Jack vs Tiger Major Win %

[RobotDoctor]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @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?

>

>

 

No, you again misinterpret what I am saying. Let me ask you something. Have you ever played with persimmon woods, Balata golf balls and non frequency matched steel shafts on lower tech forged irons? Forget graphite shafts because back then it was persimmon woods and steel shafts. That's a less forgiving club makeup. What I am saying is that modern equipment is much more forgiving so to be a great ball striker then is likely to be different than a great ball striker today. Today's equipment masks some flaws that equipment of years gone by simply did not. I'm certainly not saying there aren't a lot of good players today. There certainly are. What I am saying is that to dismiss players 40-50 years ago with the belief today's players are far superior is simply unsubstantiated. Life as a touring professional back 40-50 years ago was most definitely harder and few were financially secure. Also consider that course conditions are greatly improved today than it was prior to the 1980s. Everything now is perfect. That adds to great scoring. If we're going to compare Nicklaus and Woods or any of their contemporaries then compare the same conditions and equipment. Unfortunately it cannot be done.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @RobotDoctor said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @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?

> >

> >

>

> No, you again misinterpret what I am saying. Let me ask you something. Have you ever played with persimmon woods, Balata golf balls and non frequency matched steel shafts on lower tech forged irons? Forget graphite shafts because back then it was persimmon woods and steel shafts. That's a less forgiving club makeup. What I am saying is that modern equipment is much more forgiving so to be a great ball striker then is likely to be different than a great ball striker today. Today's equipment masks some flaws that equipment of years gone by simply did not. I'm certainly not saying there aren't a lot of good players today. There certainly are. What I am saying is that to dismiss players 40-50 years ago with the belief today's players are far superior is simply unsubstantiated. Life as a touring professional back 40-50 years ago was most definitely harder and few were financially secure. Also consider that course conditions are greatly improved today than it was prior to the 1980s. Everything now is perfect. That adds to great scoring. If we're going to compare Nicklaus and Woods or any of their contemporaries then compare the same conditions and equipment. Unfortunately it cannot be done.

 

No, I understand your point that equipment can narrow the gap between a marginal ball striker and an elite ball striker. It’s true. What I don’t understand is how one can then argue that fields aren’t stronger now despite the narrowing of that gap.

 

PS: I played a wood/blades/Tour Balata 100 for many years. Some People act like that era was 40 years ago when it was honestly the mid 1990s for a lot of us.

 

EDIT: RoboDoc, it occurred to me that we might be talking past one another. I’m not trying to say the guys these days are better than back in the day. My point is just that the fields are deeper because more people can win any given tournament partly DUE TO the equipment dynamic you describe, and upon which you and I agree. I mean, think of it this way: If, beginning in 2000, players who ranked outside of the top 50 in ball striking were allowed two mulligans per round, we wouldn’t use that to conclude that modern players are “better”, but we would probably all agree that more players would have a chance to win nowadays, and thus, the fields would be deeper. Maybe that helps us to find common ground, maybe not.

 

 

[JAMH03]

There are so many poor arguments here, logical fallacies based on half truths... Math can be a universal language why can't we find common ground there?

 


 

[JAMH03]

Why can't we measure what we believe the strengths of fields were? Or winning %'s of other greats out of each of these era's?

[JAMH03]

To me the math concerning depth of fields, quality of play, dominance, number of players playing world wide, is very compelling.

 

When you add in that Augusta changed their course so much that they got fluke winners and became a left handed haven. It's clear something was up there. Pitch a fit if you want to the data and outcomes prove this out.

 

Balance to that for me is that with Jack's preeminent excellence in terms of major top 5's TW never had much of a chance to sniff that probably after 2005 or so. On average even if TW kept at his 29% win rate he was never going to be near Jacks top 5's.

 

Mathematically being in 2nd is much closer to winning than being 10th so I personally find that argument very strong. I wonder if that at all makes the argument that JN was significantly better than lesser fields and therefore near the top more often? I'd hazard that it might. Though now I've just lost a bunch of pseudo friends on this thread. :/

 

[JAMH03]

Moreover I'd theorize that winning more often vs potentially greater competition and certain more competition there is no arguing the number of full time tour players, international depth, nor total golfers, nor scoring averages.

 

Though I fully grant that the PGA tour sets up most tournaments, that the triplex mowers have changed agronomy, that technology and knowledge allows for a different style of play. Lob wedges golf balls etc all.

TW benefited incredibly from having almost ideal launch characteristics with his steel shafted woods. As well as his best season being heavily impacted by him having ball tech that other tour pros didn't get until the next year. That Jack's golf ball was inferior to the balls of its day most likely. Fully grant those points.

