Jack vs Tiger Major Win %

cdnglf · June 22, 2019

> @lowheel said:

> > @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"

Not sure how reduced field events are relevant here, unless you’re referring to the fact that in addition to missing almost all the best players in the world, the Open also had a reduced field until the early 1970s.

Darth Putter · June 22, 2019

> @tatertot said:

> > @"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.

1980

bscinstnct · June 22, 2019

> @lowheel said:

> > @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?

>

Don’t you think it’s odd that

Of the players with 7 or more majors

Every single one of them besides TW

Played in the 70s, 60s, 50s

20s!

Did they eat magic grits?

Tatertot says I’m stupid, lol. But if anyone is arguing that athletes of old would be as competitive now as they were in their hey day,

; )

Shilgy · June 22, 2019

Y'all are nuts. High school girls swim faster than did Tarzan-Johnny Weissmuller. But golfers were better in the 60's? Please.

I agree with bsc on most points, not so much on height being a big issue . Jack averaged 260-270 in his prime. Period. So the idea of Jack being as long with the old stuff as are the new with the new equipment is just ludicrous. Just because the old guys occasionally could hit it 300 does not mean that they could on demand. Any more than Rory and DJ can control it at 350 on command.

That said Jack would be one of the long hitters today, no question. But even he has said he faced fewer guys that could win than they did in Tiger's prime or today.

Quit taking it as an attack on the old guys when fields are mentioned. It's not, but it's the truth. Jack faced tougher fields than Hogan and Snead and they faced more than Jones and Hagen. And it's continued to evolve with Tigers fields and now today's. Players face the best of the best week in and week out today. And the Asian invasion is just now beginning on the men's tour. It may get even tougher.

tatertot · June 22, 2019

> @bscinstnct said:

>

> > @lowheel said:

> > > @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?

> >

>

> Don’t you think it’s odd that

>

> Of the players with 7 or more majors

>

> Every single one of them besides TW

>

> Played in the 70s, 60s, 50s

>

> 20s!

>

> Did they eat magic grits?

>

> Tatertot says I’m stupid, lol. But if anyone is arguing that athletes of old would be as competitive now as they were in their hey day,

>

> ; )

>

If Koepka, Spieth and Rory win 3 more major each to get to 7, are you going to say this is the weakest era of golf since the 70s?

LICC · June 22, 2019

> @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?

Every Masters and US Open. Every PGA Championship after 1970. The British not as much, but that was always a different animal. Facing more top Europeans that play the style for those courses, especially into the 1970s, made the fields strong.

LICC · June 22, 2019

> @bscinstnct said:

>

> > @lowheel said:

> > > @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?

> >

>

> Don’t you think it’s odd that

>

> Of the players with 7 or more majors

>

> Every single one of them besides TW

>

> Played in the 70s, 60s, 50s

>

> 20s!

>

> Did they eat magic grits?

>

> Tatertot says I’m stupid, lol. But if anyone is arguing that athletes of old would be as competitive now as they were in their hey day,

>

> ; )

>

Jack won majors into the 1980s. Why arbitrarily pick 7? Your analysis changes if you use 6. Or 15.

LICC · June 22, 2019

> @Shilgy said:

> Y'all are nuts. High school girls swim faster than did Tarzan-Johnny Weissmuller. But golfers were better in the 60's? Please.

> I agree with bsc on most points, not so much on height being a big issue . Jack averaged 260-270 in his prime. Period. So the idea of Jack being as long with the old stuff as are the new with the new equipment is just ludicrous. Just because the old guys occasionally could hit it 300 does not mean that they could on demand. Any more than Rory and DJ can control it at 350 on command.

> That said Jack would be one of the long hitters today, no question. But even he has said he faced fewer guys that could win than they did in Tiger's prime or today.

> Quit taking it as an attack on the old guys when fields are mentioned. It's not, but it's the truth. Jack faced tougher fields than Hogan and Snead and they faced more than Jones and Hagen. And it's continued to evolve with Tigers fields and now today's. Players face the best of the best week in and week out today. And the Asian invasion is just now beginning on the men's tour. It may get even tougher.

