Jack vs Tiger Major Win %

[JAMH03]

These arguments are digressing precipitously. Let's do better fella's.

[youdamantiger]

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

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @lowheel said:

> > @"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

 

You’re right.

 

 

[LICC]

> @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; )

 

Why wouldn’t Jim Brown do it? Barry Sanders rushed for 5 yards a carry 40 years later.

Cobb played mostly when baseball used a far different, heavier ball. Different equipment, different game- that is the biggest reason for different batting averages, rather than different human evolution.

[LICC]

> @Pent08 said:

> 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?

 

 

There is no sport that has not had variability in setting or equipment. (Billiards? Bowling? Darts? Not counting those)

[JAMH03]

Guys watch my video above you'll like it it will ADD to your perspective not diminish it. It will buttress your arguments and understanding yeah it's long but that's OK.

[Awsi Dooger]

> @youdamantiger said:

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

 

I can't imagine paying attention to anyone who focuses on depth. That type is ultra simpleton and has no situational or probability awareness whatsoever.

 

The hilarious aspect is when the Dunces of Depth are the loudmouths who actually think they know something.

 

As I've mentioned, whenever betting odds are established the one word or concept that never comes into discussion is depth.

 

Tiger got down to 6/5 odds in the 2000 British Open and PGA Championship based on his astounding level of play at the time. Level of depth was not a consideration whatsoever. Now, if there had been other elite talents with major-winning history and in their prime at that point, Tiger would not have dipped as low as 6/5. There would have been alternatives and therefore greater resistance. Nobody with multiple functioning brain cells thinks of The Field as meaningful resistance. Likewise when Tiger's typical major odds settled into the 2/1 or 5/2 range for many years. It wouldn't have dropped that low if let's say Ernie had continued to build on his 1994 pace or if Mickelson had already demonstrated major winning ability parallel to his overall reputation and standard in typical events.

 

The problem with Tiger's reputation is that it kind of suffers from the Secretariat Effect. Bar stool fans prefer to envision Secretariat based on the Belmont alone and project any fantasy race along the same lines. Disregard that Secretariat ran the same distance at the same track a few months later and lost by nearly 5 lengths to a horse named Prove Out.

 

Tiger fans don't want to look at a Beyer Figure for Tiger's overall career. They want the summer 2000 Beyer Figure to remain the only reference point, other than massive tire inflator attached to pump it up even further whenever a comparison is proposed. It also reminds me of fellow Dolphins fans regarding Dan Marino. Like summer 2000 for Tiger, those fans will only accept a view of Dan Marino that fixates on the 1984 season only and Happy Adjusts to 55-60 touchdown passes and 6500-7000 yards given the rules of today's era. I wish I could say those are invented numbers. Hardly. They are the range accepted as matter of fact by Miami fans on those forums, including in current threads like this one.

 

Always keep this in mind...the type arguing depth right now are the same ones who thought Tiger would win 25-30 majors. Brutal grasp of real-world distribution. Career records like that are almost never shattered.

[cdnglf]

> @lowheel said:

> > @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...

 

Again, what I said (and you said was wrong): " 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. ".

 

"Choice" is irrelevant. All I said was that they didn't. A few of many examples: Casper did not play the Open Championship until 1968. Most Americans barely played it in the 1960s (even Arnie skipped). Thomson barely played any US majors in the 1960s. Di Vicenzo played 1 US Open and zero PGAs after 1960. Jacklin won the US Open in 1970, and didn't play the PGA in 1971 or 72.

 

As for Lyle, he may have hated coming stateside, but he was ok enough with it to win the Masters, the Players, and 3 other US-based PGA Tour events from 1986-88, yet he didn't play the PGA Championship at all. C'mon, that doesn't "happen today still".

[bscinstnct]

Larger talent pools.

 

Population growth combined with social/economic factor.

 

Consider that TW wouldn’t/couldn’t have even played on the pga tour decades ago. Imagine how many other Tigers were never discovered during that time. In golf, baseball, football.

 

Not to mention the multiplication of the global talent pools from Europe and Asia over just the last few decades.

 

Far more players entering the top of the talent funnel resulting in far stronger fields in the tour.

 

Not debatable, this.

 

Look at jack as the wilt chamberlain of the pga tour in his day. A head above his peers. But today, far more competition.

 

Consider the impact in baseball of Latin America. Back in the day just a few great ones were coming to the mlb. But look now.

 

Totally changes the talent pool and quality/competition level.

 

“At the start of the 2000 season, there were 71 major league players from the Dominican Republic, 33 from Puerto Rico, 31 from Venezuela, 14 from Mexico, 9 from Cuba, 8 from Panama, 2 from Colombia, and 1 from Nicaragua. Thus, of some 1,200 players in the major leagues, 169 (about 15 percent) were from Latin America.”