 

Lot to unpack there but I'm just getting warmed up I have more to say.

 

[JAMH03]

I'd theorize that TW winning more vs what I believe are stronger fields means he was a better golfer relative to his peers. And in my OPINION greatest to golf relative to his time. Though I don't think that's the entire picture. If Majors are the standard... Then Jack clearly has the greatest Open era results of all time. Including TW.

 

I have no problem giving Jack his due and or cooling my jets on what I think TW is due.

 

Where I take umbrage is when the logic and or math is bad. I don't hate the 60's-70's-80's nor do I think they were somehow unworthy. But I'd like to look at things as fairly as I can.

 

[JAMH03]

Back to math, I love math, though I'm not so good at it. To me it seems if we have a mathematical way to determine 1 and 2 then by the same standards we ought to have 3-4-5 at least? That's one rubric by which we can see the weaknesses in our evaluations.

[A.Princey]

Wow, this little thread I created a couple months ago has really gone off the rails!

[A.Princey]

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

[LICC]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @RobotDoctor said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > @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?

> > >

> > >

> >

> > No, you again misinterpret what I am saying. Let me ask you something. Have you ever played with persimmon woods, Balata golf balls and non frequency matched steel shafts on lower tech forged irons? Forget graphite shafts because back then it was persimmon woods and steel shafts. That's a less forgiving club makeup. What I am saying is that modern equipment is much more forgiving so to be a great ball striker then is likely to be different than a great ball striker today. Today's equipment masks some flaws that equipment of years gone by simply did not. I'm certainly not saying there aren't a lot of good players today. There certainly are. What I am saying is that to dismiss players 40-50 years ago with the belief today's players are far superior is simply unsubstantiated. Life as a touring professional back 40-50 years ago was most definitely harder and few were financially secure. Also consider that course conditions are greatly improved today than it was prior to the 1980s. Everything now is perfect. That adds to great scoring. If we're going to compare Nicklaus and Woods or any of their contemporaries then compare the same conditions and equipment. Unfortunately it cannot be done.

>

> No, I understand your point that equipment can narrow the gap between a marginal ball striker and an elite ball striker. It’s true. What I don’t understand is how one can then argue that fields aren’t stronger now despite the narrowing of that gap.

>

> PS: I played a wood/blades/Tour Balata 100 for many years. Some People act like that era was 40 years ago when it was honestly the mid 1990s for a lot of us.

>

> EDIT: RoboDoc, it occurred to me that we might be talking past one another. I’m not trying to say the guys these days are better than back in the day. My point is just that the fields are deeper because more people can win any given tournament partly DUE TO the equipment dynamic you describe, and upon which you and I agree. I mean, think of it this way: If, beginning in 2000, players who ranked outside of the top 50 in ball striking were allowed two mulligans per round, we wouldn’t use that to conclude that modern players are “better”, but we would probably all agree that more players would have a chance to win nowadays, and thus, the fields would be deeper. Maybe that helps us to find common ground, maybe not.

>

>

 

But more people aren’t winning. The winners of almost every significant tournament (ie not the swing season or tournaments held at the same times as WGCs, etc) come from the top 50-60 players. The added depth after the top 1/4 or so of players doesn’t matter much.

[LICC]

> @JAMH03 said:

> To me the math concerning depth of fields, quality of play, dominance, number of players playing world wide, is very compelling.

>

> When you add in that Augusta changed their course so much that they got fluke winners and became a left handed haven. It's clear something was up there. Pitch a fit if you want to the data and outcomes prove this out.

>

> Balance to that for me is that with Jack's preeminent excellence in terms of major top 5's TW never had much of a chance to sniff that probably after 2005 or so. On average even if TW kept at his 29% win rate he was never going to be near Jacks top 5's.

>

> Mathematically being in 2nd is much closer to winning than being 10th so I personally find that argument very strong. I wonder if that at all makes the argument that JN was significantly better than lesser fields and therefore near the top more often? I'd hazard that it might. Though now I've just lost a bunch of pseudo friends on this thread. :/

>

 

 

What data and outcomes? I’ve seen nothing compelling to suggest the top 50-60 players are better now than in Jack’s time or that better players after the top 60 makes any significant difference to success by the very top players. None. And Tiger didn’t stop finishing in the top 5 as frequently as in his peak years because the bottom of the fields got stronger. It’s because his body changed and his swing changed and he became very streaky with his driver accuracy.