No one knows how far Jack averaged with his driver in the 1960s because it wasn’t measured back then. IBM did some measurements of some events in 1968 and Jack averaged 276 off the tee. But that not necessarily all driver. In 1963 and 1964 the PGA had a long drive contest of tour players before the PGA Championship. Jack won both years with drives of 341 and 320. With persimmon and balata balls. He would be crushing it past the pros today.

cdnglf · June 22, 2019

> @LICC said:

> > @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?

>

> Every Masters and US Open. Every PGA Championship after 1970. The British not as much, but that was always a different animal. Facing more top Europeans that play the style for those courses, especially into the 1970s, made the fields strong.

Uh, no.

bscinstnct · June 22, 2019

Ok, so

Jim Brown would rush for 5 yards a carry today

Wilt would score 50 points a game today

Ty Cobb would hit over .400 3x today

And Jack would have 18 majors today; )

Pent08 · June 22, 2019

Take sports with no variability in their setting or equipment. The performance has improved drastically. The distribution of performance has shifted over time as a larger talent pool has access to the sport. Why is this clear evolution of depth magically absent from golf, according to many in this thread?

lowheel · June 22, 2019

> @bscinstnct said:

> Ok, so

>

> Jim Brown would rush for 5 yards a carry today

>

> Wilt would score 50 points a game today

>

> Ty Cobb would hit over .400 3x today

>

> And Jack would have 18 majors today; )

Funny you went 100 years back for baseball for something ted williams did 40 years after that.. and almost done a few times recently.

Jim brown was a genetic freak, why wouldnt he be able to rush for 5 yards a carry?

Wilt scoring 50 in 1 season and never really coming close after that because they changed the rules proves nothing. Jordan averaged 38 like 30 years ago as did James Harden last year.

Russel Westbrook averaged a trible double when it was said it couldnt happen...

Yes Jack would have 18 and tiger would have 15.greatness transcends. these arent average everyday players. theyre bordering on a 6th sense for golf. theyve forgotten more great shots than others have hit.

Jack won 3 majors in the 80s in his 40s and could easily have as many as 5. Seve won 4 watson won 5 faldo later won 2. All 3 were in their prime while jack was in his 40s. Same thing for tiger at 43 with others in their prime wins a masters and threatens at 2 other majors the year before at age 42. How are these things possible if the new guys are so far ahead? because theyre not.

The last 10 years when tigers decline happened there have been multiple majors winners but none of them could hold a candle to prime tiger or prime jack. its just a reality.

straightshot7 · June 22, 2019

> @bscinstnct said:

> Ok, so

>

> Jim Brown would rush for 5 yards a carry today

>

> Wilt would score 50 points a game today

>

> Ty Cobb would hit over .400 3x today

>

> And Jack would have 18 majors today; )

But how do you factor in how good those guys would be if they grew up in today's era?

There are factors outside of their control that make comparing across eras difficult to impossible.

I.e. how good would Jack be if he was born today? How good would Tiger be if he was born in 1950?

Golfers were worse back in the 60s and 70s, but how much is that due to them being intrinsically worse and how much of it is environmental?

lowheel · June 22, 2019

> @cdnglf said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @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?

> >

> > Every Masters and US Open. Every PGA Championship after 1970. The British not as much, but that was always a different animal. Facing more top Europeans that play the style for those courses, especially into the 1970s, made the fields strong.

>

> Uh, no.

Name one or any top players who didnt play any majors in the 70s or 80s other then by their own choice. thanks

Ashley Schaeffer · June 22, 2019

> @LICC said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > Y'all are nuts. High school girls swim faster than did Tarzan-Johnny Weissmuller. But golfers were better in the 60's? Please.