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Latin-Americans-in-Major-League-Baseball-910675

 

 

[Golfnutgalen]

 

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

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

 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @Golfnutgalen said:

>

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

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

>

 

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

 

 

[redfirebird08]

> @youdamantiger said:

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

 

The problem with Brooks is his disinterest in regular events. If he gets to 10 majors with 20 total wins, that is gonna be really hard to view as equivalent to Jack's 73/18 and Tiger's 81/15.

 

Now if Brooks can actually win 20 majors against current and future fields, even if he only has something like 30-35 total wins...that would be a pretty interesting debate. In this scenario, Brooks would be a strong GOAT candidate even if it's not an open and shut case.

[LICC]

> @bscinstnct said:

> Larger talent pools.

>

> Population growth combined with social/economic factor.

>

> Consider that TW wouldn’t/couldn’t have even played on the pga tour decades ago. Imagine how many other Tigers were never discovered during that time. In golf, baseball, football.

>

> Not to mention the multiplication of the global talent pools from Europe and Asia over just the last few decades.

>

> Far more players entering the top of the talent funnel resulting in far stronger fields in the tour.

>

> Not debatable, this.

>

> Look at jack as the wilt chamberlain of the pga tour in his day. A head above his peers. But today, far more competition.

>

> Consider the impact in baseball of Latin America. Back in the day just a few great ones were coming to the mlb. But look now.

>

> Totally changes the talent pool and quality/competition level.

>

> “At the start of the 2000 season, there were 71 major league players from the Dominican Republic, 33 from Puerto Rico, 31 from Venezuela, 14 from Mexico, 9 from Cuba, 8 from Panama, 2 from Colombia, and 1 from Nicaragua. Thus, of some 1,200 players in the major leagues, 169 (about 15 percent) were from Latin America.”

>

> https://www.britannica.com/topic/Latin-Americans-in-Major-League-Baseball-910675

>

>

 

You are missing the point. Depth of field doesn’t have a great effect on the top of the field. In baseball, the minor leagues today may have many more better players than 50 years ago. That doesn’t mean Willie Mays wasn’t outstanding and wouldn’t be just as outstanding if he played today. And Jack won multiple majors in his 40s in the 1980s. Were the fields not strong enough then for you either? The other thing is you can just look at his scores. The technology evolution wasn’t so great from the 1960s to the 1980s. You are hanging on a deficient argument.

[bscinstnct]

> @LICC said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > Larger talent pools.

> >

> > Population growth combined with social/economic factor.

> >

> > Consider that TW wouldn’t/couldn’t have even played on the pga tour decades ago. Imagine how many other Tigers were never discovered during that time. In golf, baseball, football.

> >

> > Not to mention the multiplication of the global talent pools from Europe and Asia over just the last few decades.

> >

> > Far more players entering the top of the talent funnel resulting in far stronger fields in the tour.

> >

> > Not debatable, this.

> >

> > Look at jack as the wilt chamberlain of the pga tour in his day. A head above his peers. But today, far more competition.

> >

> > Consider the impact in baseball of Latin America. Back in the day just a few great ones were coming to the mlb. But look now.

> >

> > Totally changes the talent pool and quality/competition level.

> >

> > “At the start of the 2000 season, there were 71 major league players from the Dominican Republic, 33 from Puerto Rico, 31 from Venezuela, 14 from Mexico, 9 from Cuba, 8 from Panama, 2 from Colombia, and 1 from Nicaragua. Thus, of some 1,200 players in the major leagues, 169 (about 15 percent) were from Latin America.”

> >

> > https://www.britannica.com/topic/Latin-Americans-in-Major-League-Baseball-910675

> >

> >

>

> You are missing the point. Depth of field doesn’t have a great effect on the top of the field. In baseball, the minor leagues today may have many more better players than 50 years ago. That doesn’t mean Willie Mays wasn’t outstanding and wouldn’t be just as outstanding if he played today. And Jack won multiple majors in his 40s in the 1980s. Were the fields not strong enough then for you either? The other thing is you can just look at his scores. The technology evolution wasn’t so great from the 1960s to the 1980s. You are hanging on a deficient argument.

 

“Depth of field doesn’t have a great effect on the top of the field“

 

Of course it does.

 

If a guy is the fastest sprinter in his school. Then he runs against 5 other schools who each have a top sprinter.

 

His winning percentage and margins of victory won’t be impacted?

 

[LICC]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > Larger talent pools.

> > >

> > > Population growth combined with social/economic factor.

> > >

> > > Consider that TW wouldn’t/couldn’t have even played on the pga tour decades ago. Imagine how many other Tigers were never discovered during that time. In golf, baseball, football.

