shoots for majors and the one with the most wins. I think Jack’s record is safe for a long time. Even Tiger’s at second.

> > > >

> > > > Cy Youngs win record will never be broken either. But it doesn't mean that we end the discussion on the greatest pitcher of all time with him.

> > > >

> > > > Lot's of things to look at with Jack. As some have pointed out, there were a handful of actual full time travelling tournament players and a lot of guys who were local pros playing events. Nowhere near the depth.

> > > >

> > > > And physically? Jack would be another big hitter now. He'd be out there with a bunch of guys his size or bigger hitting as far or farther.

> > > >

> > > > Look at 2 of his main competitors. Trevino and Gary player. They were both like 5' 6, 5'7. Besides Rory, and unlike LT and GP, Rory is a big hitter, is there anyone on the tour now that size who wins majors or even wins with any regularity?

> > >

> > > You have absolutely no idea what your talking about. Like zero. Do you just make stuff up?

> >

> > What exactly do you argue with?

> >

> > That fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now?

> >

> > That Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then?

> >

> > That there are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors?

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> **Everyone of your points can be argued ...**

>

> In the '60s, guys didn't play for top 10s. You played for first place. Guys were hungrier. There was more turnover on Tour, more young guys constantly trying to gun down top players.

>

> There are ALWAYS guys longer than everybody else. Daly was longer. Tiger was longer. Rory is longer. It's the way it is. Jack was long then, he'd be long now. Until he got old, just like Tiger.

>

> You have this mistaken idea Jack was long because he was big, and Player was short because he was, well, short. Jack was 5-10, tops. He wasn't a giant. He was long because he could swing that much faster than everybody ... again, just like Tiger, just like Rory. And how tall is Rory?

>

> Point is, you're talking just to hear yourself talk. It's silly to compare careers till they're over. When Tiger is done, let's look at what he's accomplished and see how he compares. Is he 1A or 1B ... still TBD.

 

No, they can't.

 

The fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now.

 

Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then.

 

There are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors.

 

Cheers, tot, Happy Frrrrrrriday ; )

 

 

 

 

 

[tatertot]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @tatertot said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > @tatertot said:

> > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > @Lagavulin62 said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @Anchor44 said:

> > > > > > > > What shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that the PGA tour was VERY different when Jack played. There was only a handful of superstars and he didn't have to compete with near the depth that Tiger did. And, courses were shorter when Jack played.

> > > > > > > > I have great respect for Jack but Tiger is the GOAT.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > > > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The current day fields are clearly much deeper than the 1960s and 1970s. But I don’t know how much that matters when evaluating Jack’s accomplishments vs Tiger, because even today the top 1/4th of players win almost all the tournaments. The talent levels are such that the bottom half to 3/4 of the fields don’t matter most of the time.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Every sport they try and compare in this way. It never works out as it’s all relative. Everybody shoots for majors and the one with the most wins. I think Jack’s record is safe for a long time. Even Tiger’s at second.

> > > > >

> > > > > Cy Youngs win record will never be broken either. But it doesn't mean that we end the discussion on the greatest pitcher of all time with him.

> > > > >

> > > > > Lot's of things to look at with Jack. As some have pointed out, there were a handful of actual full time travelling tournament players and a lot of guys who were local pros playing events. Nowhere near the depth.

> > > > >

> > > > > And physically? Jack would be another big hitter now. He'd be out there with a bunch of guys his size or bigger hitting as far or farther.

> > > > >

> > > > > Look at 2 of his main competitors. Trevino and Gary player. They were both like 5' 6, 5'7. Besides Rory, and unlike LT and GP, Rory is a big hitter, is there anyone on the tour now that size who wins majors or even wins with any regularity?

> > > >

> > > > You have absolutely no idea what your talking about. Like zero. Do you just make stuff up?

> > >

> > > What exactly do you argue with?

> > >

> > > That fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now?

> > >

> > > That Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then?

> > >

> > > That there are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > **Everyone of your points can be argued ...**

> >

> > In the '60s, guys didn't play for top 10s. You played for first place. Guys were hungrier. There was more turnover on Tour, more young guys constantly trying to gun down top players.

> >

> > There are ALWAYS guys longer than everybody else. Daly was longer. Tiger was longer. Rory is longer. It's the way it is. Jack was long then, he'd be long now. Until he got old, just like Tiger.

> >

> > You have this mistaken idea Jack was long because he was big, and Player was short because he was, well, short. Jack was 5-10, tops. He wasn't a giant. He was long because he could swing that much faster than everybody ... again, just like Tiger, just like Rory. And how tall is Rory?

> >

> > Point is, you're talking just to hear yourself talk. It's silly to compare careers till they're over. When Tiger is done, let's look at what he's accomplished and see how he compares. Is he 1A or 1B ... still TBD.

>

> No, they can't.

>

> The fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now.

>

> Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then.

>

> There are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors.

>

> Cheers, tot, Happy Frrrrrrriday ; )

>

>

>

>

>

 

I'm sorry ... I thought I was dealing with ignorance. I see now it's terminal stupidity.

[LICC]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @tatertot said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > @tatertot said:

> > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > @Lagavulin62 said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @Anchor44 said:

> > > > > > > > What shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that the PGA tour was VERY different when Jack played. There was only a handful of superstars and he didn't have to compete with near the depth that Tiger did. And, courses were shorter when Jack played.

> > > > > > > > I have great respect for Jack but Tiger is the GOAT.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > > > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The current day fields are clearly much deeper than the 1960s and 1970s. But I don’t know how much that matters when evaluating Jack’s accomplishments vs Tiger, because even today the top 1/4th of players win almost all the tournaments. The talent levels are such that the bottom half to 3/4 of the fields don’t matter most of the time.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Every sport they try and compare in this way. It never works out as it’s all relative. Everybody shoots for majors and the one with the most wins. I think Jack’s record is safe for a long time. Even Tiger’s at second.