> > I agree with bsc on most points, not so much on height being a big issue . Jack averaged 260-270 in his prime. Period. So the idea of Jack being as long with the old stuff as are the new with the new equipment is just ludicrous. Just because the old guys occasionally could hit it 300 does not mean that they could on demand. Any more than Rory and DJ can control it at 350 on command.

> > That said Jack would be one of the long hitters today, no question. But even he has said he faced fewer guys that could win than they did in Tiger's prime or today.

> > Quit taking it as an attack on the old guys when fields are mentioned. It's not, but it's the truth. Jack faced tougher fields than Hogan and Snead and they faced more than Jones and Hagen. And it's continued to evolve with Tigers fields and now today's. Players face the best of the best week in and week out today. And the Asian invasion is just now beginning on the men's tour. It may get even tougher.

>

> No one knows how far Jack averaged with his driver in the 1960s because it wasn’t measured back then. IBM did some measurements of some events in 1968 and Jack averaged 276 off the tee. But that not necessarily all driver. In 1963 and 1964 the PGA had a long drive contest of tour players before the PGA Championship. Jack won both years with drives of 341 and 320. With persimmon and balata balls. He would be crushing it past the pros today.

I guess that settles it. Those two drives definitely prove that Nicklaus would be crushing it past the pros today. Heck, I knew a guy who hit one 324 with a 3W in 1993 in Butte, Montana. That guy would obviously blow it by DJ by 40 yards at Pebble Beach. Pros these days are short compared to the pros back then. Physics be damned.

lowheel · June 22, 2019

> @Shilgy said:

> Y'all are nuts. **High school girls swim faster than did Tarzan-Johnny Weissmuller**. But golfers were better in the 60's? Please.

> I agree with bsc on most points, not so much on height being a big issue . Jack averaged 260-270 in his prime. Period. So the idea of Jack being as long with the old stuff as are the new with the new equipment is just ludicrous. Just because the old guys occasionally could hit it 300 does not mean that they could on demand. Any more than Rory and DJ can control it at 350 on command.

> That said Jack would be one of the long hitters today, no question. But even he has said he faced fewer guys that could win than they did in Tiger's prime or today.

> Quit taking it as an attack on the old guys when fields are mentioned. It's not, but it's the truth. Jack faced tougher fields than Hogan and Snead and they faced more than Jones and Hagen. And it's continued to evolve with Tigers fields and now today's. Players face the best of the best week in and week out today. And the Asian invasion is just now beginning on the men's tour. It may get even tougher.

Yeah because they have amphibian body suits that were banned for giving swimmers unfair advantages.they basically float on water. the east german womens olympic swimming records lasted 30 years which tells you the physcial ability was there despite the clear doping. You can have better modern athletes however that does not necessarily mean they win more because they dont. Special players today rise and maintain for 1-2 years but cant sustain jack or tiger dominance over a 5-10 year span. Heck they cant maintain a tom watson 5 year window. greg norman was #1 for an eternity 80s to 90s but couldnt win more in the majors or big events. Many articles were written about how physically gifted he was.Butch harmon raved about how many hours a day he spent practicing and in the gym yet couldnt break through more than twice. Faldo who was a large fit man, lapped him. not with physical prowess but with his mind. At their peeks Norman was 20-25 yards longer than faldo. How is Federer at age 38 still winning against players half his age? hes not the fastest, doesnt have the biggest serve or the heaviest ground strokes. some things you cant explain other than to realize some men have gifts we will never understand.they see and think things at another level

Darth Putter · June 22, 2019

> @bscinstnct said:

> Ok, so

>

> Jim Brown would rush for 5 yards a carry today

>

> Wilt would score 50 points a game today

>

> Ty Cobb would hit over .400 3x today

>

> And Jack would have 18 majors today; )

We need two ratios

Play of Jack Nicklaus over his career/ Average player that played during Jack's career

vs.

Play of Tiger Woods over his career/ Average player that played during Tiger's career.

