Jack vs Tiger Major Win %

[Darth Putter]

> @LICC said:

> > @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.

 

Same distance, but the greens were AT LEAST twice as fast on the same slopes that Jack and Ray Floyd shot 271 on due to the change to bentgrass in 1981.

[Darth Putter]

> @"Awsi Dooger" said:

 

>

> 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.

>

 

Secretariat won the Triple Crown in 1973 and set the record for all three races. Those records STILL stand.

 

They could put the best 11 horses on Earth right now at Churchill Downs against him this afternoon at a mile and a quarter and he'd go off the 1/10 favorite.

As he should, he'd blow the other horses right off the track.

 

Horse racing may be the one sport where there's LESS depth these days. Horses breaking down because they are now bred with tiny legs, horses retired after two stakes wins to make money as breeding stock, racing once every two months. It's shocking what passes for a stakes winner in this day and age.

 

[Titleist99]

> @"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.

>

>

 

Better breeding grounds....Korn Ferry Tour, better College facilities, Track man,, all kind of first Tee programs, plenty of sponsors.....etc....LOL!!

[LICC]

> @"Darth Putter" said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @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.

>

> Same distance, but the greens were AT LEAST twice as fast on the same slopes that Jack and Ray Floyd shot 271 on due to the change to bentgrass in 1981.

 

But then over subsequent years they softened the slopes on many of the greens. If anything, faster tougher greens favor the argument for Jack. He handled those greens pretty well in 1986 didn’t he? Even in 1998 for that matter.

[LICC]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @"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.

> >

> >

>

> Better breeding grounds....Korn Ferry Tour, better College facilities, Track man,, all kind of first Tee programs, plenty of sponsors.....etc....LOL!!

 

 

And what everyone is missing is that all these deeper fields don’t matter much when evaluating the top 2-3 to 50-60 players in the world. Hardly anyone outside of the top 60 ever wins an event where the top players are playing.

[bscinstnct]

> @LICC said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > > @"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.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Better breeding grounds....Korn Ferry Tour, better College facilities, Track man,, all kind of first Tee programs, plenty of sponsors.....etc....LOL!!

>

>

> And what everyone is missing is that all these deeper fields don’t matter much when evaluating the top 2-3 to 50-60 players in the world. Hardly anyone outside of the top 60 ever wins an event where the top players are playing.

 

Ask yourself this.

 

Jack and TW go pro at the same time.

 

Does Jack dominate?

 

No.

 

Does he get dominated?

 

Maybe. In fact, according to Trevino and Watson,

 

“Tigers better” “He’s the best”

 

How does jack react to no longer being the best.

 

He sure doesn’t win 18.

 

This is the point of the deeper fields argument.

 

 

[LICC]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > @"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.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Better breeding grounds....Korn Ferry Tour, better College facilities, Track man,, all kind of first Tee programs, plenty of sponsors.....etc....LOL!!

> >

> >

> > And what everyone is missing is that all these deeper fields don’t matter much when evaluating the top 2-3 to 50-60 players in the world. Hardly anyone outside of the top 60 ever wins an event where the top players are playing.

>

> Ask yourself this.

>

> Jack and TW go pro at the same time.

>

> Does Jack dominate?

>

> No.

>

> Does he get dominated?

>

> Maybe. In fact, according to Trevino and Watson,

>

> “Tigers better” “He’s the best”

>

> How does jack react to no longer being the best.

>

> He sure doesn’t win 18.

>

> This is the point of the deeper fields argument.

>

>

 

Saying Jack wouldn’t dominate if he played at the same time as Tiger because Tiger would dominate has nothing to do with deeper fields. And that is just your speculation. If the two best players of the last 60 years played at the same time, each would take wins from the other. And Gary Player says Jack was better.

[bscinstnct]

> @LICC said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > @"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.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Better breeding grounds....Korn Ferry Tour, better College facilities, Track man,, all kind of first Tee programs, plenty of sponsors.....etc....LOL!!

> > >

> > >

> > > And what everyone is missing is that all these deeper fields don’t matter much when evaluating the top 2-3 to 50-60 players in the world. Hardly anyone outside of the top 60 ever wins an event where the top players are playing.

> >

> > Ask yourself this.

> >

> > Jack and TW go pro at the same time.

> >

> > Does Jack dominate?

> >

> > No.

> >

> > Does he get dominated?

> >

> > Maybe. In fact, according to Trevino and Watson,

> >

> > “Tigers better” “He’s the best”

> >

> > How does jack react to no longer being the best.

> >

> > He sure doesn’t win 18.

> >

> > This is the point of the deeper fields argument.