> > > > >

> > > > > Cy Youngs win record will never be broken either. But it doesn't mean that we end the discussion on the greatest pitcher of all time with him.

> > > > >

> > > > > Lot's of things to look at with Jack. As some have pointed out, there were a handful of actual full time travelling tournament players and a lot of guys who were local pros playing events. Nowhere near the depth.

> > > > >

> > > > > And physically? Jack would be another big hitter now. He'd be out there with a bunch of guys his size or bigger hitting as far or farther.

> > > > >

> > > > > Look at 2 of his main competitors. Trevino and Gary player. They were both like 5' 6, 5'7. Besides Rory, and unlike LT and GP, Rory is a big hitter, is there anyone on the tour now that size who wins majors or even wins with any regularity?

> > > >

> > > > You have absolutely no idea what your talking about. Like zero. Do you just make stuff up?

> > >

> > > What exactly do you argue with?

> > >

> > > That fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now?

> > >

> > > That Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then?

> > >

> > > That there are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > **Everyone of your points can be argued ...**

> >

> > In the '60s, guys didn't play for top 10s. You played for first place. Guys were hungrier. There was more turnover on Tour, more young guys constantly trying to gun down top players.

> >

> > There are ALWAYS guys longer than everybody else. Daly was longer. Tiger was longer. Rory is longer. It's the way it is. Jack was long then, he'd be long now. Until he got old, just like Tiger.

> >

> > You have this mistaken idea Jack was long because he was big, and Player was short because he was, well, short. Jack was 5-10, tops. He wasn't a giant. He was long because he could swing that much faster than everybody ... again, just like Tiger, just like Rory. And how tall is Rory?

> >

> > Point is, you're talking just to hear yourself talk. It's silly to compare careers till they're over. When Tiger is done, let's look at what he's accomplished and see how he compares. Is he 1A or 1B ... still TBD.

>

> No, they can't.

>

> The fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now.

>

> Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then.

>

> There are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors.

>

> Cheers, tot, Happy Frrrrrrriday ; )

>

>

>

>

>

 

You have a lot of questionable premises there. In the 1960s, Jack would hit 300+ yard drives with persimmon woods and balata balls. Just estimating for changes in equipment technology and he would be at the top of the tour today in driving distance.

Field depth doesn't make a big difference when you are talking about the top 50-60 players.

https://blog.ted.com/whats-making-athletes-faster-better-stronger-david-epstein-at-ted2014/

 

[bscinstnct]

> @LICC said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > > @tatertot said:

> > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > @tatertot said:

> > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > @Lagavulin62 said:

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

> > > > > > > > > @Anchor44 said:

> > > > > > > > > What shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that the PGA tour was VERY different when Jack played. There was only a handful of superstars and he didn't have to compete with near the depth that Tiger did. And, courses were shorter when Jack played.

> > > > > > > > > I have great respect for Jack but Tiger is the GOAT.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The current day fields are clearly much deeper than the 1960s and 1970s. But I don’t know how much that matters when evaluating Jack’s accomplishments vs Tiger, because even today the top 1/4th of players win almost all the tournaments. The talent levels are such that the bottom half to 3/4 of the fields don’t matter most of the time.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Every sport they try and compare in this way. It never works out as it’s all relative. Everybody shoots for majors and the one with the most wins. I think Jack’s record is safe for a long time. Even Tiger’s at second.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Cy Youngs win record will never be broken either. But it doesn't mean that we end the discussion on the greatest pitcher of all time with him.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Lot's of things to look at with Jack. As some have pointed out, there were a handful of actual full time travelling tournament players and a lot of guys who were local pros playing events. Nowhere near the depth.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And physically? Jack would be another big hitter now. He'd be out there with a bunch of guys his size or bigger hitting as far or farther.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Look at 2 of his main competitors. Trevino and Gary player. They were both like 5' 6, 5'7. Besides Rory, and unlike LT and GP, Rory is a big hitter, is there anyone on the tour now that size who wins majors or even wins with any regularity?

> > > > >

> > > > > You have absolutely no idea what your talking about. Like zero. Do you just make stuff up?

> > > >

> > > > What exactly do you argue with?

> > > >

> > > > That fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now?

> > > >

> > > > That Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then?

> > > >

> > > > That there are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > **Everyone of your points can be argued ...**

> > >

> > > In the '60s, guys didn't play for top 10s. You played for first place. Guys were hungrier. There was more turnover on Tour, more young guys constantly trying to gun down top players.

> > >

> > > There are ALWAYS guys longer than everybody else. Daly was longer. Tiger was longer. Rory is longer. It's the way it is. Jack was long then, he'd be long now. Until he got old, just like Tiger.

> > >

> > > You have this mistaken idea Jack was long because he was big, and Player was short because he was, well, short. Jack was 5-10, tops. He wasn't a giant. He was long because he could swing that much faster than everybody ... again, just like Tiger, just like Rory. And how tall is Rory?

> > >

> > > Point is, you're talking just to hear yourself talk. It's silly to compare careers till they're over. When Tiger is done, let's look at what he's accomplished and see how he compares. Is he 1A or 1B ... still TBD.

> >

> > No, they can't.

> >

> > The fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now.

> >

> > Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then.

> >

> > There are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors.

> >

> > Cheers, tot, Happy Frrrrrrriday ; )

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> You have a lot of questionable premises there. In the 1960s, Jack would hit 300+ yard drives with persimmon woods and balata balls. Just estimating for changes in equipment technology and he would be at the top of the tour today in driving distance.

> Field depth doesn't make a big difference when you are talking about the top 50-60 players.