> > >

> > > Not to mention the multiplication of the global talent pools from Europe and Asia over just the last few decades.

> > >

> > > Far more players entering the top of the talent funnel resulting in far stronger fields in the tour.

> > >

> > > Not debatable, this.

> > >

> > > Look at jack as the wilt chamberlain of the pga tour in his day. A head above his peers. But today, far more competition.

> > >

> > > Consider the impact in baseball of Latin America. Back in the day just a few great ones were coming to the mlb. But look now.

> > >

> > > Totally changes the talent pool and quality/competition level.

> > >

> > > “At the start of the 2000 season, there were 71 major league players from the Dominican Republic, 33 from Puerto Rico, 31 from Venezuela, 14 from Mexico, 9 from Cuba, 8 from Panama, 2 from Colombia, and 1 from Nicaragua. Thus, of some 1,200 players in the major leagues, 169 (about 15 percent) were from Latin America.”

> > >

> > > https://www.britannica.com/topic/Latin-Americans-in-Major-League-Baseball-910675

> > >

> > >

> >

> > You are missing the point. Depth of field doesn’t have a great effect on the top of the field. In baseball, the minor leagues today may have many more better players than 50 years ago. That doesn’t mean Willie Mays wasn’t outstanding and wouldn’t be just as outstanding if he played today. And Jack won multiple majors in his 40s in the 1980s. Were the fields not strong enough then for you either? The other thing is you can just look at his scores. The technology evolution wasn’t so great from the 1960s to the 1980s. You are hanging on a deficient argument.

>

> “Depth of field doesn’t have a great effect on the top of the field“

>

> Of course it does.

>

> If a guy is the fastest sprinter in his school. Then he runs against 5 other schools who each have a top sprinter.

>

> His winning percentage and margins of victory won’t be impacted?

>

 

That is weak. Very poor analogy. The top players in the 60s and 70s and 80s aren’t as good as the top players today?? Sorry, that’s weak

[Pent08]

> @LICC said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > Larger talent pools.

> > > >

> > > > Population growth combined with social/economic factor.

> > > >

> > > > Consider that TW wouldn’t/couldn’t have even played on the pga tour decades ago. Imagine how many other Tigers were never discovered during that time. In golf, baseball, football.

> > > >

> > > > Not to mention the multiplication of the global talent pools from Europe and Asia over just the last few decades.

> > > >

> > > > Far more players entering the top of the talent funnel resulting in far stronger fields in the tour.

> > > >

> > > > Not debatable, this.

> > > >

> > > > Look at jack as the wilt chamberlain of the pga tour in his day. A head above his peers. But today, far more competition.

> > > >

> > > > Consider the impact in baseball of Latin America. Back in the day just a few great ones were coming to the mlb. But look now.

> > > >

> > > > Totally changes the talent pool and quality/competition level.

> > > >

> > > > “At the start of the 2000 season, there were 71 major league players from the Dominican Republic, 33 from Puerto Rico, 31 from Venezuela, 14 from Mexico, 9 from Cuba, 8 from Panama, 2 from Colombia, and 1 from Nicaragua. Thus, of some 1,200 players in the major leagues, 169 (about 15 percent) were from Latin America.”

> > > >

> > > > https://www.britannica.com/topic/Latin-Americans-in-Major-League-Baseball-910675

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > You are missing the point. Depth of field doesn’t have a great effect on the top of the field. In baseball, the minor leagues today may have many more better players than 50 years ago. That doesn’t mean Willie Mays wasn’t outstanding and wouldn’t be just as outstanding if he played today. And Jack won multiple majors in his 40s in the 1980s. Were the fields not strong enough then for you either? The other thing is you can just look at his scores. The technology evolution wasn’t so great from the 1960s to the 1980s. You are hanging on a deficient argument.

> >

> > “Depth of field doesn’t have a great effect on the top of the field“

> >

> > Of course it does.

> >

> > If a guy is the fastest sprinter in his school. Then he runs against 5 other schools who each have a top sprinter.

> >

> > His winning percentage and margins of victory won’t be impacted?

> >

>

> That is weak. Very poor analogy. The top players in the 60s and 70s and 80s aren’t as good as the top players today?? Sorry, that’s weak

 

Possibly, but not by default. All you can say is that they are as good, **relative to _their_ opponents**.

[bscinstnct]

> @LICC said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > Larger talent pools.

> > > >

> > > > Population growth combined with social/economic factor.

> > > >

> > > > Consider that TW wouldn’t/couldn’t have even played on the pga tour decades ago. Imagine how many other Tigers were never discovered during that time. In golf, baseball, football.

> > > >

> > > > Not to mention the multiplication of the global talent pools from Europe and Asia over just the last few decades.