> >

> >

>

> Saying Jack wouldn’t dominate if he played at the same time as Tiger because Tiger would dominate has nothing to do with deeper fields. And that is just your speculation. If the two best players of the last 60 years played at the same time, each would take wins from the other. And Gary Player says Jack was better.

 

“If the two best players of the last 60 years played at the same time, each would take wins from the other.”

 

Agree, that’s the point; )

 

 

[LICC]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > @"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.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Better breeding grounds....Korn Ferry Tour, better College facilities, Track man,, all kind of first Tee programs, plenty of sponsors.....etc....LOL!!

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > And what everyone is missing is that all these deeper fields don’t matter much when evaluating the top 2-3 to 50-60 players in the world. Hardly anyone outside of the top 60 ever wins an event where the top players are playing.

> > >

> > > Ask yourself this.

> > >

> > > Jack and TW go pro at the same time.

> > >

> > > Does Jack dominate?

> > >

> > > No.

> > >

> > > Does he get dominated?

> > >

> > > Maybe. In fact, according to Trevino and Watson,

> > >

> > > “Tigers better” “He’s the best”

> > >

> > > How does jack react to no longer being the best.

> > >

> > > He sure doesn’t win 18.

> > >

> > > This is the point of the deeper fields argument.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Saying Jack wouldn’t dominate if he played at the same time as Tiger because Tiger would dominate has nothing to do with deeper fields. And that is just your speculation. If the two best players of the last 60 years played at the same time, each would take wins from the other. And Gary Player says Jack was better.

>

> “If the two best players of the last 60 years played at the same time, each would take wins from the other.”

>

> Agree, that’s the point; )

>

>

 

But that doesn’t mean Jack’s accomplishments should be discounted because of some depth of field argument. Also, Tiger won most of his majors in a 5-year then 3-year stretch. Jack was very consistent over 20+ years.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @LICC said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > @"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.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Better breeding grounds....Korn Ferry Tour, better College facilities, Track man,, all kind of first Tee programs, plenty of sponsors.....etc....LOL!!

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > And what everyone is missing is that all these deeper fields don’t matter much when evaluating the top 2-3 to 50-60 players in the world. Hardly anyone outside of the top 60 ever wins an event where the top players are playing.

> > > >

> > > > Ask yourself this.

> > > >

> > > > Jack and TW go pro at the same time.

> > > >

> > > > Does Jack dominate?

> > > >

> > > > No.

> > > >

> > > > Does he get dominated?

> > > >

> > > > Maybe. In fact, according to Trevino and Watson,

> > > >

> > > > “Tigers better” “He’s the best”

> > > >

> > > > How does jack react to no longer being the best.

> > > >

> > > > He sure doesn’t win 18.

> > > >

> > > > This is the point of the deeper fields argument.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Saying Jack wouldn’t dominate if he played at the same time as Tiger because Tiger would dominate has nothing to do with deeper fields. And that is just your speculation. If the two best players of the last 60 years played at the same time, each would take wins from the other. And Gary Player says Jack was better.

> >

> > “If the two best players of the last 60 years played at the same time, each would take wins from the other.”

> >

> > Agree, that’s the point; )

> >

> >

>

> But that doesn’t mean Jack’s accomplishments should be discounted because of some depth of field argument. Also, Tiger won most of his majors in a 5-year then 3-year stretch. Jack was very consistent over 20+ years.

 

It’s not a zero sum game. Correctly pointing out that fields are deeper nowadays doesn’t discount Nicklaus. If your wife/GF says Brad Pitt is good looking, you hopefully don’t get all moody and accuse her of calling you ugly...

 

 

[Shilgy]

> @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.

 

Please explain your logic. Willie Mays was a great player, one of my favorites growing up. I'm not sure why you referenced more decent minor league players other than the fact that back in Willie's day some of them would have been in the majors.

Because of the increased depth in MLB pitching staffs are much better. Look at the complete games stat. Do you think it was easier or more difficult to face a tiring starter back in the 50's and 60's in the later innings or a high 90's throwing one inning specialist today?

So Willie may have been just as outstanding today but his numbers most assuredly would have been lower.

 

One last thing because this subject has been debated by the same characters too many times. Jack himself has said there are more top players today than in his era. He said the same thing 20 years ago when Tiger was in his prime.

So let's call it that in Jack's era there were one each Gary Arnie Lee Raymond Johnny Tom and company..... In Tiger's era there were two each of those top players. Today there are three. They cannot all win at the same pace if there are more great players. Which is why the numbers are lower with each succeeding generation.

For years we all felt we needed to see 20 wins and 2 majors minimum for the hall of fame. Today you would hardly induct anyone at that rate. The players are just as good or better than the best in the past but because of the depth the wins are more spread out amongst more players.