IF those numbers are

Jack 120/ 50= 2.4

Tiger 230/100= 2.3

then the answer is Jack

lowheel · June 22, 2019

> @cdnglf said:

> > @lowheel said:

> > > @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"

>

> Not sure how reduced field events are relevant here, unless you’re referring to the fact that in addition to missing almost all the best players in the world, the Open also had a reduced field until the early 1970s.

>

its very relevant, if youre criticizing an entire era for something that currently happening today then you should apply that standard equally. the 60s or 70s or even the 80s are no different than today. there are anywhere from 40-50 real contenders any week with realistically the same 15 guys being heavily favored as the results show. thats why reduced field events were won so frequently by tiger. less top flight guys to beat equals more wins. if the depth of field was so great as were pretending it is then it would be the opposite when we gather the " worlds best" and tiger would have less frequent wins at those events. we can argue horses for courses but realistically he dominated those events because random euros or asian players coming over weakened the fields not strengthened as were pretending here. the best golfers are here period.always have been always will be. there are web.com players here who would contend far more on the european tour. Thats why Euros struggle to win on tour here. Tougher courses, faster greens, better players etc.. but we pretend that because they snag some big events here an there they make things tougher ie strength of field... its pure delusion

Darth Putter · June 22, 2019

> @lowheel said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > Y'all are nuts. **High school girls swim faster than did Tarzan-Johnny Weissmuller**. But golfers were better in the 60's? Please.

> > I agree with bsc on most points, not so much on height being a big issue . Jack averaged 260-270 in his prime. Period. So the idea of Jack being as long with the old stuff as are the new with the new equipment is just ludicrous. Just because the old guys occasionally could hit it 300 does not mean that they could on demand. Any more than Rory and DJ can control it at 350 on command.

> > That said Jack would be one of the long hitters today, no question. But even he has said he faced fewer guys that could win than they did in Tiger's prime or today.

> > Quit taking it as an attack on the old guys when fields are mentioned. It's not, but it's the truth. Jack faced tougher fields than Hogan and Snead and they faced more than Jones and Hagen. And it's continued to evolve with Tigers fields and now today's. Players face the best of the best week in and week out today. And the Asian invasion is just now beginning on the men's tour. It may get even tougher.

>

> Yeah because they have amphibian body suits that were banned for giving swimmers unfair advantages.they basically float on water. the east german womens olympic swimming records lasted 30 years which tells you the physcial ability was there despite the clear doping. You can have better modern athletes however that does not necessarily mean they win more because they dont. Special players today rise and maintain for 1-2 years but cant sustain jack or tiger dominance over a 5-10 year span. Heck they cant maintain a tom watson 5 year window. greg norman was #1 for an eternity 80s to 90s but couldnt win more in the majors or big events. Many articles were written about how physically gifted he was.Butch harmon raved about how many hours a day he spent practicing and in the gym yet couldnt break through more than twice. Faldo who was a large fit man, lapped him. not with physical prowess but with his mind. At their peeks Norman was 20-25 yards longer than faldo. How is Federer at age 38 still winning against players half his age? hes not the fastest, doesnt have the biggest serve or the heaviest ground strokes. some things you cant explain other than to realize some men have gifts we will never understand.they see and think things at another level

It is weird that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic can produce Sampras/ Laver level results in men's tennis (and toss in Serena on the women's side), but we can't do that it men's golf outside of Tiger.

lowheel · June 22, 2019

> @"Darth Putter" said:

> > @lowheel said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > > Y'all are nuts. **High school girls swim faster than did Tarzan-Johnny Weissmuller**. But golfers were better in the 60's? Please.

> > > I agree with bsc on most points, not so much on height being a big issue . Jack averaged 260-270 in his prime. Period. So the idea of Jack being as long with the old stuff as are the new with the new equipment is just ludicrous. Just because the old guys occasionally could hit it 300 does not mean that they could on demand. Any more than Rory and DJ can control it at 350 on command.

> > > That said Jack would be one of the long hitters today, no question. But even he has said he faced fewer guys that could win than they did in Tiger's prime or today.