> https://blog.ted.com/whats-making-athletes-faster-better-stronger-david-epstein-at-ted2014/

>

 

I agree he would be at the top, he would just have a bunch of other great, long, hitters at the top with him, unlike back in his day.

 

 

 

 

[bscinstnct]

> @tatertot said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > > @tatertot said:

> > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > @tatertot said:

> > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > @Lagavulin62 said:

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

> > > > > > > > > @Anchor44 said:

> > > > > > > > > What shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that the PGA tour was VERY different when Jack played. There was only a handful of superstars and he didn't have to compete with near the depth that Tiger did. And, courses were shorter when Jack played.

> > > > > > > > > I have great respect for Jack but Tiger is the GOAT.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The current day fields are clearly much deeper than the 1960s and 1970s. But I don’t know how much that matters when evaluating Jack’s accomplishments vs Tiger, because even today the top 1/4th of players win almost all the tournaments. The talent levels are such that the bottom half to 3/4 of the fields don’t matter most of the time.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Every sport they try and compare in this way. It never works out as it’s all relative. Everybody shoots for majors and the one with the most wins. I think Jack’s record is safe for a long time. Even Tiger’s at second.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Cy Youngs win record will never be broken either. But it doesn't mean that we end the discussion on the greatest pitcher of all time with him.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Lot's of things to look at with Jack. As some have pointed out, there were a handful of actual full time travelling tournament players and a lot of guys who were local pros playing events. Nowhere near the depth.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And physically? Jack would be another big hitter now. He'd be out there with a bunch of guys his size or bigger hitting as far or farther.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Look at 2 of his main competitors. Trevino and Gary player. They were both like 5' 6, 5'7. Besides Rory, and unlike LT and GP, Rory is a big hitter, is there anyone on the tour now that size who wins majors or even wins with any regularity?

> > > > >

> > > > > You have absolutely no idea what your talking about. Like zero. Do you just make stuff up?

> > > >

> > > > What exactly do you argue with?

> > > >

> > > > That fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now?

> > > >

> > > > That Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then?

> > > >

> > > > That there are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > **Everyone of your points can be argued ...**

> > >

> > > In the '60s, guys didn't play for top 10s. You played for first place. Guys were hungrier. There was more turnover on Tour, more young guys constantly trying to gun down top players.

> > >

> > > There are ALWAYS guys longer than everybody else. Daly was longer. Tiger was longer. Rory is longer. It's the way it is. Jack was long then, he'd be long now. Until he got old, just like Tiger.

> > >

> > > You have this mistaken idea Jack was long because he was big, and Player was short because he was, well, short. Jack was 5-10, tops. He wasn't a giant. He was long because he could swing that much faster than everybody ... again, just like Tiger, just like Rory. And how tall is Rory?

> > >

> > > Point is, you're talking just to hear yourself talk. It's silly to compare careers till they're over. When Tiger is done, let's look at what he's accomplished and see how he compares. Is he 1A or 1B ... still TBD.

> >

> > No, they can't.

> >

> > The fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now.

> >

> > Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then.

> >

> > There are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors.

> >

> > Cheers, tot, Happy Frrrrrrriday ; )

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> I'm sorry ... I thought I was dealing with ignorance. I see now it's terminal stupidity.

 

 

Cheers, tot, enjoy the weekend!

[bscinstnct]

As far as deeper fields. There is no question about it.

 

Just look at a football team from a high school with 5000 kids compared with a team with 300 kids.

 

The top of the talent funnel now is multiples the size when Jack played.

[LICC]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > @tatertot said:

> > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > @tatertot said:

> > > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > > @Lagavulin62 said:

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

> > > > > > > > > > @Anchor44 said:

> > > > > > > > > > What shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that the PGA tour was VERY different when Jack played. There was only a handful of superstars and he didn't have to compete with near the depth that Tiger did. And, courses were shorter when Jack played.

> > > > > > > > > > I have great respect for Jack but Tiger is the GOAT.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The current day fields are clearly much deeper than the 1960s and 1970s. But I don’t know how much that matters when evaluating Jack’s accomplishments vs Tiger, because even today the top 1/4th of players win almost all the tournaments. The talent levels are such that the bottom half to 3/4 of the fields don’t matter most of the time.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Every sport they try and compare in this way. It never works out as it’s all relative. Everybody shoots for majors and the one with the most wins. I think Jack’s record is safe for a long time. Even Tiger’s at second.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Cy Youngs win record will never be broken either. But it doesn't mean that we end the discussion on the greatest pitcher of all time with him.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Lot's of things to look at with Jack. As some have pointed out, there were a handful of actual full time travelling tournament players and a lot of guys who were local pros playing events. Nowhere near the depth.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > And physically? Jack would be another big hitter now. He'd be out there with a bunch of guys his size or bigger hitting as far or farther.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Look at 2 of his main competitors. Trevino and Gary player. They were both like 5' 6, 5'7. Besides Rory, and unlike LT and GP, Rory is a big hitter, is there anyone on the tour now that size who wins majors or even wins with any regularity?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You have absolutely no idea what your talking about. Like zero. Do you just make stuff up?

> > > > >

> > > > > What exactly do you argue with?

> > > > >

> > > > > That fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now?

> > > > >

> > > > > That Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then?

> > > > >

> > > > > That there are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > **Everyone of your points can be argued ...**

> > > >

> > > > In the '60s, guys didn't play for top 10s. You played for first place. Guys were hungrier. There was more turnover on Tour, more young guys constantly trying to gun down top players.

> > > >

> > > > There are ALWAYS guys longer than everybody else. Daly was longer. Tiger was longer. Rory is longer. It's the way it is. Jack was long then, he'd be long now. Until he got old, just like Tiger.