[LICC]

> @"A.Princey" said:

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

 

 

What large city schools have superior results to their adjacent suburban schools?? I don’t think that is the case at all. Certainly not in NY.

[LICC]

> @JAMH03 said:

> I'd theorize that TW winning more vs what I believe are stronger fields means he was a better golfer relative to his peers. And in my OPINION greatest to golf relative to his time. Though I don't think that's the entire picture. If Majors are the standard... Then Jack clearly has the greatest Open era results of all time. Including TW.

>

> I have no problem giving Jack his due and or cooling my jets on what I think TW is due.

>

> Where I take umbrage is when the logic and or math is bad. I don't hate the 60's-70's-80's nor do I think they were somehow unworthy. But I'd like to look at things as fairly as I can.

>

 

 

I agree with you that Tiger was the GOAT of the modern era but for different reasons. I give no credence to the depth of field argument and it’s not necessary to do so. Tiger’s 2000 season, and his 1999-2002 and 2006-2008 seasons were the most dominant and incredible golf ever played. I put more weight to that than to Jack’s longevity of excellence. I just think it’s silly to try to discount Jack’s accomplishments with a deficient strength of field theory.

[JAMH03]

> @"A.Princey" said:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[JAMH03]

> @LICC said:

> > @JAMH03 said:

> > To me the math concerning depth of fields, quality of play, dominance, number of players playing world wide, is very compelling.

> >

> > When you add in that Augusta changed their course so much that they got fluke winners and became a left handed haven. It's clear something was up there. Pitch a fit if you want to the data and outcomes prove this out.

> >

> > Balance to that for me is that with Jack's preeminent excellence in terms of major top 5's TW never had much of a chance to sniff that probably after 2005 or so. On average even if TW kept at his 29% win rate he was never going to be near Jacks top 5's.

> >

> > Mathematically being in 2nd is much closer to winning than being 10th so I personally find that argument very strong. I wonder if that at all makes the argument that JN was significantly better than lesser fields and therefore near the top more often? I'd hazard that it might. Though now I've just lost a bunch of pseudo friends on this thread. :/

> >

>

>

> What data and outcomes? I’ve seen nothing compelling to suggest the top 50-60 players are better now than in Jack’s time or that better players after the top 60 makes any significant difference to success by the very top players. None. And Tiger didn’t stop finishing in the top 5 as frequently as in his peak years because the bottom of the fields got stronger. It’s because his body changed and his swing changed and he became very streaky with his driver accuracy.

 

Respectfully disagree. Last I checked and this was some years ago Tiger was probably off pace for top 5's and 10's as far back as early 2000's

 

I think the argument your making concerning similar levels of success from the top 50-60 is interesting but I'm not sure how compelling it is for me.

 

I think we're at the place where we need to start measuring. (Ugh work!) Ironically enough that's what I was asking for a few days ago.

[JAMH03]

> @LICC said:

> > @JAMH03 said:

> > I'd theorize that TW winning more vs what I believe are stronger fields means he was a better golfer relative to his peers. And in my OPINION greatest to golf relative to his time. Though I don't think that's the entire picture. If Majors are the standard... Then Jack clearly has the greatest Open era results of all time. Including TW.

> >

> > I have no problem giving Jack his due and or cooling my jets on what I think TW is due.

> >

> > Where I take umbrage is when the logic and or math is bad. I don't hate the 60's-70's-80's nor do I think they were somehow unworthy. But I'd like to look at things as fairly as I can.

> >

>

>

> I agree with you that Tiger was the GOAT of the modern era but for different reasons. I give no credence to the depth of field argument and it’s not necessary to do so. Tiger’s 2000 season, and his 1999-2002 and 2006-2008 seasons were the most dominant and incredible golf ever played. I put more weight to that than to Jack’s longevity of excellence. I just think it’s silly to try to discount Jack’s accomplishments with a deficient strength of field theory.

 

I understand what you're saying and it's headed towards a slight disagreement philosophically.

We're starting to differ in some important ways other than just our conclusions.

For me when deciding who I think was the greatest I don't care as much about one excellent season. The way I look at greatness in team sports is simple and has worked for me for a long time.

 

Excellence over time and contributions to winning efforts.

For a singular GOAT in an individual sport that's where I'd start as well.

 

As we look at who Jack played against to amass his CV I have zero compunction about denigrating the strength of his fields.

 

Part time players may be "hungrier" but they don't practice as much. There were less people playing and they were not playing as well.