> > > >

> > > > Far more players entering the top of the talent funnel resulting in far stronger fields in the tour.

> > > >

> > > > Not debatable, this.

> > > >

> > > > Look at jack as the wilt chamberlain of the pga tour in his day. A head above his peers. But today, far more competition.

> > > >

> > > > Consider the impact in baseball of Latin America. Back in the day just a few great ones were coming to the mlb. But look now.

> > > >

> > > > Totally changes the talent pool and quality/competition level.

> > > >

> > > > “At the start of the 2000 season, there were 71 major league players from the Dominican Republic, 33 from Puerto Rico, 31 from Venezuela, 14 from Mexico, 9 from Cuba, 8 from Panama, 2 from Colombia, and 1 from Nicaragua. Thus, of some 1,200 players in the major leagues, 169 (about 15 percent) were from Latin America.”

> > > >

> > > > https://www.britannica.com/topic/Latin-Americans-in-Major-League-Baseball-910675

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > You are missing the point. Depth of field doesn’t have a great effect on the top of the field. In baseball, the minor leagues today may have many more better players than 50 years ago. That doesn’t mean Willie Mays wasn’t outstanding and wouldn’t be just as outstanding if he played today. And Jack won multiple majors in his 40s in the 1980s. Were the fields not strong enough then for you either? The other thing is you can just look at his scores. The technology evolution wasn’t so great from the 1960s to the 1980s. You are hanging on a deficient argument.

> >

> > “Depth of field doesn’t have a great effect on the top of the field“

> >

> > Of course it does.

> >

> > If a guy is the fastest sprinter in his school. Then he runs against 5 other schools who each have a top sprinter.

> >

> > His winning percentage and margins of victory won’t be impacted?

> >

>

> That is weak. Very poor analogy. The top players in the 60s and 70s and 80s aren’t as good as the top players today?? Sorry, that’s weak

 

 

If a guy is the fastest sprinter in his school. Then he runs against 5 other schools who each have a top sprinter.

 

His winning percentage and margins of victory will be negatively impacted.

 

Do you consider this to be true or false?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bscinstnct]

> @Pent08 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > Larger talent pools.

> > > > >

> > > > > Population growth combined with social/economic factor.

> > > > >

> > > > > Consider that TW wouldn’t/couldn’t have even played on the pga tour decades ago. Imagine how many other Tigers were never discovered during that time. In golf, baseball, football.

> > > > >

> > > > > Not to mention the multiplication of the global talent pools from Europe and Asia over just the last few decades.

> > > > >

> > > > > Far more players entering the top of the talent funnel resulting in far stronger fields in the tour.

> > > > >

> > > > > Not debatable, this.

> > > > >

> > > > > Look at jack as the wilt chamberlain of the pga tour in his day. A head above his peers. But today, far more competition.

> > > > >

> > > > > Consider the impact in baseball of Latin America. Back in the day just a few great ones were coming to the mlb. But look now.

> > > > >

> > > > > Totally changes the talent pool and quality/competition level.

> > > > >

> > > > > “At the start of the 2000 season, there were 71 major league players from the Dominican Republic, 33 from Puerto Rico, 31 from Venezuela, 14 from Mexico, 9 from Cuba, 8 from Panama, 2 from Colombia, and 1 from Nicaragua. Thus, of some 1,200 players in the major leagues, 169 (about 15 percent) were from Latin America.”

> > > > >

> > > > > https://www.britannica.com/topic/Latin-Americans-in-Major-League-Baseball-910675

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > You are missing the point. Depth of field doesn’t have a great effect on the top of the field. In baseball, the minor leagues today may have many more better players than 50 years ago. That doesn’t mean Willie Mays wasn’t outstanding and wouldn’t be just as outstanding if he played today. And Jack won multiple majors in his 40s in the 1980s. Were the fields not strong enough then for you either? The other thing is you can just look at his scores. The technology evolution wasn’t so great from the 1960s to the 1980s. You are hanging on a deficient argument.

> > >

> > > “Depth of field doesn’t have a great effect on the top of the field“

> > >

> > > Of course it does.

> > >

> > > If a guy is the fastest sprinter in his school. Then he runs against 5 other schools who each have a top sprinter.

> > >

> > > His winning percentage and margins of victory won’t be impacted?

> > >

> >

> > That is weak. Very poor analogy. The top players in the 60s and 70s and 80s aren’t as good as the top players today?? Sorry, that’s weak

>

> Possibly, but not by default. All you can say is that they are as good, **relative to _their_ opponents**.

 

 

Exactly, not sure why this is so hard to understand

 

The guy is just as good, he may perform just as well individually. But if he faces off against better talent, he won’t perform as well relative to weaker talent.