> > > >

> > > > You have this mistaken idea Jack was long because he was big, and Player was short because he was, well, short. Jack was 5-10, tops. He wasn't a giant. He was long because he could swing that much faster than everybody ... again, just like Tiger, just like Rory. And how tall is Rory?

> > > >

> > > > Point is, you're talking just to hear yourself talk. It's silly to compare careers till they're over. When Tiger is done, let's look at what he's accomplished and see how he compares. Is he 1A or 1B ... still TBD.

> > >

> > > No, they can't.

> > >

> > > The fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now.

> > >

> > > Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then.

> > >

> > > There are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors.

> > >

> > > Cheers, tot, Happy Frrrrrrriday ; )

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > You have a lot of questionable premises there. In the 1960s, Jack would hit 300+ yard drives with persimmon woods and balata balls. Just estimating for changes in equipment technology and he would be at the top of the tour today in driving distance.

> > Field depth doesn't make a big difference when you are talking about the top 50-60 players.

> > https://blog.ted.com/whats-making-athletes-faster-better-stronger-david-epstein-at-ted2014/

> >

>

> I agree he would be at the top, he would just have a bunch of other great, long, hitters at the top with him, unlike back in his day.

>

>

>

>

 

You are basing that opinion on nothing. Arnie was a very long hitter in his day. When current pros tried to recreate a few years ago by hitting a Persimmon driver Arnie’s drive of the green on the first hole at Cherry Hills, the only one who came close was Rory. And Jack significantly outdrove Arnie in their primes.

[lowheel]

> @bscinstnct said:

> As far as deeper fields. There is no question about it.

>

> Just look at a football team from a high school with 5000 kids compared with a team with 300 kids.

>

> The top of the talent funnel now is multiples the size when Jack played.

 

so the pga tour that jack played in for over 30 years was the 300 kid school in your analogy??

 

 

[bscinstnct]

> @LICC said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > @tatertot said:

> > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > @tatertot said:

> > > > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > > > @Lagavulin62 said:

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

> > > > > > > > > > > @Anchor44 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > What shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that the PGA tour was VERY different when Jack played. There was only a handful of superstars and he didn't have to compete with near the depth that Tiger did. And, courses were shorter when Jack played.

> > > > > > > > > > > I have great respect for Jack but Tiger is the GOAT.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > The current day fields are clearly much deeper than the 1960s and 1970s. But I don’t know how much that matters when evaluating Jack’s accomplishments vs Tiger, because even today the top 1/4th of players win almost all the tournaments. The talent levels are such that the bottom half to 3/4 of the fields don’t matter most of the time.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Every sport they try and compare in this way. It never works out as it’s all relative. Everybody shoots for majors and the one with the most wins. I think Jack’s record is safe for a long time. Even Tiger’s at second.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Cy Youngs win record will never be broken either. But it doesn't mean that we end the discussion on the greatest pitcher of all time with him.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Lot's of things to look at with Jack. As some have pointed out, there were a handful of actual full time travelling tournament players and a lot of guys who were local pros playing events. Nowhere near the depth.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > And physically? Jack would be another big hitter now. He'd be out there with a bunch of guys his size or bigger hitting as far or farther.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Look at 2 of his main competitors. Trevino and Gary player. They were both like 5' 6, 5'7. Besides Rory, and unlike LT and GP, Rory is a big hitter, is there anyone on the tour now that size who wins majors or even wins with any regularity?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You have absolutely no idea what your talking about. Like zero. Do you just make stuff up?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What exactly do you argue with?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That there are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors?

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > **Everyone of your points can be argued ...**

> > > > >

> > > > > In the '60s, guys didn't play for top 10s. You played for first place. Guys were hungrier. There was more turnover on Tour, more young guys constantly trying to gun down top players.

> > > > >

> > > > > There are ALWAYS guys longer than everybody else. Daly was longer. Tiger was longer. Rory is longer. It's the way it is. Jack was long then, he'd be long now. Until he got old, just like Tiger.

> > > > >

> > > > > You have this mistaken idea Jack was long because he was big, and Player was short because he was, well, short. Jack was 5-10, tops. He wasn't a giant. He was long because he could swing that much faster than everybody ... again, just like Tiger, just like Rory. And how tall is Rory?

> > > > >

> > > > > Point is, you're talking just to hear yourself talk. It's silly to compare careers till they're over. When Tiger is done, let's look at what he's accomplished and see how he compares. Is he 1A or 1B ... still TBD.

> > > >

> > > > No, they can't.

> > > >

> > > > The fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now.

> > > >

> > > > Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then.

> > > >

> > > > There are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors.

> > > >

> > > > Cheers, tot, Happy Frrrrrrriday ; )

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > You have a lot of questionable premises there. In the 1960s, Jack would hit 300+ yard drives with persimmon woods and balata balls. Just estimating for changes in equipment technology and he would be at the top of the tour today in driving distance.

> > > Field depth doesn't make a big difference when you are talking about the top 50-60 players.

> > > https://blog.ted.com/whats-making-athletes-faster-better-stronger-david-epstein-at-ted2014/

> > >

> >

> > I agree he would be at the top, he would just have a bunch of other great, long, hitters at the top with him, unlike back in his day.

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> You are basing that opinion on nothing. Arnie was a very long hitter in his day. When current pros tried to recreate a few years ago by hitting a Persimmon driver Arnie’s drive of the green on the first hole at Cherry Hills, the only one who came close was Rory. And Jack significantly outdrove Arnie in their primes.

 

Jack would be long. But plenty of guys are now. Jack was outdriving Trevino, player and the rest by a mile. Would he be doing that now with Bk, dj, Rory? The advantage would be far less. Especially with how the ball and clubs are now. Look what happened with TW.

 

I’m not singling out Jack. If TW came out now, he wouldn’t be as dominant either.