> > > Quit taking it as an attack on the old guys when fields are mentioned. It's not, but it's the truth. Jack faced tougher fields than Hogan and Snead and they faced more than Jones and Hagen. And it's continued to evolve with Tigers fields and now today's. Players face the best of the best week in and week out today. And the Asian invasion is just now beginning on the men's tour. It may get even tougher.

> >

> > Yeah because they have amphibian body suits that were banned for giving swimmers unfair advantages.they basically float on water. the east german womens olympic swimming records lasted 30 years which tells you the physcial ability was there despite the clear doping. You can have better modern athletes however that does not necessarily mean they win more because they dont. Special players today rise and maintain for 1-2 years but cant sustain jack or tiger dominance over a 5-10 year span. Heck they cant maintain a tom watson 5 year window. greg norman was #1 for an eternity 80s to 90s but couldnt win more in the majors or big events. Many articles were written about how physically gifted he was.Butch harmon raved about how many hours a day he spent practicing and in the gym yet couldnt break through more than twice. Faldo who was a large fit man, lapped him. not with physical prowess but with his mind. At their peeks Norman was 20-25 yards longer than faldo. How is Federer at age 38 still winning against players half his age? hes not the fastest, doesnt have the biggest serve or the heaviest ground strokes. some things you cant explain other than to realize some men have gifts we will never understand.they see and think things at another level

>

> It is weird that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic can produce Sampras/ Laver level results in men's tennis (and toss in Serena on the women's side), but we can't do that it men's golf outside of Tiger.

>

yeah because no one has come along thats as good as those 2!! pretty simple really. Golf like tennis is a solitary sport that requires deep self belief and motivation.Its simply rarer than other sports.Watson was on track to break double digits in majors but the bottle caught up to him and a shaky putter

cdnglf · June 22, 2019

> @lowheel said:

> > @cdnglf said:

> > > @lowheel said:

> > > > @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"

> >

> > Not sure how reduced field events are relevant here, unless you’re referring to the fact that in addition to missing almost all the best players in the world, the Open also had a reduced field until the early 1970s.

> >

>

> its very relevant, if youre criticizing an entire era for something that currently happening today then you should apply that standard equally. the 60s or 70s or even the 80s are no different than today.

The 60s, 70s, and 80s were different. The majors then weren't the same as the majors now. It is only since about 1990 that every major has had all the 50 (or more) best players in the world.

Shilgy · June 22, 2019

> @lowheel said:

> > @cdnglf said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @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?

> > >

> > > Every Masters and US Open. Every PGA Championship after 1970. The British not as much, but that was always a different animal. Facing more top Europeans that play the style for those courses, especially into the 1970s, made the fields strong.

> >

> > Uh, no.

>

> Name one or any top players who didnt play any majors in the 70s or 80s other then by their own choice. thanks

Actually Low he said EVERY Masters and US Open. Do you believe that?

PS 42 players in the '42 Masters. That was all of them?

Shilgy · June 22, 2019

> @lowheel said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > Y'all are nuts. **High school girls swim faster than did Tarzan-Johnny Weissmuller**. But golfers were better in the 60's? Please.

> > I agree with bsc on most points, not so much on height being a big issue . Jack averaged 260-270 in his prime. Period. So the idea of Jack being as long with the old stuff as are the new with the new equipment is just ludicrous. Just because the old guys occasionally could hit it 300 does not mean that they could on demand. Any more than Rory and DJ can control it at 350 on command.

> > That said Jack would be one of the long hitters today, no question. But even he has said he faced fewer guys that could win than they did in Tiger's prime or today.

> > Quit taking it as an attack on the old guys when fields are mentioned. It's not, but it's the truth. Jack faced tougher fields than Hogan and Snead and they faced more than Jones and Hagen. And it's continued to evolve with Tigers fields and now today's. Players face the best of the best week in and week out today. And the Asian invasion is just now beginning on the men's tour. It may get even tougher.