 

The question to me is not were they worse at posting low rounds than the fields from 96-2008 but how much worse? And I very much respect what's gone on before me and my time. I am in NO WAY saying a player ought to get FULL CREDIT for being able to stand on the shoulders of those that have come before him I don't believe that.

 

Which is why I mentioned Tigers' ball in 2000... I haven't even spoken to being on the extremely favorable side of the draws a few times. Rub of the green.

 

Just because I believe the competition is more stringent now doesn't mean I don't love what Casper, Player, Watson, Trevino have contributed to the game. I really do. I recall checking YEARS ago and realizing that Watson didn't really even slow Jack up very much.

 

To me it doesn't mean that Jack may not have the better resume or been more dominant but it is how I see the level of play say from 62-86

 

Records of longevity are the most valued because they are the hardest to come by. Jack absolutely has that going for him.

[JAMH03]

One of the bits of data that was very impactful for me was the the players with the most PGA tour wins sorted by birth year.

 

Might sound pedantic to some but bare with me.

 

All the guys that won the most were born a relatively long time ago.

 

Of the top 34 ever only 9? are born after Jack. 25% give or take? Watson had 75% of his career winning over with in 1983 by age 33. TW was 7 years old that year.

 

70 year Tom Watson old is the 8th YOUNGEST guy on the list.

 

Very very few born in the last 50-60 years... Interestingly they are the players we know to be the best.

 

TW

Phil

Vijay

 

Davis You go DL! Everystep I take!

DJ Whoa! Put some respect on his name he's incredible!

 

Since we have double the number of exempt players and who knows how many more tournaments. Stands to reason that the distribution ought to look different if it was nearly as easy, or easier to win on the PGA tour in from whenever till the guys in Jacks group stopped winning

 

Greg Norman and Doug Sanders got cut off.

 

GN #9 in the last 34 I believe born in 1955 Sanders in 1933

 

Now I could've looked deeper at that list but why? The guys with the most wins were born before 1940 and the pattern is strong.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_golfers_with_most_PGA_Tour_wins

 

[JAMH03]

> @JAMH03 said:

> One of the bits of data that was very impactful for me was the the players with the most PGA tour wins sorted by birth year.

>

> Might sound pedantic to some but bare with me.

>

> All the guys that won the most were born a relatively long time ago.

>

> Of the top 34 ever only 9? are born after Jack. 25% give or take? Watson had 75% of his career winning over with in 1983 by age 33. TW was 7 years old that year.

>

> 70 year Tom Watson old is the 8th YOUNGEST guy on the list.

>

> Very very few born in the last 50-60 years... Interestingly they are the players we know to be the best.

>

> TW

> Phil

> Vijay

>

> Davis You go DL! Everystep I take!

> DJ Whoa! Put some respect on his name he's incredible!

>

> Since we have double the number of exempt players and who knows how many more tournaments. Stands to reason that the distribution ought to look different if it was nearly as easy, or easier to win on the PGA tour in from whenever till the guys in Jacks group stopped winning

>

> Greg Norman and Doug Sanders got cut off.

>

> GN #9 in the last 34 I believe born in 1955 Sanders in 1933

>

> Now I could've looked deeper at that list but why? The guys with the most wins were born before 1940 and the pattern is strong.

>

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_golfers_with_most_PGA_Tour_wins

>

>

>

 

As an aside there are some strong implications to this list that have nothing to do with TW or Jack and their winning %'s so this is a different topic here.

 

I think the fact that of the 9 "modern era" golfers on the list... Big stretch but what can I do?

 

Is a golfer who peaked 35 years ago truly a modern golfer when the normal sports generation is 3-5 years?

 

And even in golf the generations when looked at like this are bigger but realistically none of us see the 2 youngest guys here as the same generation DJ and TW.

 

As we compare the modern greats it's pretty much understood a golf generation is 3-5 years as well.

 

But of modern golf's greatest winners why are so many of them considered underachievers?

 

I think it's safe to say that most "modern" golf fans feel like. Norman, DL3, DJ, all ought to have won more big ones. Many feel the same about TW and Phil

 

More likely that these players were great and lost to other good players playing well than half of the winningest golfers of the last 50 years were "choke artists"

 

Johnny Miller can be a choke artist if he wants.

 

Now I can imagine the response is going to be that's just the modern media... Sure but why are so few of the old time greats or Jacks contemporaries labeled the same?

[LICC]

> @JAMH03 said:

> > @JAMH03 said:

> > One of the bits of data that was very impactful for me was the the players with the most PGA tour wins sorted by birth year.

> >

> > Might sound pedantic to some but bare with me.

> >

> > All the guys that won the most were born a relatively long time ago.