 

 

 

 

[bscinstnct]

> @lowheel said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > As far as deeper fields. There is no question about it.

> >

> > Just look at a football team from a high school with 5000 kids compared with a team with 300 kids.

> >

> > The top of the talent funnel now is multiples the size when Jack played.

>

> so the pga tour that jack played in for over 30 years was the 300 kid school in your analogy??

>

>

>

 

 

Lol, on the subway, almost home. Switching between conversing with you fine gents and reading this Jack Reacher book. “Persuader” (ironic, lol) It’s pretty good really.

[cdnglf]

> @LICC said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > > @tatertot said:

> > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > @tatertot said:

> > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > @Lagavulin62 said:

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

> > > > > > > > > @Anchor44 said:

> > > > > > > > > What shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that the PGA tour was VERY different when Jack played. There was only a handful of superstars and he didn't have to compete with near the depth that Tiger did. And, courses were shorter when Jack played.

> > > > > > > > > I have great respect for Jack but Tiger is the GOAT.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The current day fields are clearly much deeper than the 1960s and 1970s. But I don’t know how much that matters when evaluating Jack’s accomplishments vs Tiger, because even today the top 1/4th of players win almost all the tournaments. The talent levels are such that the bottom half to 3/4 of the fields don’t matter most of the time.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Every sport they try and compare in this way. It never works out as it’s all relative. Everybody shoots for majors and the one with the most wins. I think Jack’s record is safe for a long time. Even Tiger’s at second.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Cy Youngs win record will never be broken either. But it doesn't mean that we end the discussion on the greatest pitcher of all time with him.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Lot's of things to look at with Jack. As some have pointed out, there were a handful of actual full time travelling tournament players and a lot of guys who were local pros playing events. Nowhere near the depth.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And physically? Jack would be another big hitter now. He'd be out there with a bunch of guys his size or bigger hitting as far or farther.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Look at 2 of his main competitors. Trevino and Gary player. They were both like 5' 6, 5'7. Besides Rory, and unlike LT and GP, Rory is a big hitter, is there anyone on the tour now that size who wins majors or even wins with any regularity?

> > > > >

> > > > > You have absolutely no idea what your talking about. Like zero. Do you just make stuff up?

> > > >

> > > > What exactly do you argue with?

> > > >

> > > > That fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now?

> > > >

> > > > That Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then?

> > > >

> > > > That there are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > **Everyone of your points can be argued ...**

> > >

> > > In the '60s, guys didn't play for top 10s. You played for first place. Guys were hungrier. There was more turnover on Tour, more young guys constantly trying to gun down top players.

> > >

> > > There are ALWAYS guys longer than everybody else. Daly was longer. Tiger was longer. Rory is longer. It's the way it is. Jack was long then, he'd be long now. Until he got old, just like Tiger.

> > >

> > > You have this mistaken idea Jack was long because he was big, and Player was short because he was, well, short. Jack was 5-10, tops. He wasn't a giant. He was long because he could swing that much faster than everybody ... again, just like Tiger, just like Rory. And how tall is Rory?

> > >

> > > Point is, you're talking just to hear yourself talk. It's silly to compare careers till they're over. When Tiger is done, let's look at what he's accomplished and see how he compares. Is he 1A or 1B ... still TBD.

> >

> > No, they can't.

> >

> > The fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now.

> >

> > Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then.

> >

> > There are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors.

> >

> > Cheers, tot, Happy Frrrrrrriday ; )

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> You have a lot of questionable premises there. In the 1960s, Jack would hit 300+ yard drives with persimmon woods and balata balls. Just estimating for changes in equipment technology and he would be at the top of the tour today in driving distance.

> Field depth doesn't make a big difference when you are talking about the top 50-60 players.

> https://blog.ted.com/whats-making-athletes-faster-better-stronger-david-epstein-at-ted2014/

>

 

How many times did Jack face all the top 50-60 players in the world in a major?

[Darth Putter]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @tatertot said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > @tatertot said:

> > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > @Lagavulin62 said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @Anchor44 said:

> > > > > > > > What shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that the PGA tour was VERY different when Jack played. There was only a handful of superstars and he didn't have to compete with near the depth that Tiger did. And, courses were shorter when Jack played.

> > > > > > > > I have great respect for Jack but Tiger is the GOAT.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > > > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The current day fields are clearly much deeper than the 1960s and 1970s. But I don’t know how much that matters when evaluating Jack’s accomplishments vs Tiger, because even today the top 1/4th of players win almost all the tournaments. The talent levels are such that the bottom half to 3/4 of the fields don’t matter most of the time.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Every sport they try and compare in this way. It never works out as it’s all relative. Everybody shoots for majors and the one with the most wins. I think Jack’s record is safe for a long time. Even Tiger’s at second.

> > > > >

> > > > > Cy Youngs win record will never be broken either. But it doesn't mean that we end the discussion on the greatest pitcher of all time with him.

> > > > >

> > > > > Lot's of things to look at with Jack. As some have pointed out, there were a handful of actual full time travelling tournament players and a lot of guys who were local pros playing events. Nowhere near the depth.

> > > > >

> > > > > And physically? Jack would be another big hitter now. He'd be out there with a bunch of guys his size or bigger hitting as far or farther.

> > > > >

> > > > > Look at 2 of his main competitors. Trevino and Gary player. They were both like 5' 6, 5'7. Besides Rory, and unlike LT and GP, Rory is a big hitter, is there anyone on the tour now that size who wins majors or even wins with any regularity?

> > > >

> > > > You have absolutely no idea what your talking about. Like zero. Do you just make stuff up?

> > >

> > > What exactly do you argue with?

> > >

> > > That fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now?

> > >

> > > That Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then?