This does not demean the accomplishments of the top players of the past. They were great. But if you don't think Hogan and Nelson's numbers were inflated by the war and post war years creating a lack of competition your looking with blinders on.

[Shilgy]

> @LICC said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > @"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.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Better breeding grounds....Korn Ferry Tour, better College facilities, Track man,, all kind of first Tee programs, plenty of sponsors.....etc....LOL!!

> > >

> > >

> > > And what everyone is missing is that all these deeper fields don’t matter much when evaluating the top 2-3 to 50-60 players in the world. Hardly anyone outside of the top 60 ever wins an event where the top players are playing.

> >

> > Ask yourself this.

> >

> > Jack and TW go pro at the same time.

> >

> > Does Jack dominate?

> >

> > No.

> >

> > Does he get dominated?

> >

> > Maybe. In fact, according to Trevino and Watson,

> >

> > “Tigers better” “He’s the best”

> >

> > How does jack react to no longer being the best.

> >

> > He sure doesn’t win 18.

> >

> > This is the point of the deeper fields argument.

> >

> >

>

> Saying Jack wouldn’t dominate if he played at the same time as Tiger because Tiger would dominate has nothing to do with deeper fields. And that is just your speculation. If the two best players of the last 60 years played at the same time, each would take wins from the other. And Gary Player says Jack was better.

 

Guess what, your right. If Jack and Tiger played in their urine at the same time they would take wins away from each other. And they would take wins away from other players. Agreed?

So let's have a season where Jack and Tiger play... And both of their top 10 competitors play. So we have Jack and Tiger and 20 studs instead of just one of the elite and 10.

In this imaginary season do ALL of the players win as often as normal? No you say? Lol why not. These are the best of the best and they will get their wins no matter what say those that say field depth matters not.

But of course that's not how it works. There are only so many events in a season so someone gets left out.

 

That is how depth matters.

 

[Shilgy]

> @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.

 

Seve won the Open in 79 and the Masters in 80 and didn't play a PGA until 81. Would that happen today?

If the Euros of the last 40 years never played in the US majors like most of them did not in the era before the 70's someone else would have the wins on their resume` that Faldo Seve Lyle Langer and company won. How does that not show that depth spreads the wins amongst more players?

[redfirebird08]

> @LICC said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > @"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.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Better breeding grounds....Korn Ferry Tour, better College facilities, Track man,, all kind of first Tee programs, plenty of sponsors.....etc....LOL!!

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > And what everyone is missing is that all these deeper fields don’t matter much when evaluating the top 2-3 to 50-60 players in the world. Hardly anyone outside of the top 60 ever wins an event where the top players are playing.

> > > >

> > > > Ask yourself this.

> > > >

> > > > Jack and TW go pro at the same time.

> > > >

> > > > Does Jack dominate?

> > > >

> > > > No.

> > > >

> > > > Does he get dominated?

> > > >

> > > > Maybe. In fact, according to Trevino and Watson,

> > > >

> > > > “Tigers better” “He’s the best”

> > > >

> > > > How does jack react to no longer being the best.

> > > >

> > > > He sure doesn’t win 18.

> > > >

> > > > This is the point of the deeper fields argument.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Saying Jack wouldn’t dominate if he played at the same time as Tiger because Tiger would dominate has nothing to do with deeper fields. And that is just your speculation. If the two best players of the last 60 years played at the same time, each would take wins from the other. And Gary Player says Jack was better.

> >

> > “If the two best players of the last 60 years played at the same time, each would take wins from the other.”

> >

> > Agree, that’s the point; )

> >

> >

>

> But that doesn’t mean Jack’s accomplishments should be discounted because of some depth of field argument. Also, Tiger won most of his majors in a 5-year then 3-year stretch. Jack was very consistent over 20+ years.

 

I'm not sure if year is the right word to use here. Woods won a bunch of majors from 1997 to 2002, which is actually 6 seasons instead of 5 seasons. And he won a bunch of majors from 2005 to 2008, which is actually 4 seasons instead of 3 seasons.

 

And I don't think the length of winning is necessarily that big of a deal. There are still people that swear Hogan is the GOAT. He didn't win majors for a 20+ year stretch. Hogan's major winning stretch was from 1946 to 1953, which is 8 seasons. He lost at least a season during that time due to the bus accident, so let's call it 7 seasons of participation with 9 majors.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @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.

>

> Seve won the Open in 79 and the Masters in 80 and didn't play a PGA until 81. Would that happen today?

> If the Euros of the last 40 years never played in the US majors like most of them did not in the era before the 70's someone else would have the wins on their resume` that Faldo Seve Lyle Langer and company won. How does that not show that depth spreads the wins amongst more players?