> >

> > Of the top 34 ever only 9? are born after Jack. 25% give or take? Watson had 75% of his career winning over with in 1983 by age 33. TW was 7 years old that year.

> >

> > 70 year Tom Watson old is the 8th YOUNGEST guy on the list.

> >

> > Very very few born in the last 50-60 years... Interestingly they are the players we know to be the best.

> >

> > TW

> > Phil

> > Vijay

> >

> > Davis You go DL! Everystep I take!

> > DJ Whoa! Put some respect on his name he's incredible!

> >

> > Since we have double the number of exempt players and who knows how many more tournaments. Stands to reason that the distribution ought to look different if it was nearly as easy, or easier to win on the PGA tour in from whenever till the guys in Jacks group stopped winning

> >

> > Greg Norman and Doug Sanders got cut off.

> >

> > GN #9 in the last 34 I believe born in 1955 Sanders in 1933

> >

> > Now I could've looked deeper at that list but why? The guys with the most wins were born before 1940 and the pattern is strong.

> >

> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_golfers_with_most_PGA_Tour_wins

> >

> >

> >

>

> As an aside there are some strong implications to this list that have nothing to do with TW or Jack and their winning %'s so this is a different topic here.

>

> I think the fact that of the 9 "modern era" golfers on the list... Big stretch but what can I do?

>

> Is a golfer who peaked 35 years ago truly a modern golfer when the normal sports generation is 3-5 years?

>

> And even in golf the generations when looked at like this are bigger but realistically none of us see the 2 youngest guys here as the same generation DJ and TW.

>

> As we compare the modern greats it's pretty much understood a golf generation is 3-5 years as well.

>

> But of modern golf's greatest winners why are so many of them considered underachievers?

>

> I think it's safe to say that most "modern" golf fans feel like. Norman, DL3, DJ, all ought to have won more big ones. Many feel the same about TW and Phil

>

> More likely that these players were great and lost to other good players playing well than half of the winningest golfers of the last 50 years were "choke artists"

>

> Johnny Miller can be a choke artist if he wants.

>

> Now I can imagine the response is going to be that's just the modern media... Sure but why are so few of the old time greats or Jacks contemporaries labeled the same?

 

By my count on that list, there are roughly the same number of golfers born between 1912-1940 with ten wins as golfers born after 1955 with ten wins.

[LICC]

> @JAMH03 said:

> > @JAMH03 said:

> > One of the bits of data that was very impactful for me was the the players with the most PGA tour wins sorted by birth year.

> >

> > Might sound pedantic to some but bare with me.

> >

> > All the guys that won the most were born a relatively long time ago.

> >

> > Of the top 34 ever only 9? are born after Jack. 25% give or take? Watson had 75% of his career winning over with in 1983 by age 33. TW was 7 years old that year.

> >

> > 70 year Tom Watson old is the 8th YOUNGEST guy on the list.

> >

> > Very very few born in the last 50-60 years... Interestingly they are the players we know to be the best.

> >

> > TW

> > Phil

> > Vijay

> >

> > Davis You go DL! Everystep I take!

> > DJ Whoa! Put some respect on his name he's incredible!

> >

> > Since we have double the number of exempt players and who knows how many more tournaments. Stands to reason that the distribution ought to look different if it was nearly as easy, or easier to win on the PGA tour in from whenever till the guys in Jacks group stopped winning

> >

> > Greg Norman and Doug Sanders got cut off.

> >

> > GN #9 in the last 34 I believe born in 1955 Sanders in 1933

> >

> > Now I could've looked deeper at that list but why? The guys with the most wins were born before 1940 and the pattern is strong.

> >

> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_golfers_with_most_PGA_Tour_wins

> >

> >

> >

>

> As an aside there are some strong implications to this list that have nothing to do with TW or Jack and their winning %'s so this is a different topic here.

>

> I think the fact that of the 9 "modern era" golfers on the list... Big stretch but what can I do?

>

> Is a golfer who peaked 35 years ago truly a modern golfer when the normal sports generation is 3-5 years?

>

> And even in golf the generations when looked at like this are bigger but realistically none of us see the 2 youngest guys here as the same generation DJ and TW.

>

> As we compare the modern greats it's pretty much understood a golf generation is 3-5 years as well.

>

> But of modern golf's greatest winners why are so many of them considered underachievers?

>

> I think it's safe to say that most "modern" golf fans feel like. Norman, DL3, DJ, all ought to have won more big ones. Many feel the same about TW and Phil

>

> More likely that these players were great and lost to other good players playing well than half of the winningest golfers of the last 50 years were "choke artists"

>

> Johnny Miller can be a choke artist if he wants.