> > >

> > > That there are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > **Everyone of your points can be argued ...**

> >

> > In the '60s, guys didn't play for top 10s. You played for first place. Guys were hungrier. There was more turnover on Tour, more young guys constantly trying to gun down top players.

> >

> > There are ALWAYS guys longer than everybody else. Daly was longer. Tiger was longer. Rory is longer. It's the way it is. Jack was long then, he'd be long now. Until he got old, just like Tiger.

> >

> > You have this mistaken idea Jack was long because he was big, and Player was short because he was, well, short. Jack was 5-10, tops. He wasn't a giant. He was long because he could swing that much faster than everybody ... again, just like Tiger, just like Rory. And how tall is Rory?

> >

> > Point is, you're talking just to hear yourself talk. It's silly to compare careers till they're over. When Tiger is done, let's look at what he's accomplished and see how he compares. Is he 1A or 1B ... still TBD.

>

> No, they can't.

>

> The fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now.

>

> Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then.

>

> There are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors.

>

> Cheers, tot, Happy Frrrrrrriday ; )

>

>

>

>

>

 

The shortest major winner this decade is Rory at 5'9", one inch shorter than Jack.

The last major winner shorter than that, Ian Woosnam at the 1991 Masters at 5'4"

[lowheel]

> @cdnglf said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > @tatertot said:

> > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > @tatertot said:

> > > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > > @Lagavulin62 said:

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

> > > > > > > > > > @Anchor44 said:

> > > > > > > > > > What shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that the PGA tour was VERY different when Jack played. There was only a handful of superstars and he didn't have to compete with near the depth that Tiger did. And, courses were shorter when Jack played.

> > > > > > > > > > I have great respect for Jack but Tiger is the GOAT.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The current day fields are clearly much deeper than the 1960s and 1970s. But I don’t know how much that matters when evaluating Jack’s accomplishments vs Tiger, because even today the top 1/4th of players win almost all the tournaments. The talent levels are such that the bottom half to 3/4 of the fields don’t matter most of the time.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Every sport they try and compare in this way. It never works out as it’s all relative. Everybody shoots for majors and the one with the most wins. I think Jack’s record is safe for a long time. Even Tiger’s at second.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Cy Youngs win record will never be broken either. But it doesn't mean that we end the discussion on the greatest pitcher of all time with him.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Lot's of things to look at with Jack. As some have pointed out, there were a handful of actual full time travelling tournament players and a lot of guys who were local pros playing events. Nowhere near the depth.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > And physically? Jack would be another big hitter now. He'd be out there with a bunch of guys his size or bigger hitting as far or farther.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Look at 2 of his main competitors. Trevino and Gary player. They were both like 5' 6, 5'7. Besides Rory, and unlike LT and GP, Rory is a big hitter, is there anyone on the tour now that size who wins majors or even wins with any regularity?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You have absolutely no idea what your talking about. Like zero. Do you just make stuff up?

> > > > >

> > > > > What exactly do you argue with?

> > > > >

> > > > > That fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now?

> > > > >

> > > > > That Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then?

> > > > >

> > > > > That there are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > **Everyone of your points can be argued ...**

> > > >

> > > > In the '60s, guys didn't play for top 10s. You played for first place. Guys were hungrier. There was more turnover on Tour, more young guys constantly trying to gun down top players.

> > > >

> > > > There are ALWAYS guys longer than everybody else. Daly was longer. Tiger was longer. Rory is longer. It's the way it is. Jack was long then, he'd be long now. Until he got old, just like Tiger.

> > > >

> > > > You have this mistaken idea Jack was long because he was big, and Player was short because he was, well, short. Jack was 5-10, tops. He wasn't a giant. He was long because he could swing that much faster than everybody ... again, just like Tiger, just like Rory. And how tall is Rory?

> > > >

> > > > Point is, you're talking just to hear yourself talk. It's silly to compare careers till they're over. When Tiger is done, let's look at what he's accomplished and see how he compares. Is he 1A or 1B ... still TBD.

> > >

> > > No, they can't.

> > >

> > > The fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now.

> > >

> > > Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then.

> > >

> > > There are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors.

> > >

> > > Cheers, tot, Happy Frrrrrrriday ; )

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > You have a lot of questionable premises there. In the 1960s, Jack would hit 300+ yard drives with persimmon woods and balata balls. Just estimating for changes in equipment technology and he would be at the top of the tour today in driving distance.

> > Field depth doesn't make a big difference when you are talking about the top 50-60 players.

> > https://blog.ted.com/whats-making-athletes-faster-better-stronger-david-epstein-at-ted2014/

> >

>

> How many times did Jack face all the top 50-60 players in the world in a major?

 

How many times did those guys win let alone win majors? Why do you think Tiger won more reduced field events with these alleged 50-60 best players than full field events? ranking mean nothing if you dont or cant win on the big stage.The #s show that the cream always rises to the top. Less guys to beat, easier to win for the elite layers. its simple math.That argues against "strength of field"

[lowheel]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > @tatertot said:

> > > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > > @tatertot said:

> > > > > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Lagavulin62 said:

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > @Anchor44 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > What shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that the PGA tour was VERY different when Jack played. There was only a handful of superstars and he didn't have to compete with near the depth that Tiger did. And, courses were shorter when Jack played.