 

Because if you try to use any kind of logic or common sense in this type of thread, some dunces think it means you are automatically taking away for their Lord and Savior’s accomplishments, and such will not stand.

 

 

[LICC]

> @Shilgy 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.

>

> Please explain your logic. Willie Mays was a great player, one of my favorites growing up. I'm not sure why you referenced more decent minor league players other than the fact that back in Willie's day some of them would have been in the majors.

> Because of the increased depth in MLB pitching staffs are much better. Look at the complete games stat. Do you think it was easier or more difficult to face a tiring starter back in the 50's and 60's in the later innings or a high 90's throwing one inning specialist today?

> So Willie may have been just as outstanding today but his numbers most assuredly would have been lower.

>

> One last thing because this subject has been debated by the same characters too many times. Jack himself has said there are more top players today than in his era. He said the same thing 20 years ago when Tiger was in his prime.

> So let's call it that in Jack's era there were one each Gary Arnie Lee Raymond Johnny Tom and company..... In Tiger's era there were two each of those top players. Today there are three. They cannot all win at the same pace if there are more great players. Which is why the numbers are lower with each succeeding generation.

> For years we all felt we needed to see 20 wins and 2 majors minimum for the hall of fame. Today you would hardly induct anyone at that rate. The players are just as good or better than the best in the past but because of the depth the wins are more spread out amongst more players.

> This does not demean the accomplishments of the top players of the past. They were great. But if you don't think Hogan and Nelson's numbers were inflated by the war and post war years creating a lack of competition your looking with blinders on.

 

Incorrect. Jack said there are more good players today but there were more great players when he played.

Your baseball example is not accurate. Pitching depth hasn’t changed as much as data analytics has changed the way the game is played. Using more relievers, 13 man bullpens, defensive shifts, etc. Mays may not have the same numbers today because of changes to how the game is played, but his talent would make him just as outstanding relative to current day players as he was back when he played.

[LICC]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > @"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.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Better breeding grounds....Korn Ferry Tour, better College facilities, Track man,, all kind of first Tee programs, plenty of sponsors.....etc....LOL!!

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > And what everyone is missing is that all these deeper fields don’t matter much when evaluating the top 2-3 to 50-60 players in the world. Hardly anyone outside of the top 60 ever wins an event where the top players are playing.

> > >

> > > Ask yourself this.

> > >

> > > Jack and TW go pro at the same time.

> > >

> > > Does Jack dominate?

> > >

> > > No.

> > >

> > > Does he get dominated?

> > >

> > > Maybe. In fact, according to Trevino and Watson,

> > >

> > > “Tigers better” “He’s the best”

> > >

> > > How does jack react to no longer being the best.

> > >

> > > He sure doesn’t win 18.

> > >

> > > This is the point of the deeper fields argument.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Saying Jack wouldn’t dominate if he played at the same time as Tiger because Tiger would dominate has nothing to do with deeper fields. And that is just your speculation. If the two best players of the last 60 years played at the same time, each would take wins from the other. And Gary Player says Jack was better.

>

> Guess what, your right. If Jack and Tiger played in their urine at the same time they would take wins away from each other. And they would take wins away from other players. Agreed?

> So let's have a season where Jack and Tiger play... And both of their top 10 competitors play. So we have Jack and Tiger and 20 studs instead of just one of the elite and 10.

> In this imaginary season do ALL of the players win as often as normal? No you say? Lol why not. These are the best of the best and they will get their wins no matter what say those that say field depth matters not.

> But of course that's not how it works. There are only so many events in a season so someone gets left out.

>

> That is how depth matters.

>

No one yet has made any compelling argument that field depth beyond the top 50-60 players means much of anything, and no one has made any compelling argument that today’s top 50-60 players are better than the top 50-60 during Jack’s career.

 

[Darth Putter]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > @"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.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Better breeding grounds....Korn Ferry Tour, better College facilities, Track man,, all kind of first Tee programs, plenty of sponsors.....etc....LOL!!

> >

> >

> > And what everyone is missing is that all these deeper fields don’t matter much when evaluating the top 2-3 to 50-60 players in the world. Hardly anyone outside of the top 60 ever wins an event where the top players are playing.

>

> Ask yourself this.

>

> Jack and TW go pro at the same time.

>

> Does Jack dominate?

>

> No.

>

> Does he get dominated?

>

> Maybe. In fact, according to Trevino and Watson,

>

> “Tigers better” “He’s the best”

>

> How does jack react to no longer being the best.

>

> He sure doesn’t win 18.

>

> This is the point of the deeper fields argument.

>

>

 

What if Tiger shoots 270 at Augusta in 1997 and Jack shoots 268?