>

> Yeah because they have amphibian body suits that were banned for giving swimmers unfair advantages.they basically float on water. the east german womens olympic swimming records lasted 30 years which tells you the physcial ability was there despite the clear doping. You can have better modern athletes however that does not necessarily mean they win more because they dont. Special players today rise and maintain for 1-2 years but cant sustain jack or tiger dominance over a 5-10 year span. Heck they cant maintain a tom watson 5 year window. greg norman was #1 for an eternity 80s to 90s but couldnt win more in the majors or big events. Many articles were written about how physically gifted he was.Butch harmon raved about how many hours a day he spent practicing and in the gym yet couldnt break through more than twice. Faldo who was a large fit man, lapped him. not with physical prowess but with his mind. At their peeks Norman was 20-25 yards longer than faldo. How is Federer at age 38 still winning against players half his age? hes not the fastest, doesnt have the biggest serve or the heaviest ground strokes. some things you cant explain other than to realize some men have gifts we will never understand.they see and think things at another level

1 you are wrong on the suits. The records were broken long ago before the suits you describe.

2 in my post I mentioned this but perhaps you did not read all of it. I specifically said Jack would be one of the long hitters today. I said nothing, nothing, about what the records of Jack and Tiger would be in today's era. Nada.

So I said is the fields continue to get stronger. From Jones and Hagen to Hogan and Nelson and Snead to Arnie Jack and Gary to Tiger and Phil to today's fields.

They got stronger and are getting stronger. And deeper. And better.

lowheel · June 22, 2019

> @cdnglf said:

> > @lowheel said:

> > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > @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"

> > >

> > > Not sure how reduced field events are relevant here, unless you’re referring to the fact that in addition to missing almost all the best players in the world, the Open also had a reduced field until the early 1970s.

> > >

> >

> > its very relevant, if youre criticizing an entire era for something that currently happening today then you should apply that standard equally. the 60s or 70s or even the 80s are no different than today.

>

> The 60s, 70s, and 80s were different. The majors then weren't the same as the majors now. It is only since about 1990 that every major has had all the 50 (or more) best players in the world.

Laughably incorrect and further more unprovable. Who are these mystery players who other than by personal choice declined to come and play stateside majors. the masters is an invitational so who didnt show? trevino is the only one who didnt show up at a couple of masters he was invited too.Faldo didnt play a few US opens because he didnt qualify and didnt bother trying to get in through local qualifying. Name me these mystery men.Ray floyd missed a few british opens in the early 70s after saying that type of golf didnt suit him before changing his mind and going back a few years later and contending in a few after talking to Jack about links golf. as of today in the top 50 of OWGR 11 guys have never won on tour. 39 guys have won on the pga tour. 6 guys have more than 10 wins. 19 guys have won majors. 6 guys have more than 1 major.Tiger has 15, the other 18 players have a combined 29 majors. tiger has 81 tour wins the other 49 have 249 tour wins combined.

In 1987 owgr top 50 are very similar. Jack had 18 majors the 19 other major winners had 44 combined. 8 guys with more than 1 major.. top heavy like it always is / was. Jack had 73 tour wins and the other 49 had roughly 261 +/- 5.

What do you notice? 30 years apart yet almost identical.

The theory doesnt hold water

lowheel · June 22, 2019

> @Shilgy said:

> > @lowheel said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > > Y'all are nuts. **High school girls swim faster than did Tarzan-Johnny Weissmuller**. But golfers were better in the 60's? Please.

> > > I agree with bsc on most points, not so much on height being a big issue . Jack averaged 260-270 in his prime. Period. So the idea of Jack being as long with the old stuff as are the new with the new equipment is just ludicrous. Just because the old guys occasionally could hit it 300 does not mean that they could on demand. Any more than Rory and DJ can control it at 350 on command.

> > > That said Jack would be one of the long hitters today, no question. But even he has said he faced fewer guys that could win than they did in Tiger's prime or today.