> > > > > > > > > > > > I have great respect for Jack but Tiger is the GOAT.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > The current day fields are clearly much deeper than the 1960s and 1970s. But I don’t know how much that matters when evaluating Jack’s accomplishments vs Tiger, because even today the top 1/4th of players win almost all the tournaments. The talent levels are such that the bottom half to 3/4 of the fields don’t matter most of the time.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Every sport they try and compare in this way. It never works out as it’s all relative. Everybody shoots for majors and the one with the most wins. I think Jack’s record is safe for a long time. Even Tiger’s at second.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Cy Youngs win record will never be broken either. But it doesn't mean that we end the discussion on the greatest pitcher of all time with him.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Lot's of things to look at with Jack. As some have pointed out, there were a handful of actual full time travelling tournament players and a lot of guys who were local pros playing events. Nowhere near the depth.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > And physically? Jack would be another big hitter now. He'd be out there with a bunch of guys his size or bigger hitting as far or farther.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Look at 2 of his main competitors. Trevino and Gary player. They were both like 5' 6, 5'7. Besides Rory, and unlike LT and GP, Rory is a big hitter, is there anyone on the tour now that size who wins majors or even wins with any regularity?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You have absolutely no idea what your talking about. Like zero. Do you just make stuff up?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > What exactly do you argue with?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > That fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > That Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > That there are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > **Everyone of your points can be argued ...**

> > > > > >

> > > > > > In the '60s, guys didn't play for top 10s. You played for first place. Guys were hungrier. There was more turnover on Tour, more young guys constantly trying to gun down top players.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There are ALWAYS guys longer than everybody else. Daly was longer. Tiger was longer. Rory is longer. It's the way it is. Jack was long then, he'd be long now. Until he got old, just like Tiger.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You have this mistaken idea Jack was long because he was big, and Player was short because he was, well, short. Jack was 5-10, tops. He wasn't a giant. He was long because he could swing that much faster than everybody ... again, just like Tiger, just like Rory. And how tall is Rory?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Point is, you're talking just to hear yourself talk. It's silly to compare careers till they're over. When Tiger is done, let's look at what he's accomplished and see how he compares. Is he 1A or 1B ... still TBD.

> > > > >

> > > > > No, they can't.

> > > > >

> > > > > The fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now.

> > > > >

> > > > > Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then.

> > > > >

> > > > > There are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors.

> > > > >

> > > > > Cheers, tot, Happy Frrrrrrriday ; )

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > You have a lot of questionable premises there. In the 1960s, Jack would hit 300+ yard drives with persimmon woods and balata balls. Just estimating for changes in equipment technology and he would be at the top of the tour today in driving distance.

> > > > Field depth doesn't make a big difference when you are talking about the top 50-60 players.

> > > > https://blog.ted.com/whats-making-athletes-faster-better-stronger-david-epstein-at-ted2014/

> > > >

> > >

> > > I agree he would be at the top, he would just have a bunch of other great, long, hitters at the top with him, unlike back in his day.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > You are basing that opinion on nothing. Arnie was a very long hitter in his day. When current pros tried to recreate a few years ago by hitting a Persimmon driver Arnie’s drive of the green on the first hole at Cherry Hills, the only one who came close was Rory. And Jack significantly outdrove Arnie in their primes.

>

> Jack would be long. But plenty of guys are now. Jack was outdriving Trevino, player and the rest by a mile. Would he be doing that now with Bk, dj, Rory? The advantage would be far less. Especially with how the ball and clubs are now. Look what happened with TW.

>

> I’m not singling out Jack.** If TW came out now, he wouldn’t be as dominant either**.

>

>

>

>

A broken down 13 years removed from his last masters tiger just beat those very guys you pointed out without his best stuff. On what planet does tiger come in now and not dominate like he did? if Brooks win 4, rory wins 4, jordan wins 4, Phil wins 5 how does tiger not win 15 again? and 80 wins? what stops him from winning 5-6 times per year? Seriously though, do you really believe that?

 

[Darth Putter]

> @cdnglf said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > @tatertot said:

> > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > @tatertot said:

> > > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > > @Lagavulin62 said:

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

> > > > > > > > > > @Anchor44 said:

> > > > > > > > > > What shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that the PGA tour was VERY different when Jack played. There was only a handful of superstars and he didn't have to compete with near the depth that Tiger did. And, courses were shorter when Jack played.

> > > > > > > > > > I have great respect for Jack but Tiger is the GOAT.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The current day fields are clearly much deeper than the 1960s and 1970s. But I don’t know how much that matters when evaluating Jack’s accomplishments vs Tiger, because even today the top 1/4th of players win almost all the tournaments. The talent levels are such that the bottom half to 3/4 of the fields don’t matter most of the time.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Every sport they try and compare in this way. It never works out as it’s all relative. Everybody shoots for majors and the one with the most wins. I think Jack’s record is safe for a long time. Even Tiger’s at second.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Cy Youngs win record will never be broken either. But it doesn't mean that we end the discussion on the greatest pitcher of all time with him.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Lot's of things to look at with Jack. As some have pointed out, there were a handful of actual full time travelling tournament players and a lot of guys who were local pros playing events. Nowhere near the depth.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > And physically? Jack would be another big hitter now. He'd be out there with a bunch of guys his size or bigger hitting as far or farther.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Look at 2 of his main competitors. Trevino and Gary player. They were both like 5' 6, 5'7. Besides Rory, and unlike LT and GP, Rory is a big hitter, is there anyone on the tour now that size who wins majors or even wins with any regularity?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You have absolutely no idea what your talking about. Like zero. Do you just make stuff up?

> > > > >

> > > > > What exactly do you argue with?

> > > > >

> > > > > That fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now?

> > > > >

> > > > > That Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then?

> > > > >

> > > > > That there are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > **Everyone of your points can be argued ...**

> > > >

> > > > In the '60s, guys didn't play for top 10s. You played for first place. Guys were hungrier. There was more turnover on Tour, more young guys constantly trying to gun down top players.

> > > >

> > > > There are ALWAYS guys longer than everybody else. Daly was longer. Tiger was longer. Rory is longer. It's the way it is. Jack was long then, he'd be long now. Until he got old, just like Tiger.