 

We are talking about a guy that walked into Arnold's house at the 1962 US Open and beat the King.

 

How does Tiger react to not being the best?

[Darth Putter]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > @"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.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Better breeding grounds....Korn Ferry Tour, better College facilities, Track man,, all kind of first Tee programs, plenty of sponsors.....etc....LOL!!

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > And what everyone is missing is that all these deeper fields don’t matter much when evaluating the top 2-3 to 50-60 players in the world. Hardly anyone outside of the top 60 ever wins an event where the top players are playing.

> > >

> > > Ask yourself this.

> > >

> > > Jack and TW go pro at the same time.

> > >

> > > Does Jack dominate?

> > >

> > > No.

> > >

> > > Does he get dominated?

> > >

> > > Maybe. In fact, according to Trevino and Watson,

> > >

> > > “Tigers better” “He’s the best”

> > >

> > > How does jack react to no longer being the best.

> > >

> > > He sure doesn’t win 18.

> > >

> > > This is the point of the deeper fields argument.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Saying Jack wouldn’t dominate if he played at the same time as Tiger because Tiger would dominate has nothing to do with deeper fields. And that is just your speculation. If the two best players of the last 60 years played at the same time, each would take wins from the other. And Gary Player says Jack was better.

>

> “If the two best players of the last 60 years played at the same time, each would take wins from the other.”

>

> Agree, that’s the point; )

>

>

 

Yet Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have all beaten Sampras' Grand Slam record of fourteen while playing at the same time against each other.

[cdnglf]

> @LICC said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > @"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.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Better breeding grounds....Korn Ferry Tour, better College facilities, Track man,, all kind of first Tee programs, plenty of sponsors.....etc....LOL!!

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > And what everyone is missing is that all these deeper fields don’t matter much when evaluating the top 2-3 to 50-60 players in the world. Hardly anyone outside of the top 60 ever wins an event where the top players are playing.

> > > >

> > > > Ask yourself this.

> > > >

> > > > Jack and TW go pro at the same time.

> > > >

> > > > Does Jack dominate?

> > > >

> > > > No.

> > > >

> > > > Does he get dominated?

> > > >

> > > > Maybe. In fact, according to Trevino and Watson,

> > > >

> > > > “Tigers better” “He’s the best”

> > > >

> > > > How does jack react to no longer being the best.

> > > >

> > > > He sure doesn’t win 18.

> > > >

> > > > This is the point of the deeper fields argument.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Saying Jack wouldn’t dominate if he played at the same time as Tiger because Tiger would dominate has nothing to do with deeper fields. And that is just your speculation. If the two best players of the last 60 years played at the same time, each would take wins from the other. And Gary Player says Jack was better.

> >

> > Guess what, your right. If Jack and Tiger played in their urine at the same time they would take wins away from each other. And they would take wins away from other players. Agreed?

> > So let's have a season where Jack and Tiger play... And both of their top 10 competitors play. So we have Jack and Tiger and 20 studs instead of just one of the elite and 10.

> > In this imaginary season do ALL of the players win as often as normal? No you say? Lol why not. These are the best of the best and they will get their wins no matter what say those that say field depth matters not.

> > But of course that's not how it works. There are only so many events in a season so someone gets left out.

> >

> > That is how depth matters.

> >

> No one yet has made any compelling argument that field depth beyond the top 50-60 players means much of anything, and no one has made any compelling argument that today’s top 50-60 players are better than the top 50-60 during Jack’s career.

>

 

There were few, if any, tournaments that had all the best 50-60 players in the world during Jack's career.

 

[Darth Putter]

> @Shilgy said:

 

>

> Please explain your logic. Willie Mays was a great player, one of my favorites growing up. I'm not sure why you referenced more decent minor league players other than the fact that back in Willie's day some of them would have been in the majors.

> Because of the increased depth in MLB pitching staffs are much better. Look at the complete games stat. Do you think it was easier or more difficult to face a tiring starter back in the 50's and 60's in the later innings or a high 90's throwing one inning specialist today?

> So Willie may have been just as outstanding today but his numbers most assuredly would have been lower.

 

I don't know, the ball is livelier now. And when he played there were only eight teams in the National League compared to 15 now. The minor leagues were also much more vast in the 1950s. He might still get his numbers and be known as "Barry Bonds with a Glove."

 

[Darth Putter]

> @cdnglf said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > @"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.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Better breeding grounds....Korn Ferry Tour, better College facilities, Track man,, all kind of first Tee programs, plenty of sponsors.....etc....LOL!!

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And what everyone is missing is that all these deeper fields don’t matter much when evaluating the top 2-3 to 50-60 players in the world. Hardly anyone outside of the top 60 ever wins an event where the top players are playing.