>

> Now I can imagine the response is going to be that's just the modern media... Sure but why are so few of the old time greats or Jacks contemporaries labeled the same?

 

I will say that WWII was an anomaly and any wins during the war years warrant adjustment

[RobotDoctor]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @RobotDoctor said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > @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?

> > >

> > >

> >

> > No, you again misinterpret what I am saying. Let me ask you something. Have you ever played with persimmon woods, Balata golf balls and non frequency matched steel shafts on lower tech forged irons? Forget graphite shafts because back then it was persimmon woods and steel shafts. That's a less forgiving club makeup. What I am saying is that modern equipment is much more forgiving so to be a great ball striker then is likely to be different than a great ball striker today. Today's equipment masks some flaws that equipment of years gone by simply did not. I'm certainly not saying there aren't a lot of good players today. There certainly are. What I am saying is that to dismiss players 40-50 years ago with the belief today's players are far superior is simply unsubstantiated. Life as a touring professional back 40-50 years ago was most definitely harder and few were financially secure. Also consider that course conditions are greatly improved today than it was prior to the 1980s. Everything now is perfect. That adds to great scoring. If we're going to compare Nicklaus and Woods or any of their contemporaries then compare the same conditions and equipment. Unfortunately it cannot be done.

>

> No, I understand your point that equipment can narrow the gap between a marginal ball striker and an elite ball striker. It’s true. What I don’t understand is how one can then argue that fields aren’t stronger now despite the narrowing of that gap.

>

> PS: I played a wood/blades/Tour Balata 100 for many years. Some People act like that era was 40 years ago when it was honestly the mid 1990s for a lot of us.

>

> EDIT: RoboDoc, it occurred to me that we might be talking past one another. I’m not trying to say the guys these days are better than back in the day. My point is just that the fields are deeper because more people can win any given tournament partly DUE TO the equipment dynamic you describe, and upon which you and I agree. I mean, think of it this way: If, beginning in 2000, players who ranked outside of the top 50 in ball striking were allowed two mulligans per round, we wouldn’t use that to conclude that modern players are “better”, but we would probably all agree that more players would have a chance to win nowadays, and thus, the fields would be deeper. Maybe that helps us to find common ground, maybe not.

>

>

 

I definitely agree that as a whole the talent level of golfers today may be better than years ago. I can concede that maybe the fields might be deeper but several things contribute to that. Golf is a lot more popular today than it was 40-50 years ago. Golf came to the masses. Junior golf, ample availability of public courses, driving ranges, amateur tournaments, high school golf, college golf and facilities, mini tour access, better equipment, turf conditions, etc, etc, etc.

 

Golf went from an "elitist" game to the game for the common man. I also believe in the Tiger Woods affect. Tiger brought a lot of people to the game. It's ironic that Tiger is now competing against the very same players he inspired to start playing the game.

 

You're right, we may be talking past each other. I think we might now be on the same page. I will say regardless that there are a lot of really good players on tour today. Cheers.

[RobotDoctor]

> @"A.Princey" said:

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

 

 

There are also several million more golfers. And I'm not taking single digit millions, it's double digit millions around the world.

[bscinstnct]

> @LICC said:

> > @"A.Princey" said:

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

>

>

> What large city schools have superior results to their adjacent suburban schools?? I don’t think that is the case at all. Certainly not in NY.

 

He is talking about the impact of a larger talent pool on the quality and number of good athletes on competition.

 

To underline how a larger talent pool does this,

 

Look at the impact of South Korean golfers on women’s golf.

 

 

[JAMH03]

> @LICC said:

> > @JAMH03 said:

> > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > One of the bits of data that was very impactful for me was the the players with the most PGA tour wins sorted by birth year.

> > >

> > > Might sound pedantic to some but bare with me.

> > >

> > > All the guys that won the most were born a relatively long time ago.

> > >

> > > Of the top 34 ever only 9? are born after Jack. 25% give or take? Watson had 75% of his career winning over with in 1983 by age 33. TW was 7 years old that year.

> > >

> > > 70 year Tom Watson old is the 8th YOUNGEST guy on the list.

> > >

> > > Very very few born in the last 50-60 years... Interestingly they are the players we know to be the best.

> > >

> > > TW

> > > Phil

> > > Vijay

> > >

> > > Davis You go DL! Everystep I take!

> > > DJ Whoa! Put some respect on his name he's incredible!