> > > >

> > > > You have this mistaken idea Jack was long because he was big, and Player was short because he was, well, short. Jack was 5-10, tops. He wasn't a giant. He was long because he could swing that much faster than everybody ... again, just like Tiger, just like Rory. And how tall is Rory?

> > > >

> > > > Point is, you're talking just to hear yourself talk. It's silly to compare careers till they're over. When Tiger is done, let's look at what he's accomplished and see how he compares. Is he 1A or 1B ... still TBD.

> > >

> > > No, they can't.

> > >

> > > The fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now.

> > >

> > > Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then.

> > >

> > > There are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors.

> > >

> > > Cheers, tot, Happy Frrrrrrriday ; )

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > You have a lot of questionable premises there. In the 1960s, Jack would hit 300+ yard drives with persimmon woods and balata balls. Just estimating for changes in equipment technology and he would be at the top of the tour today in driving distance.

> > Field depth doesn't make a big difference when you are talking about the top 50-60 players.

> > https://blog.ted.com/whats-making-athletes-faster-better-stronger-david-epstein-at-ted2014/

> >

>

> How many times did Jack face all the top 50-60 players in the world in a major?

 

If it happened in the 1960s or 1970s, it had to be at The Masters. The foreign players would not need to be in the PGA of America or qualify.

 

 

[tatertot]

> @"Darth Putter" said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > > @tatertot said:

> > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > @tatertot said:

> > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > @Lagavulin62 said:

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

> > > > > > > > > @Anchor44 said:

> > > > > > > > > What shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that the PGA tour was VERY different when Jack played. There was only a handful of superstars and he didn't have to compete with near the depth that Tiger did. And, courses were shorter when Jack played.

> > > > > > > > > I have great respect for Jack but Tiger is the GOAT.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > @bulls9999 said:

> > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare them and I think Tiger is well more the GOAT than Jack is. And I preface that because half the players in the field in Jack's day were normal people, drinking heavily in the evenings. Have you not heard stories from David Ferherty, Jimmy Demeret, Ken Venturi, and other 'older players' from that day about how people would show up half tanked for saturday morning tee times celebrating they made the cut; saw the interviews and heard lots of them....was rampant among the lower half tier of players....limited the strength of the field that Jack and others were playing against by that kind of crew. Also, the depth of young players now because of AJGA and numerous lower tier junior state/regional golf tournaments that develope younger players better than ever before (they didn't have AJGA back in Jack's day; they maybe had regional amateur (Western, Southern Am), but not enough of them to develope an entire national platform of players like they the junior tours do today. So I'm going to say Tiger fought off more talent in the field than Jack ever did......after Trevino, Watson, Floyd, etc., and maybe a dozen others, the strength of field dropped off tremendously in terms of player ability; don't have such lack of depth down the leaderboard in Tiger's day.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The current day fields are clearly much deeper than the 1960s and 1970s. But I don’t know how much that matters when evaluating Jack’s accomplishments vs Tiger, because even today the top 1/4th of players win almost all the tournaments. The talent levels are such that the bottom half to 3/4 of the fields don’t matter most of the time.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Every sport they try and compare in this way. It never works out as it’s all relative. Everybody shoots for majors and the one with the most wins. I think Jack’s record is safe for a long time. Even Tiger’s at second.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Cy Youngs win record will never be broken either. But it doesn't mean that we end the discussion on the greatest pitcher of all time with him.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Lot's of things to look at with Jack. As some have pointed out, there were a handful of actual full time travelling tournament players and a lot of guys who were local pros playing events. Nowhere near the depth.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And physically? Jack would be another big hitter now. He'd be out there with a bunch of guys his size or bigger hitting as far or farther.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Look at 2 of his main competitors. Trevino and Gary player. They were both like 5' 6, 5'7. Besides Rory, and unlike LT and GP, Rory is a big hitter, is there anyone on the tour now that size who wins majors or even wins with any regularity?

> > > > >

> > > > > You have absolutely no idea what your talking about. Like zero. Do you just make stuff up?

> > > >

> > > > What exactly do you argue with?

> > > >

> > > > That fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now?

> > > >

> > > > That Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then?

> > > >

> > > > That there are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > **Everyone of your points can be argued ...**

> > >

> > > In the '60s, guys didn't play for top 10s. You played for first place. Guys were hungrier. There was more turnover on Tour, more young guys constantly trying to gun down top players.

> > >

> > > There are ALWAYS guys longer than everybody else. Daly was longer. Tiger was longer. Rory is longer. It's the way it is. Jack was long then, he'd be long now. Until he got old, just like Tiger.

> > >

> > > You have this mistaken idea Jack was long because he was big, and Player was short because he was, well, short. Jack was 5-10, tops. He wasn't a giant. He was long because he could swing that much faster than everybody ... again, just like Tiger, just like Rory. And how tall is Rory?

> > >

> > > Point is, you're talking just to hear yourself talk. It's silly to compare careers till they're over. When Tiger is done, let's look at what he's accomplished and see how he compares. Is he 1A or 1B ... still TBD.

> >

> > No, they can't.

> >

> > The fields and overall quality of the players on the PGA Tour was lower in the 60s than it is now.

> >

> > Jack would have nowhere near the distance advantage now that he had then.

> >

> > There are no guys now who are 5'6 now with even one major much less 2 guys that size who each have multiple majors.

> >

> > Cheers, tot, Happy Frrrrrrriday ; )

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> The shortest major winner this decade is Rory at 5'9", one inch shorter than Jack.

> The last major winner shorter than that, Ian Woosnam at the 1991 Masters at 5'4"

 

 

Since when did height become a determinate of golf talent? Are we saying Gary Player was a nobody now because he's too short? Too bad Wilt Chamberlain didn't play more, he'd have more majors than notches on his bed posts.

[No Gimmes]

18 v 15