> > > > >

> > > > > Ask yourself this.

> > > > >

> > > > > Jack and TW go pro at the same time.

> > > > >

> > > > > Does Jack dominate?

> > > > >

> > > > > No.

> > > > >

> > > > > Does he get dominated?

> > > > >

> > > > > Maybe. In fact, according to Trevino and Watson,

> > > > >

> > > > > “Tigers better” “He’s the best”

> > > > >

> > > > > How does jack react to no longer being the best.

> > > > >

> > > > > He sure doesn’t win 18.

> > > > >

> > > > > This is the point of the deeper fields argument.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Saying Jack wouldn’t dominate if he played at the same time as Tiger because Tiger would dominate has nothing to do with deeper fields. And that is just your speculation. If the two best players of the last 60 years played at the same time, each would take wins from the other. And Gary Player says Jack was better.

> > >

> > > Guess what, your right. If Jack and Tiger played in their urine at the same time they would take wins away from each other. And they would take wins away from other players. Agreed?

> > > So let's have a season where Jack and Tiger play... And both of their top 10 competitors play. So we have Jack and Tiger and 20 studs instead of just one of the elite and 10.

> > > In this imaginary season do ALL of the players win as often as normal? No you say? Lol why not. These are the best of the best and they will get their wins no matter what say those that say field depth matters not.

> > > But of course that's not how it works. There are only so many events in a season so someone gets left out.

> > >

> > > That is how depth matters.

> > >

> > No one yet has made any compelling argument that field depth beyond the top 50-60 players means much of anything, and no one has made any compelling argument that today’s top 50-60 players are better than the top 50-60 during Jack’s career.

> >

>

> There were few, if any, tournaments that had all the best 50-60 players in the world during Jack's career.

>

 

From 1946-1980, how many players in the Top 100 would not be playing on the PGA Tour? 10? 15?

 

And most of the PGA Tour pros, since they weren't making Jack and Arnie money, played nearly every week.

 

Is it possible that the normal fields from Los Angeles to Pensacola had more of the Top 100 every week then as opposed to now?

[lowheel]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @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?

>

>

 

> @cdnglf said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > @"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.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Better breeding grounds....Korn Ferry Tour, better College facilities, Track man,, all kind of first Tee programs, plenty of sponsors.....etc....LOL!!

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And what everyone is missing is that all these deeper fields don’t matter much when evaluating the top 2-3 to 50-60 players in the world. Hardly anyone outside of the top 60 ever wins an event where the top players are playing.

> > > > >

> > > > > Ask yourself this.

> > > > >

> > > > > Jack and TW go pro at the same time.

> > > > >

> > > > > Does Jack dominate?

> > > > >

> > > > > No.

> > > > >

> > > > > Does he get dominated?

> > > > >

> > > > > Maybe. In fact, according to Trevino and Watson,

> > > > >

> > > > > “Tigers better” “He’s the best”

> > > > >

> > > > > How does jack react to no longer being the best.

> > > > >

> > > > > He sure doesn’t win 18.

> > > > >

> > > > > This is the point of the deeper fields argument.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Saying Jack wouldn’t dominate if he played at the same time as Tiger because Tiger would dominate has nothing to do with deeper fields. And that is just your speculation. If the two best players of the last 60 years played at the same time, each would take wins from the other. And Gary Player says Jack was better.

> > >

> > > Guess what, your right. If Jack and Tiger played in their urine at the same time they would take wins away from each other. And they would take wins away from other players. Agreed?

> > > So let's have a season where Jack and Tiger play... And both of their top 10 competitors play. So we have Jack and Tiger and 20 studs instead of just one of the elite and 10.

> > > In this imaginary season do ALL of the players win as often as normal? No you say? Lol why not. These are the best of the best and they will get their wins no matter what say those that say field depth matters not.

> > > But of course that's not how it works. There are only so many events in a season so someone gets left out.

> > >

> > > That is how depth matters.

> > >

> > No one yet has made any compelling argument that field depth beyond the top 50-60 players means much of anything, and no one has made any compelling argument that today’s top 50-60 players are better than the top 50-60 during Jack’s career.

> >

>

> There were few, if any, tournaments that had all the best 50-60 players in the world during Jack's career.

>

 

Like a broken record...

[lowheel]

> @LICC said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > @"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.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Better breeding grounds....Korn Ferry Tour, better College facilities, Track man,, all kind of first Tee programs, plenty of sponsors.....etc....LOL!!

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > And what everyone is missing is that all these deeper fields don’t matter much when evaluating the top 2-3 to 50-60 players in the world. Hardly anyone outside of the top 60 ever wins an event where the top players are playing.