 

Was there the same number of young golfers being going through the college pipeline in jacks day as there is now?

 

We’re there as many players being drawn from larger international population pools in Europe, Australia, New Zealand? And were those guys even able to play on the pga tour as mainstays by attending college here, flying here so easily, or living here year in and year out?

 

Of course not.

 

 

[LICC]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > Larger talent pools.

> > > > >

> > > > > Population growth combined with social/economic factor.

> > > > >

> > > > > Consider that TW wouldn’t/couldn’t have even played on the pga tour decades ago. Imagine how many other Tigers were never discovered during that time. In golf, baseball, football.

> > > > >

> > > > > Not to mention the multiplication of the global talent pools from Europe and Asia over just the last few decades.

> > > > >

> > > > > Far more players entering the top of the talent funnel resulting in far stronger fields in the tour.

> > > > >

> > > > > Not debatable, this.

> > > > >

> > > > > Look at jack as the wilt chamberlain of the pga tour in his day. A head above his peers. But today, far more competition.

> > > > >

> > > > > Consider the impact in baseball of Latin America. Back in the day just a few great ones were coming to the mlb. But look now.

> > > > >

> > > > > Totally changes the talent pool and quality/competition level.

> > > > >

> > > > > “At the start of the 2000 season, there were 71 major league players from the Dominican Republic, 33 from Puerto Rico, 31 from Venezuela, 14 from Mexico, 9 from Cuba, 8 from Panama, 2 from Colombia, and 1 from Nicaragua. Thus, of some 1,200 players in the major leagues, 169 (about 15 percent) were from Latin America.”

> > > > >

> > > > > https://www.britannica.com/topic/Latin-Americans-in-Major-League-Baseball-910675

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > You are missing the point. Depth of field doesn’t have a great effect on the top of the field. In baseball, the minor leagues today may have many more better players than 50 years ago. That doesn’t mean Willie Mays wasn’t outstanding and wouldn’t be just as outstanding if he played today. And Jack won multiple majors in his 40s in the 1980s. Were the fields not strong enough then for you either? The other thing is you can just look at his scores. The technology evolution wasn’t so great from the 1960s to the 1980s. You are hanging on a deficient argument.

> > >

> > > “Depth of field doesn’t have a great effect on the top of the field“

> > >

> > > Of course it does.

> > >

> > > If a guy is the fastest sprinter in his school. Then he runs against 5 other schools who each have a top sprinter.

> > >

> > > His winning percentage and margins of victory won’t be impacted?

> > >

> >

> > That is weak. Very poor analogy. The top players in the 60s and 70s and 80s aren’t as good as the top players today?? Sorry, that’s weak

>

>

> If a guy is the fastest sprinter in his school. Then he runs against 5 other schools who each have a top sprinter.

>

> His winning percentage and margins of victory will be negatively impacted.

>

> Do you consider this to be true or false?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

Bad analogy. Augusta National was roughly the same distance in 1965 as in 1986 as in 1997. Jack shot a 271. How do your added high school sprinters aka added depth of field in 1995 or so relate when the score on the course is the score on the course. Once equipment and yardages drastically changed then the comparisons don’t hold, but you have the scores right there.

[lowheel]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @lowheel said:

> > > @"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

>

> You’re right.

>

>

 

pretty much what i expected from you.Back to the ignore list you go.

[lowheel]

> @youdamantiger said:

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

 

this right here is what im talking about .its the mental gymnastics that get me. We dont have an Lpga scenario where Asian golfers took over. It hasnt happened here and probably wont for a long time. this mythical pool of talent that exists now that didnt before makes no sense. Are we pretending there were no international players from the 60s up?? Gary Player doesnt exist in these scenarios?

I had this exact conversation with a friend of mine. he literally said that if brooks koepka ends up with 6-7 majors and like 15-20 wins he would rank him above Tom Watson because the fields are tougher than in Tom Watsons era... think about the lunacy of that statement

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @lowheel said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @lowheel said:

> > > > @"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

> >

> > You’re right.

> >

> >

>

> pretty much what i expected from you.Back to the ignore list you go.

 

I’m crushed.

Touched a nerve, eh?

 

 

[lowheel]

> @cdnglf said:

> > @lowheel said:

> > > @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...

>

> Again, what I said (and you said was wrong): " 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. ".

>

> "Choice" is irrelevant. All I said was that they didn't. A few of many examples: Casper did not play the Open Championship until 1968. Most Americans barely played it in the 1960s (even Arnie skipped). Thomson barely played any US majors in the 1960s. Di Vicenzo played 1 US Open and zero PGAs after 1960. Jacklin won the US Open in 1970, and didn't play the PGA in 1971 or 72.