> > >

> > > Since we have double the number of exempt players and who knows how many more tournaments. Stands to reason that the distribution ought to look different if it was nearly as easy, or easier to win on the PGA tour in from whenever till the guys in Jacks group stopped winning

> > >

> > > Greg Norman and Doug Sanders got cut off.

> > >

> > > GN #9 in the last 34 I believe born in 1955 Sanders in 1933

> > >

> > > Now I could've looked deeper at that list but why? The guys with the most wins were born before 1940 and the pattern is strong.

> > >

> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_golfers_with_most_PGA_Tour_wins

> > >

> > >

> > >

>

> By my count on that list, there are roughly the same number of golfers born between 1912-1940 with ten wins as golfers born after 1955 with ten wins.

 

Not sure I understand the implications of this comment, can you explain it to me?

 

"By my count on that list, there are roughly the same number of golfers born between 1912-1940 with ten wins as golfers born after 1955 with ten wins."

 

 

[LICC]

> @JAMH03 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > One of the bits of data that was very impactful for me was the the players with the most PGA tour wins sorted by birth year.

> > > >

> > > > Might sound pedantic to some but bare with me.

> > > >

> > > > All the guys that won the most were born a relatively long time ago.

> > > >

> > > > Of the top 34 ever only 9? are born after Jack. 25% give or take? Watson had 75% of his career winning over with in 1983 by age 33. TW was 7 years old that year.

> > > >

> > > > 70 year Tom Watson old is the 8th YOUNGEST guy on the list.

> > > >

> > > > Very very few born in the last 50-60 years... Interestingly they are the players we know to be the best.

> > > >

> > > > TW

> > > > Phil

> > > > Vijay

> > > >

> > > > Davis You go DL! Everystep I take!

> > > > DJ Whoa! Put some respect on his name he's incredible!

> > > >

> > > > Since we have double the number of exempt players and who knows how many more tournaments. Stands to reason that the distribution ought to look different if it was nearly as easy, or easier to win on the PGA tour in from whenever till the guys in Jacks group stopped winning

> > > >

> > > > Greg Norman and Doug Sanders got cut off.

> > > >

> > > > GN #9 in the last 34 I believe born in 1955 Sanders in 1933

> > > >

> > > > Now I could've looked deeper at that list but why? The guys with the most wins were born before 1940 and the pattern is strong.

> > > >

> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_golfers_with_most_PGA_Tour_wins

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> >

> > By my count on that list, there are roughly the same number of golfers born between 1912-1940 with ten wins as golfers born after 1955 with ten wins.

>

> Not sure I understand the implications of this comment, can you explain it to me?

>

> "By my count on that list, there are roughly the same number of golfers born between 1912-1940 with ten wins as golfers born after 1955 with ten wins."

>

>

 

First, your numbers are off. It’s 11 of 38, not 9 of 34. Though not sure why you cut it off there. If you move to the next number it is 15 of 43. And if you expand out to 10 wins, there are roughly the same number of golfers who played from the start of Jack’s career as who started their careers from 1980 or so on.

[dlygrisse]

> @JAMH03 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > One of the bits of data that was very impactful for me was the the players with the most PGA tour wins sorted by birth year.

> > > >

> > > > Might sound pedantic to some but bare with me.

> > > >

> > > > All the guys that won the most were born a relatively long time ago.

> > > >

> > > > Of the top 34 ever only 9? are born after Jack. 25% give or take? Watson had 75% of his career winning over with in 1983 by age 33. TW was 7 years old that year.

> > > >

> > > > 70 year Tom Watson old is the 8th YOUNGEST guy on the list.

> > > >

> > > > Very very few born in the last 50-60 years... Interestingly they are the players we know to be the best.

> > > >

> > > > TW

> > > > Phil

> > > > Vijay

> > > >

> > > > Davis You go DL! Everystep I take!

> > > > DJ Whoa! Put some respect on his name he's incredible!

> > > >

> > > > Since we have double the number of exempt players and who knows how many more tournaments. Stands to reason that the distribution ought to look different if it was nearly as easy, or easier to win on the PGA tour in from whenever till the guys in Jacks group stopped winning

> > > >

> > > > Greg Norman and Doug Sanders got cut off.

> > > >

> > > > GN #9 in the last 34 I believe born in 1955 Sanders in 1933

> > > >

> > > > Now I could've looked deeper at that list but why? The guys with the most wins were born before 1940 and the pattern is strong.

> > > >

> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_golfers_with_most_PGA_Tour_wins

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> >

> > By my count on that list, there are roughly the same number of golfers born between 1912-1940 with ten wins as golfers born after 1955 with ten wins.