> > > >

> > > > Ask yourself this.

> > > >

> > > > Jack and TW go pro at the same time.

> > > >

> > > > Does Jack dominate?

> > > >

> > > > No.

> > > >

> > > > Does he get dominated?

> > > >

> > > > Maybe. In fact, according to Trevino and Watson,

> > > >

> > > > “Tigers better” “He’s the best”

> > > >

> > > > How does jack react to no longer being the best.

> > > >

> > > > He sure doesn’t win 18.

> > > >

> > > > This is the point of the deeper fields argument.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Saying Jack wouldn’t dominate if he played at the same time as Tiger because Tiger would dominate has nothing to do with deeper fields. And that is just your speculation. If the two best players of the last 60 years played at the same time, each would take wins from the other. And Gary Player says Jack was better.

> >

> > Guess what, your right. If Jack and Tiger played in their urine at the same time they would take wins away from each other. And they would take wins away from other players. Agreed?

> > So let's have a season where Jack and Tiger play... And both of their top 10 competitors play. So we have Jack and Tiger and 20 studs instead of just one of the elite and 10.

> > In this imaginary season do ALL of the players win as often as normal? No you say? Lol why not. These are the best of the best and they will get their wins no matter what say those that say field depth matters not.

> > But of course that's not how it works. There are only so many events in a season so someone gets left out.

> >

> > That is how depth matters.

> >

> No one yet has made any compelling argument that field depth beyond the top 50-60 players means much of anything, and no one has made any compelling argument that today’s top 50-60 players are better than the top 50-60 during Jack’s career.

>

 

And they wont... because it destroys their narrative

 

If you have to denigrate ones competition to elevate anothers accomplishments it wont end well.

[lowheel]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @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.

>

> Seve won the Open in 79 and the Masters in 80 and didn't play a PGA until 81. Would that happen today?

> If the Euros of the last 40 years never played in the US majors like most of them did not in the era before the 70's someone else would have the wins on their resume` that Faldo Seve Lyle Langer and company won. How does that not show that depth spreads the wins amongst more players?

 

Yeah at 22 he won after flirting with it as a 19 year old.right after thast he didnt miss any majors. Are you saying because he missed 2 pgas at age 21-22 it changed the outcomes? come on man. They all made those choices to stay. Seve to his credit trail blazed by becoming very popular here but he still hated stateside golf outside the masters

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @RobotDoctor said:

> > @"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.

 

So, the modern conveniences allow more modern players to get “over the hump”, but the modern fields are somehow NOT stronger? Do I have that right?

 

 

[Darth Putter]

> @lowheel said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @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.

> >

> > Seve won the Open in 79 and the Masters in 80 and didn't play a PGA until 81. Would that happen today?

> > If the Euros of the last 40 years never played in the US majors like most of them did not in the era before the 70's someone else would have the wins on their resume` that Faldo Seve Lyle Langer and company won. How does that not show that depth spreads the wins amongst more players?

>

> Yeah at 22 he won after flirting with it as a 19 year old.right after thast he didnt miss any majors. Are you saying because he missed 2 pgas at age 21-22 it changed the outcomes? come on man. They all made those choices to stay. Seve to his credit trail blazed by becoming very popular here but he still hated stateside golf outside the masters

 

Seve made the right call in staying out of Jack's way at the 1980 PGA at Oak Hill.

[lowheel]

> @"Darth Putter" said:

> > @lowheel said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > @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.

> > >

> > > Seve won the Open in 79 and the Masters in 80 and didn't play a PGA until 81. Would that happen today?

> > > If the Euros of the last 40 years never played in the US majors like most of them did not in the era before the 70's someone else would have the wins on their resume` that Faldo Seve Lyle Langer and company won. How does that not show that depth spreads the wins amongst more players?

> >

> > Yeah at 22 he won after flirting with it as a 19 year old.right after thast he didnt miss any majors. Are you saying because he missed 2 pgas at age 21-22 it changed the outcomes? come on man. They all made those choices to stay. Seve to his credit trail blazed by becoming very popular here but he still hated stateside golf outside the masters

>

> Seve made the right call in staying out of Jack's way at the 1980 PGA at Oak Hill.

 

Hey he only won by 7. Same as saying there was a secret group of golfers somewhere in the world who didnt play the US open in 2000 that would have stopped tigers 15 shot win!