>

> As for Lyle, he may have hated coming stateside, but he was ok enough with it to win the Masters, the Players, and 3 other US-based PGA Tour events from 1986-88, yet he didn't play the PGA Championship at all. C'mon, that doesn't "happen today still".

 

> @cdnglf said:

> > @lowheel said:

> > > @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...

>

> Again, what I said (and you said was wrong): " 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. ".

>

> "Choice" is irrelevant. All I said was that they didn't. A few of many examples: Casper did not play the Open Championship until 1968. Most Americans barely played it in the 1960s (even Arnie skipped). Thomson barely played any US majors in the 1960s. Di Vicenzo played 1 US Open and zero PGAs after 1960. Jacklin won the US Open in 1970, and didn't play the PGA in 1971 or 72.

>

> As for Lyle, he may have hated coming stateside, but he was ok enough with it to win the Masters, the Players, and 3 other US-based PGA Tour events from 1986-88, yet he didn't play the PGA Championship at all. C'mon, that doesn't "happen today still".

 

Yes it absolutely still happens today.Lyle got hot for 3 years(85-88) and disappeared.It absolutely still happnes today. lots of euro tour players stay over the pond unless they make it to WGC where theres guaranteed money. Other than Sandy Lyle missing a pga by his own choice and yes choice is the key word. You chase the best competition unless you dont care. For every Lyle there was a Nick price greg norman Wayne Grady or david Graham. How come aussies and south africans travelled half way across the world but a brit like lyle chose not to? Are we pretending Seve never happened? he never missed any Pgas or US opens. how come? because it was their choice. lots of the euros didnt like playing stateside and their results showed it. Competion was tougher over here courses were tougher. I understand homesickness was an issue but the #s of internationals winning now isnt greater than it was in the 80s but according to your theory it should be greater. Its not,maybe its time to reckon with that. Wewont agree with this but themajors have been the majors forever. Thats how a guy like roberto devincenzo was playing PGa championships way back to 1954. he chased better golf eventually winning a british open in 1967 and almost a masters the following year.thats how gary player did what he did with 200$ in his pocket.He took off for europe then crossed the pond constantly chasing these majors. they've always been a big deal. Please dont rewrite history.Read john Feinsteins book the majors written over 20 years ago. Greg Norman said back in 1976 how much the majors meant to Aussie players. So yes to be the best you have to play the best and some of these guys chose not to chase trophies.Doesnt diminish those who did.

[lowheel]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @lowheel said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > @"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

> > >

> > > You’re right.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > pretty much what i expected from you.Back to the ignore list you go.

>

> I’m crushed.

> Touched a nerve, eh?

>

>

 

nah, just bored with you. you bring nothing to the table. Carry on

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @lowheel said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @lowheel said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > @lowheel said:

> > > > > > @"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

> > > >

> > > > You’re right.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > pretty much what i expected from you.Back to the ignore list you go.

> >

> > I’m crushed.

> > Touched a nerve, eh?

> >

> >

>

> nah, just bored with you. you bring nothing to the table. Carry on

 

My goodness, you are impressive!

What’s it like knowing so much more than everyone?

 

 

[RobotDoctor]

One thing to consider is the state of equipment today compared to what it was 40-50 years ago. I believe that has quite a bit to do with raising the talent level of many competitive tour players. I do believe that Tiger Woods would have been very, very competitive and one of the very best players on the tour back in the 60s, 70s or 80s. Just like I believe Jack Nicklaus would have been dominant today. Do I believe some players in the past 10-20 years have taken advantage of better equipment (clubs, shafts, balls, fittings, trackman, etc)? Absolutely. Does that make these players inferior to those middle of the road players back in the 60s, 70s or 80s? Not necessarily.

 

There is no time machine so a true apples to apples comparison cannot be made. In a court of law all this would be conjecture. So to emphatically say one player is better than the other isn't doing either player justice. Both Nicklaus and Woods were dominant against the fields they played against. There was a significant financial constraint for tour players back in the 60s and 70s that made traveling to Great Britain to play in the Open Championship for quite a few middle of the road tour players. There was no such thing as an all exempt tour and only the top 60 (IIRC) were guaranteed to play each week. There were more Rabbits back then than today. Prize money wasn't nearly what it is today. Travel conveniences were also not what it is today. Fitness regimes practically did not exist back then, possibly with exception of Gary Player. Most players didn't have swing coaches, nutritionists, strength coaches, mental coaches who could accompany them to tournaments. The eras of golf is significantly different. That is not to diminish the truly talented golfer today. The best players today would have been very competitive back then as the best players back then would be today. I do believe that players back several decades ago were hungrier but financial constraints probably ended more careers before they had a chance to flourish.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @RobotDoctor said:

> One thing to consider is the state of equipment today compared to what it was 40-50 years ago. I believe that has quite a bit to do with raising the talent level of many competitive tour players. I do believe that Tiger Woods would have been very, very competitive and one of the very best players on the tour back in the 60s, 70s or 80s. Just like I believe Jack Nicklaus would have been dominant today. Do I believe some players in the past 10-20 years have taken advantage of better equipment (clubs, shafts, balls, fittings, trackman, etc)? Absolutely. Does that make these players inferior to those middle of the road players back in the 60s, 70s or 80s? Not necessarily.