>

> Not sure I understand the implications of this comment, can you explain it to me?

>

> "By my count on that list, there are roughly the same number of golfers born between 1912-1940 with ten wins as golfers born after 1955 with ten wins."

>

>

The problem with your theory is that you can’t compare Arnies era to Hagan’s to Hogan’s. Each era had its big winners. Lumping all the big winners into one era to compare to the current one is misguided. The current era has Tiger, Phil, Vijay and some more coming.

 

[youdamantiger]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @Golfnutgalen said:

> >

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

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

> >

>

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

>

>

 

It wouldn't pretzel me. He would be the GOAT no question. Folks don't remember the fact that Walter Hagen won the 1916 Shawnee Open. They remember the five PGA championships he won and the four British Opens. Folks don't remember Bobby Jones for winning the 1928 Warren K. Wood Memorial Tournament. They remember him for the Grand Slam. Outside of fanatics like us, few casual golf fans know how many tour wins Nicklaus has, but they do know he's got 18 majors. Majors have always been the benchmark for greatness since the days of hickory shafts and guttys. Every player knew that to be able to write his name into the history books, to be an immortal, he had to win majors.

 

Brooks Koepka obviously has the talent to win more regular Tour events, but he chooses to focus on majors because he knows that's what people 50 years from now will remember him for. This obsession with total number of wins is of very recent vintage. Curiously it became a thing right around 2010 when Tiger went into a prolonged slump from winning majors. Odd coincidence, that.

 

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @Golfnutgalen said:

> > >

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

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

> > >

> >

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

> >

> >

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

>

 

I have to say it's hilarious seeing a Tiger partisan talk about moving the goalposts.

[JAMH03]

 

 

@dlygrisse

> >

> The problem with your theory is that you can’t compare Arnies era to Hagan’s to Hogan’s. Each era had its big winners. Lumping all the big winners into one era to compare to the current one is misguided. The current era has Tiger, Phil, Vijay and some more coming.

>

 

 

 

 

 

The whole point of the post is to compare winning %'s in majors from a player who started winning in 1962? and stopped in 1986 to one who started winning Majors in 1997 and won his last in 2019?

 

Can't understand why comparing era's would be verboten now?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JAMH03]

> @LICC said:

> > @JAMH03 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > > @JAMH03 said:

> > > > > One of the bits of data that was very impactful for me was the the players with the most PGA tour wins sorted by birth year.

> > > > >

> > > > > Might sound pedantic to some but bare with me.

> > > > >

> > > > > All the guys that won the most were born a relatively long time ago.

> > > > >

> > > > > Of the top 34 ever only 9? are born after Jack. 25% give or take? Watson had 75% of his career winning over with in 1983 by age 33. TW was 7 years old that year.

> > > > >

> > > > > 70 year Tom Watson old is the 8th YOUNGEST guy on the list.

> > > > >

> > > > > Very very few born in the last 50-60 years... Interestingly they are the players we know to be the best.

> > > > >

> > > > > TW

> > > > > Phil

> > > > > Vijay

> > > > >

> > > > > Davis You go DL! Everystep I take!

> > > > > DJ Whoa! Put some respect on his name he's incredible!

> > > > >

> > > > > Since we have double the number of exempt players and who knows how many more tournaments. Stands to reason that the distribution ought to look different if it was nearly as easy, or easier to win on the PGA tour in from whenever till the guys in Jacks group stopped winning

> > > > >

> > > > > Greg Norman and Doug Sanders got cut off.

> > > > >

> > > > > GN #9 in the last 34 I believe born in 1955 Sanders in 1933

> > > > >

> > > > > Now I could've looked deeper at that list but why? The guys with the most wins were born before 1940 and the pattern is strong.

> > > > >

> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_golfers_with_most_PGA_Tour_wins

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > By my count on that list, there are roughly the same number of golfers born between 1912-1940 with ten wins as golfers born after 1955 with ten wins.

> >

> > Not sure I understand the implications of this comment, can you explain it to me?

> >

> > "By my count on that list, there are roughly the same number of golfers born between 1912-1940 with ten wins as golfers born after 1955 with ten wins."

> >

> >

>

> First, your numbers are off. It’s 11 of 38, not 9 of 34. Though not sure why you cut it off there. If you move to the next number it is 15 of 43. And if you expand out to 10 wins, there are roughly the same number of golfers who played from the start of Jack’s career as who started their careers from 1980 or so on.

 

Yes it's 11 sorry. Johnny M. & Raymond.