[cdnglf]

> @"Darth Putter" said:

> > @cdnglf said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

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

> > > > > > > > > @"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.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Better breeding grounds....Korn Ferry Tour, better College facilities, Track man,, all kind of first Tee programs, plenty of sponsors.....etc....LOL!!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > And what everyone is missing is that all these deeper fields don’t matter much when evaluating the top 2-3 to 50-60 players in the world. Hardly anyone outside of the top 60 ever wins an event where the top players are playing.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Ask yourself this.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Jack and TW go pro at the same time.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Does Jack dominate?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > No.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Does he get dominated?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Maybe. In fact, according to Trevino and Watson,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > “Tigers better” “He’s the best”

> > > > > >

> > > > > > How does jack react to no longer being the best.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > He sure doesn’t win 18.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This is the point of the deeper fields argument.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Saying Jack wouldn’t dominate if he played at the same time as Tiger because Tiger would dominate has nothing to do with deeper fields. And that is just your speculation. If the two best players of the last 60 years played at the same time, each would take wins from the other. And Gary Player says Jack was better.

> > > >

> > > > Guess what, your right. If Jack and Tiger played in their urine at the same time they would take wins away from each other. And they would take wins away from other players. Agreed?

> > > > So let's have a season where Jack and Tiger play... And both of their top 10 competitors play. So we have Jack and Tiger and 20 studs instead of just one of the elite and 10.

> > > > In this imaginary season do ALL of the players win as often as normal? No you say? Lol why not. These are the best of the best and they will get their wins no matter what say those that say field depth matters not.

> > > > But of course that's not how it works. There are only so many events in a season so someone gets left out.

> > > >

> > > > That is how depth matters.

> > > >

> > > No one yet has made any compelling argument that field depth beyond the top 50-60 players means much of anything, and no one has made any compelling argument that today’s top 50-60 players are better than the top 50-60 during Jack’s career.

> > >

> >

> > There were few, if any, tournaments that had all the best 50-60 players in the world during Jack's career.

> >

>

> From 1946-1980, how many players in the Top 100 would not be playing on the PGA Tour? 10? 15?

>

> And most of the PGA Tour pros, since they weren't making Jack and Arnie money, played nearly every week.

>

> Is it possible that the normal fields from Los Angeles to Pensacola had more of the Top 100 every week then as opposed to now?

 

"From 1946-1980, how many players in the Top 100 would not be playing on the PGA Tour? 10? 15?"

 

Difficult to say... my knowledge of that era doesn't go 100 deep. Right after the war, maybe not even ten. Were there even 100 guys you could credibly call "professional golfers" in the world at that time? But by the 1970s, 10-15 might be right. By 1980, Seve was what... maybe the #2 player in the world after Watson?

 

"And most of the PGA Tour pros, since they weren't making Jack and Arnie money, played nearly every week."

 

I think that is a bit of an overstatement. More events than now probably, but I don't think the best players were playing 40+ times a year. I looked up Trevino as an example, and he played ~25-30 events per year in the early 70s, at a time when there were ~44 events/season.

 

 

"Is it possible that the normal fields from Los Angeles to Pensacola had more of the Top 100 every week then as opposed to now?"

 

Could be. But what does "normal field" mean today? Apart from the majors and the players, there are the have events (playoffs, WGCs, Memorial, Bay Hill, Riviera, and a few others), the have nots (ones that Zach Johnson wins), and a relative handful in the middle. Was there such a big divide in the 1960s and 70s? I don't know. If true, it also means that there were regular events with better fields than the PGA and the Open had.... which kind of makes you wonder why so many people are hung up on 18.

[RobotDoctor]

> @"Darth Putter" said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > @"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.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Better breeding grounds....Korn Ferry Tour, better College facilities, Track man,, all kind of first Tee programs, plenty of sponsors.....etc....LOL!!

> > >

> > >

> > > And what everyone is missing is that all these deeper fields don’t matter much when evaluating the top 2-3 to 50-60 players in the world. Hardly anyone outside of the top 60 ever wins an event where the top players are playing.

> >

> > Ask yourself this.

> >

> > Jack and TW go pro at the same time.

> >

> > Does Jack dominate?

> >

> > No.

> >

> > Does he get dominated?

> >

> > Maybe. In fact, according to Trevino and Watson,

> >

> > “Tigers better” “He’s the best”

> >

> > How does jack react to no longer being the best.

> >

> > He sure doesn’t win 18.

> >

> > This is the point of the deeper fields argument.

> >

> >

>

> What if Tiger shoots 270 at Augusta in 1997 and Jack shoots 268?

>

> We are talking about a guy that walked into Arnold's house at the 1962 US Open and beat the King.

>

> How does Tiger react to not being the best?

 

Remember that Nicklaus almost won the US Open as an amateur in 1960. Ben Hogan said Nicklaus should have won but that Nicklaus made some poor decisions. In 1960 Palmer was pretty much the pinnacle of professional golf.