> > > Quit taking it as an attack on the old guys when fields are mentioned. It's not, but it's the truth. Jack faced tougher fields than Hogan and Snead and they faced more than Jones and Hagen. And it's continued to evolve with Tigers fields and now today's. Players face the best of the best week in and week out today. And the Asian invasion is just now beginning on the men's tour. It may get even tougher.

> >

> > Yeah because they have amphibian body suits that were banned for giving swimmers unfair advantages.they basically float on water. the east german womens olympic swimming records lasted 30 years which tells you the physcial ability was there despite the clear doping. You can have better modern athletes however that does not necessarily mean they win more because they dont. Special players today rise and maintain for 1-2 years but cant sustain jack or tiger dominance over a 5-10 year span. Heck they cant maintain a tom watson 5 year window. greg norman was #1 for an eternity 80s to 90s but couldnt win more in the majors or big events. Many articles were written about how physically gifted he was.Butch harmon raved about how many hours a day he spent practicing and in the gym yet couldnt break through more than twice. Faldo who was a large fit man, lapped him. not with physical prowess but with his mind. At their peeks Norman was 20-25 yards longer than faldo. How is Federer at age 38 still winning against players half his age? hes not the fastest, doesnt have the biggest serve or the heaviest ground strokes. some things you cant explain other than to realize some men have gifts we will never understand.they see and think things at another level

>

> 1 you are wrong on the suits. The records were broken long ago before the suits you describe.

>

> 2 in my post I mentioned this but perhaps you did not read all of it. I specifically said Jack would be one of the long hitters today. I said nothing, nothing, about what the records of Jack and Tiger would be in today's era. Nada.

>

> So I said is the fields continue to get stronger. From Jones and Hagen to Hogan and Nelson and Snead to Arnie Jack and Gary to Tiger and Phil to today's fields.

> They got stronger and are getting stronger. And deeper. And better.

1. not wrong on the suits.they existed and were eventually banned when they improved on them and records were dropping left and right.

2. the jack point is moot as we both know he would be as long today as he was then. Another poster was disputing that not me

the fields might get "stronger" but theyre not necessarily better because the money is so much now that motivation and hunger are ultra rare. Guys dont play for legacies. Second place last week was got brooks 1.35 million!! complacency is real. Status quo is a real thing. Thats why tiger was able to win again and snag a major at 43 just like phil did 6 years ago at the same age.Phil almost snagged one at age 46 and it took Stenson shooting 63 on the final day to beat him.Phil and tiger have won 4 times combined in the last 2 years and with some luck that # is 6-7. If this deep competion exists as you claim they would have no chance at their ages to win let alone compete. greatness is greatness. true greats transcend time.

cdnglf · June 22, 2019

> @lowheel said:

> > @cdnglf said:

> > > @lowheel said:

> > > > @cdnglf said:

> > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > @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"

> > > >

> > > > Not sure how reduced field events are relevant here, unless you’re referring to the fact that in addition to missing almost all the best players in the world, the Open also had a reduced field until the early 1970s.

> > > >

> > >

> > > its very relevant, if youre criticizing an entire era for something that currently happening today then you should apply that standard equally. the 60s or 70s or even the 80s are no different than today.

> >

> > The 60s, 70s, and 80s were different. The majors then weren't the same as the majors now. It is only since about 1990 that every major has had all the 50 (or more) best players in the world.

>

> Laughably incorrect and further more unprovable. Who are these mystery players who other than by personal choice declined to come and play stateside majors. the masters is an invitational so who didnt show? trevino is the only one who didnt show up at a couple of masters he was invited too.Faldo didnt play a few US opens because he didnt qualify and didnt bother trying to get in through local qualifying. Name me these mystery men.Ray floyd missed a few british opens in the early 70s after saying that type of golf didnt suit him before changing his mind and going back a few years later and contending in a few after talking to Jack about links golf.