>

> There is no time machine so a true apples to apples comparison cannot be made. In a court of law all this would be conjecture. So to emphatically say one player is better than the other isn't doing either player justice. Both Nicklaus and Woods were dominant against the fields they played against. There was a significant financial constraint for tour players back in the 60s and 70s that made traveling to Great Britain to play in the Open Championship for quite a few middle of the road tour players. There was no such thing as an all exempt tour and only the top 60 (IIRC) were guaranteed to play each week. There were more Rabbits back then than today. Prize money wasn't nearly what it is today. Travel conveniences were also not what it is today. Fitness regimes practically did not exist back then, possibly with exception of Gary Player. Most players didn't have swing coaches, nutritionists, strength coaches, mental coaches who could accompany them to tournaments. The eras of golf is significantly different. That is not to diminish the truly talented golfer today. The best players today would have been very competitive back then as the best players back then would be today. I do believe that players back several decades ago were hungrier but financial constraints probably ended more careers before they had a chance to flourish.

 

More prize money, easy travel, better fitness, better coaching, better equipment, more people playing, etc. If I didn’t know better, I might think those factors mean deeper fields, but that would be crazy talk.

 

 

[Darth Putter]

> @lowheel said:

> > @cdnglf said:

> > > @lowheel said:

> > > > @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...

> >

> > Again, what I said (and you said was wrong): " 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. ".

> >

> > "Choice" is irrelevant. All I said was that they didn't. A few of many examples: Casper did not play the Open Championship until 1968. Most Americans barely played it in the 1960s (even Arnie skipped). Thomson barely played any US majors in the 1960s. Di Vicenzo played 1 US Open and zero PGAs after 1960. Jacklin won the US Open in 1970, and didn't play the PGA in 1971 or 72.

> >

> > As for Lyle, he may have hated coming stateside, but he was ok enough with it to win the Masters, the Players, and 3 other US-based PGA Tour events from 1986-88, yet he didn't play the PGA Championship at all. C'mon, that doesn't "happen today still".

>

> > @cdnglf said:

> > > @lowheel said:

> > > > @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...

> >

> > Again, what I said (and you said was wrong): " 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. ".

> >

> > "Choice" is irrelevant. All I said was that they didn't. A few of many examples: Casper did not play the Open Championship until 1968. Most Americans barely played it in the 1960s (even Arnie skipped). Thomson barely played any US majors in the 1960s. Di Vicenzo played 1 US Open and zero PGAs after 1960. Jacklin won the US Open in 1970, and didn't play the PGA in 1971 or 72.

> >

> > As for Lyle, he may have hated coming stateside, but he was ok enough with it to win the Masters, the Players, and 3 other US-based PGA Tour events from 1986-88, yet he didn't play the PGA Championship at all. C'mon, that doesn't "happen today still".

>

> Yes it absolutely still happens today.Lyle got hot for 3 years(85-88) and disappeared.It absolutely still happnes today. lots of euro tour players stay over the pond unless they make it to WGC where theres guaranteed money. Other than Sandy Lyle missing a pga by his own choice and yes choice is the key word. You chase the best competition unless you dont care. For every Lyle there was a Nick price greg norman Wayne Grady or david Graham. How come aussies and south africans travelled half way across the world but a brit like lyle chose not to? Are we pretending Seve never happened? he never missed any Pgas or US opens. how come? because it was their choice. lots of the euros didnt like playing stateside and their results showed it. Competion was tougher over here courses were tougher. I understand homesickness was an issue but the #s of internationals winning now isnt greater than it was in the 80s but according to your theory it should be greater. Its not,maybe its time to reckon with that. Wewont agree with this but themajors have been the majors forever. Thats how a guy like roberto devincenzo was playing PGa championships way back to 1954. he chased better golf eventually winning a british open in 1967 and almost a masters the following year.thats how gary player did what he did with 200$ in his pocket.He took off for europe then crossed the pond constantly chasing these majors. they've always been a big deal. Please dont rewrite history.Read john Feinsteins book the majors written over 20 years ago. Greg Norman said back in 1976 how much the majors meant to Aussie players. So yes to be the best you have to play the best and some of these guys chose not to chase trophies.Doesnt diminish those who did.

 

 

It was easier for the Aussies and South Africans because they could play their home tour in our winter then come here for the main part of the US season. That's why the PGA Tour did have a good international presence from those regions. The Euros and Japanese had a harder road. It was almost impossible to play both your home tour and meet the commitments needed to maintain US PGA Tour membership. Most of the Euros in the 1980s decided to stay in Europe and decline PGA Tour membership. Seve did miss a few US majors, he skipped the US PGA in 1980 to play the Benson & Hedges. Seve's war with Deane Beman over where he was going to play is well documented. I think Tony Jacklin is the only major European figure that played on the US Tour for more than a couple of years until the 1990s.

 

Sometimes it is the majors that were the problem. The British Open simply didn't make the price right for most PGA pros unless you were at the very top and could afford to lose money on the trip. For most of its history, you had to qualify just to get into the tournament unless you were the defending champion. At least it was right before the tournament. Qualifying for the US Open was a much longer proposition for a Jumbo Ozaki or Bernhard Langer. As for the PGA, they needed spots for sixty plus club pros.

 

Here's the breakdown of Masters invitees in the last 30 years.

 

39 is the lowest number of Americans at The Masters since 1938, when the field was 42 players.

 

[Titleist99]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @Golfnutgalen said:

> >

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

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

> >

>

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

>

>

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

 

[RobotDoctor]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @RobotDoctor said:

> > One thing to consider is the state of equipment today compared to what it was 40-50 years ago. I believe that has quite a bit to do with raising the talent level of many competitive tour players. I do believe that Tiger Woods would have been very, very competitive and one of the very best players on the tour back in the 60s, 70s or 80s. Just like I believe Jack Nicklaus would have been dominant today. Do I believe some players in the past 10-20 years have taken advantage of better equipment (clubs, shafts, balls, fittings, trackman, etc)? Absolutely. Does that make these players inferior to those middle of the road players back in the 60s, 70s or 80s? Not necessarily.

> >

> > There is no time machine so a true apples to apples comparison cannot be made. In a court of law all this would be conjecture. So to emphatically say one player is better than the other isn't doing either player justice. Both Nicklaus and Woods were dominant against the fields they played against. There was a significant financial constraint for tour players back in the 60s and 70s that made traveling to Great Britain to play in the Open Championship for quite a few middle of the road tour players. There was no such thing as an all exempt tour and only the top 60 (IIRC) were guaranteed to play each week. There were more Rabbits back then than today. Prize money wasn't nearly what it is today. Travel conveniences were also not what it is today. Fitness regimes practically did not exist back then, possibly with exception of Gary Player. Most players didn't have swing coaches, nutritionists, strength coaches, mental coaches who could accompany them to tournaments. The eras of golf is significantly different. That is not to diminish the truly talented golfer today. The best players today would have been very competitive back then as the best players back then would be today. I do believe that players back several decades ago were hungrier but financial constraints probably ended more careers before they had a chance to flourish.

>

> More prize money, easy travel, better fitness, better coaching, better equipment, more people playing, etc. If I didn’t know better, I might think those factors mean deeper fields, but that would be crazy talk.

>

>

 

What I mean is that given the same factors back in the 60s, 70s and 80s we might see a completely different tour back then with the middle of the road players raising the level of competition to a greater level. Also, give the same conditions today as was the norm for the 60s, 70s and 80s and I would bet a huge regression of "talent" would be noticed. I never said that the fields were deeper because there are more players. I do believe some players have taken advantage of the benefits today that would not be quite as good as they are had they played in a spartan era. In other words, so my words are not misconstrued, I believe better prize money, sponsorships, better equipment (clubs, shafts, balls, fittings, trackman, etc), personal entourage contributed to many marginal players becoming great. I believe given the same conditions back then would have allowed many marginal players to get over the hump.

 

Ultimately what I believe is that there is absolutely no way a fair comparison could be made. Here's a question. Take Lee Trevino in his prime (late 60s and early 70s) with the benefits of today's technology and some tour player today who is ranked between 6 and 10 (Francesco Molinari, Justin Thomas, Patrick Cantlay, Xander Schauffele or Bryson DeChambeau) playing for $10,000 or $20,000 of their own money (not tour prize money) in a money game who wins? I am betting Trevino in his prime wins. It's easy to play for the TV money but when someone puts their own cash on the table it's a different story. Of course $10,000 - $20,000 today isn't a lot for today's stars. It took Trevino about 3 good tournaments back then to make $20,000. Today any of these players could rack up $250,000 to $1,000,000 in the same span. Change the goal posts and put $1,000,000 of their own money who wins? I definitely say Trevino.