Instead of moving the goalposts, stick to what I said: " The majors then weren't the same as the majors now. It is only since about 1990 that every major has had all the 50 (or more) best players in the world. "

Go look at any player from the 1960s other than Jack and Gary, and see if he consistently played 4 majors per year - virtually everyone has gaps at times when they were obviously top 50 players, including Arnie. It improved thru the 1970s and 80s, but Faldo, Olazabal, Woosnam, Langer, etc still missed many PGA Championships in the 1980s.

There are far more cases during that time of reigning champions in majors not playing the other majors. For example, Sandy Lyle won the Open in 1985, the Masters in 1988, yet the only time that decade that he played the PGA was 1981. That would never happen today.

Ashley Schaeffer · June 22, 2019

There comes a point when you just have to allow your Pops to believe what he wants to believe. Gotta let him eat his soup thinking he’s right. Simply saying, “Yep, Jerry West is the greatest” is better than having to hear about how games played in 1970 would somehow translate to today.

lowheel · June 22, 2019

> @cdnglf said:

> Instead of moving the goalposts, stick to what I said: " The majors then weren't the same as the majors now. It is only since about 1990 that every major has had all the 50 (or more) best players in the world. "

>

> Go look at any player from the 1960s other than Jack and Gary, and see if he consistently played 4 majors per year - virtually everyone has gaps at times when they were obviously top 50 players, including Arnie. It improved thru the 1970s and 80s, but Faldo, Olazabal, Woosnam, Langer, etc still missed many PGA Championships in the 1980s.

>

> There are far more cases during that time of reigning champions in majors not playing the other majors. For example, Sandy Lyle won the Open in 1985, the Masters in 1988, yet the only time that decade that he played the PGA was 1981. That would never happen today.

>

So I see you cant answer my question.. thanks for playing. Sandy lyle** chose not to play** as did the others.he hated coming stateside. Happens today still, lots of euro tour pros dont venture over here. I get it man golf started circa 96 nothing before matters...

lowheel · June 22, 2019

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> There comes a point when you just have to allow your Pops to believe what he wants to believe. Gotta let him eat his soup thinking he’s right. Simply saying, “Yep, Jerry West is the greatest” is better than having to hear about how games played in 1970 would somehow translate to today.

I see youre still doing your edgy schtick bro... never change. We get it man, youre the cool guy.

Instead of being snarky try arguing in good faith. I posted numbers 30+ years apart that are near identical about quality of competition. try to dispute them. i think tiger would dominate in the 60s-70s and i believe jack would dominate today. We dont have time machines to prove these theories however we have #s to reference and they clealry show the tour decade after decade have 2 anomalies. tiger and jack.The rest are very similar. How much these guys overlap each other matters. trevino personally took 4 majors away from jack basically head to head. Watson took away 3. Who was tigers watson and trevino? thats not a knock on tiger because he had no one of hall of fame caliber other than Phil that he truly worried about. it happens.Tigers challenges in majors came usually from unknowns or good everyday players for a good chunk. Again not a knock on him. im simply not seeing the competition he had that other greats didnt have.look at the mid 80s finishes in majors. it was a mix of first timers and legends. Sutton, tway, trevino, langer, nicklaus, watson, zeoller, nelson, norman, floyd, seve, lyle...

Ive gone back and forth with you and i know where you stand but i truly believe you dont know where i stand.I dont think golf is better today than it was 10 years ago or 20 years ago or 30 years ago.I simply think its different. thats nor a bad thing nor a good thing in my books.I dont denigrate todays guys nor do i denigrate yesterdays guys. To merely think that if tiger came on the scene today he wouldnt be dominating because of all this depth is ludicrous and laughable. tiger would win as often as he did previously. No amount of "depth" or "strength of field" would change that. Same goes for jack. those 2 guys are the gold standard so far ahead of the rest that we have to exclude them from regular discussions

lowheel · June 22, 2019

Sign In

Jack vs Tiger Major Win %

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

redfirebird08

lowheel

Jagpilotohio

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment