Greatest male player ever

[tstephen]

[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1380679468' post='7940535']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380677667' post='7940383']
Being a great golfer is like being a great artist. Composers, painters, sculptors, and golfers are in the same class. Better yet Brock, since you are a literary scholar, are there also so many more great writers today?

I would still start any MLB team today with Mays, Mantle, and Clemente in the outfield and Koufax, Gibson, Ryan, and Seaver as my starting rotation. I could complete the team with whatever players were left in today's draft and I am going to The World Series.

Football players are so much bigger and faster today. Let me ask a 2 year old why that is true?
[/quote]

And do you think the rosters of major league baseball team were as strong top to bottom as they are now? Sure, there were some great players back then, but the rosters were nowhere near as strong as they are today. There were players who can dominate, but there was a huge talent drop off from the top players to the rest.

Just like in golf, there were some great players at the top during jack's era, but there were fewer players who had the potential to win. When there are fewer players who have the potential to win, then the top players end up winning more.
[/quote]

Exactly. That is my point. I would probably do better today completing my team. Even so, what 3 outfielders and 4 starters from the last 25 years would you pick for the core of your team before going to the draft? Steroid free or not?

Still, there are so many more great players from the 60s and 70s then you realize. Mac O'Grady was one of the best ball strikers ever. Even left handed he shot a 66 at Rancho Park where they used to play The LA Open. It took him 17 attempts at q-school to finally earn his card. In some ways the 2nd tour has given golf the appearance of more good players since it has given an opportunity for more players to make a living playing golf.

First tee or not. Golf was way cheaper back in the 60s and it paved way for a ton of very good young players. The junior club I belonged to 1970-72 was $10 to join, $4 a month limited to afternoon play only on weekends. $58 for all that golf plus 4 tournaments and a 5th regional event for the best in each age group. In my teens, a course that hosted a Champions Tour event for years was $3 for the entire day. Kids that played golf played golf a lot.

Seve had only a 3 iron when he was young. Langer's shortest club was a 7 iron. Daly had to learn to play with a driver as big as him. Most of the players before Jack had to work on their own clubs. Palmer and Hogan corked there drivers themselves and Jack had his clubs back weighted. They played by feel and not by over tuning the basics to death like players do today.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380681621' post='7940713']
Seve had only a 3 iron when he was young. Langer's shortest club was a 7 iron. Daly had to learn to play with a driver as big as him. Most of the players before Jack had to work on their own clubs. Palmer and Hogan corked there drivers themselves and Jack had his clubs back weighted. They played by feel and not by over tuning the basics to death like players do today.
[/quote]

Great, next we'll hear from Augie: "In my day, we didn't have clubs. We used our fists."

[tstephen]

Please let me know if I have said something not factual. I like cats, but I am not a lion, cheetah, or Tiger.

[gusmahler]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380681621' post='7940713']
[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1380679468' post='7940535']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380677667' post='7940383']
Being a great golfer is like being a great artist. Composers, painters, sculptors, and golfers are in the same class. Better yet Brock, since you are a literary scholar, are there also so many more great writers today?

I would still start any MLB team today with Mays, Mantle, and Clemente in the outfield and Koufax, Gibson, Ryan, and Seaver as my starting rotation. I could complete the team with whatever players were left in today's draft and I am going to The World Series.

Football players are so much bigger and faster today. Let me ask a 2 year old why that is true?
[/quote]

And do you think the rosters of major league baseball team were as strong top to bottom as they are now? Sure, there were some great players back then, but the rosters were nowhere near as strong as they are today. There were players who can dominate, but there was a huge talent drop off from the top players to the rest.

Just like in golf, there were some great players at the top during jack's era, but there were fewer players who had the potential to win. When there are fewer players who have the potential to win, then the top players end up winning more.
[/quote]

Exactly. That is my point. I would probably do better today completing my team. Even so, what 3 outfielders and 4 starters from the last 25 years would you pick for the core of your team before going to the draft? Steroid free or not?
[/quote]Sounds like you're just stuck in the past, then. I'd put Clemens, Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, and Pedro Martinez over any of the pitchers you listed from the 60s. Advanced stats show that Clemens is the greatest pitcher since Walter Johnson. Similarly, Pedro has the greatest peak since the 40s also. But since they are from Tiger's era, you ignore them.

Just like you acknowledge that swimming stats from 2009 are inflated, so are pitching stats from the 60s. Gibson's famous 1968 season? Both Clemens' 1997 and Martinez's 2000 are better, when adjusted for era. Koufax is one of the most overrated pitchers of all-time--he had a 11 year career, but was only good for 5 of them. And only great for 2 of them. Nolan Ryan had possibly the greatest longevity ever. But his peak was far below any of the pitchers listed by either you or me. As for Seaver, great pitcher, had a better career than 3 of the pitchers I mentioned and is the second best pitcher listed. But not even close to Clemens.

In fact, using Wins Above Replacement to rank the 8 pitchers we listed, the rankings would have the "modern" pitchers as #1, 3, 4, and 5, with your pitchers bringing up the rear:

Clemens: 139.4 (third best WAR of all-time, only behind Cy Young and Walter Johnson, who both played in the dead ball era and have inflated stats because of it)
Seaver: 106.3
Maddux: 104.6
Johnson: 104.3
Pedro: 86.0
Ryan: 83.8
Gibson: 81.9
Koufax: 53.2

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380726576' post='7942271']
I'm an ERA and strikeout guy just like majors. Nice try though. Clemons is Mr 20 ko's(Johnson, too) but I will play the Tiger 2000 card with Gibson in 1968 and Ryan career ko's and Seaver 10 straight and Koufax super domination period. Mays/Aaron career .200 against Gibson.
[/quote]

Wait, what do you mean, "I'm an ERA and strikeout guy just like majors"? I don't follow baseball, but I do know that ERA and strikeouts isn't one stat, they are two completely different stats that don't necessarily go together. In fact, when I looked it up, there was only one player who's in the top 25 on both lists, and that's Walter Johnson, who was playing over 100 years ago, before the Dominican Republic was even discovered.

So if you want to treat golf like you do pitching, you need to look at wins and majors at least, even if you continue to mock POTYs and Vardons. Tiger is only four wins away from being 1st and 2nd in those two stats, while Jack is already 1st and 3rd.

And if you think Tiger's 2000 is such an anomaly, he's also only four wins away from not needing it to still be ahead of Jack in career wins. Even Tiger's 2006, with 8 wins and two majors, was better than any year Jack ever had. He probably would have had ten wins that year if his father hadn't died, making him take two months off in mid-season, and screwing up his game and his head.

[tstephen]

MLB pitching stats are way more biased with the fewer complete games and innings pitched per start. Mays/Aaron had a career .200 against Gibson. Mays broke up 17 inning scoreless tie between Marichal and Spahn. That is an IMPOSSILBILITY today. I put Tony Gwynn as the most under-rated hitter. I hope Jordan Spieth kicks a** going forward to show that I am living in the future too.

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1380723896' post='7942063']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380681621' post='7940713']
[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1380679468' post='7940535']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380677667' post='7940383']
Being a great golfer is like being a great artist. Composers, painters, sculptors, and golfers are in the same class. Better yet Brock, since you are a literary scholar, are there also so many more great writers today?

I would still start any MLB team today with Mays, Mantle, and Clemente in the outfield and Koufax, Gibson, Ryan, and Seaver as my starting rotation. I could complete the team with whatever players were left in today's draft and I am going to The World Series.

Football players are so much bigger and faster today. Let me ask a 2 year old why that is true?
[/quote]

And do you think the rosters of major league baseball team were as strong top to bottom as they are now? Sure, there were some great players back then, but the rosters were nowhere near as strong as they are today. There were players who can dominate, but there was a huge talent drop off from the top players to the rest.

Just like in golf, there were some great players at the top during jack's era, but there were fewer players who had the potential to win. When there are fewer players who have the potential to win, then the top players end up winning more.
[/quote]

Exactly. That is my point. I would probably do better today completing my team. Even so, what 3 outfielders and 4 starters from the last 25 years would you pick for the core of your team before going to the draft? Steroid free or not?
[/quote]Sounds like you're just stuck in the past, then. I'd put Clemens, Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, and Pedro Martinez over any of the pitchers you listed from the 60s. Advanced stats show that Clemens is the greatest pitcher since Walter Johnson. Similarly, Pedro has the greatest peak since the 40s also. But since they are from Tiger's era, you ignore them.

Just like you acknowledge that swimming stats from 2009 are inflated, so are pitching stats from the 60s. Gibson's famous 1968 season? Both Clemens' 1997 and Martinez's 2000 are better, when adjusted for era. Koufax is one of the most overrated pitchers of all-time--he had a 11 year career, but was only good for 5 of them. And only great for 2 of them. Nolan Ryan had possibly the greatest longevity ever. But his peak was far below any of the pitchers listed by either you or me. As for Seaver, great pitcher, had a better career than 3 of the pitchers I mentioned and is the second best pitcher listed. But not even close to Clemens.

In fact, using Wins Above Replacement to rank the 8 pitchers we listed, the rankings would have the "modern" pitchers as #1, 3, 4, and 5, with your pitchers bringing up the rear:

Clemens: 139.4 (third best WAR of all-time, only behind Cy Young and Walter Johnson, who both played in the dead ball era and have inflated stats because of it)
Seaver: 106.3
Maddux: 104.6
Johnson: 104.3
Pedro: 86.0
Ryan: 83.8
Gibson: 81.9
Koufax: 53.2
[/quote]

These are cumulative numbers. Meaningful, of course, but they are also skewed for the more recent pitchers who benefited from a number of things.

And if you look at individual seasons, you will see that all of the above display [i]extreme[/i] dominance of similar magnitude in often the same amount of individual seasons.

Baseball is has lots of idiosyncrasies with respect to talent that factor into success and it has always been extremely popular and attracted the best athletes in the nation. Hard to say that the best "now" is any better than the best "then".

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380677845' post='7940405']
[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1380675630' post='7940169']
[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1380675159' post='7940133']
Are you claiming that the pga tour was able to identify the best 100 golfers in the world from a pool of several hundred, but in today's game they can't even though they are pulling from a pool of 5000?
[/quote]

Not only that, but golf is the only sport where the athletes have gotten worse over the last 50 years. Today's college football teams from Alabama or Oregon could beat the 1972 Miami Dolphins; high school girls can beat the times of men who won Gold Medals for swimming in the 1964 Olympics; but somehow, golfers are not as good today as they were in the 60's.
[/quote]

My nephew was the fastest in NorCal swimming. Have you looked at The world records lately Brock? I have not, but I can tell you that a lot of records will be stuck in the year 2009 because of technology(the body suits).
[/quote]

More red herrings; you should open a fish market.

In 1964, Don Schollander set a new Olympic and World Record when he won the Olympic 400m freestyle in a time of 4:12.2.

In 2004, four years before the high tech bodysuits came out, 19-year old Kaitlin Sandeno swam the 400m freestyie final in 4:06.19. Sadly, she only won a bronze.

In 2012, 3 years after the bodysuits were banned, Camille Muffat won the gold medal in the 400m freestyle with a time of 4:01.45.

[tstephen]

Today's snails are faster than the ones from 20 to 40 years ago too.

[gusmahler]

[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1380732036' post='7942677']
These are cumulative numbers. Meaningful, of course, but they are also skewed for the more recent pitchers who benefited from a number of things.

And if you look at individual seasons, you will see that all of the above display [i]extreme[/i] dominance of similar magnitude in often the same amount of individual seasons.

Baseball is has lots of idiosyncrasies with respect to talent that factor into success and it has always been extremely popular and attracted the best athletes in the nation. Hard to say that the best "now" is any better than the best "then".
[/quote]
If you sort by best individual season, you get this:
Clemens 11.9
Martinez 11.7
Gibson 11.2
Johnson 10.9
Koufax 10.7
Seaver 10.6
Maddux 9.7
Ryan 7.8

As for same number of great individual seasons, wrong again. WAR is defined as 8.0 being a great season. Here's the list sorted by number of seasons with a WAR of 8.0 or greater:

Johnson 7
Clemens 6
Martinez 4
Koufax 3
Gibson 3
Maddux 2
Seaver 2
Ryan 0

[tstephen]

No doubt, Clemens has HOF numbers like Bonds. Only problem is Shoeless Joe and Pete have company in their little non-HOF club with the 2 of them.

Golf is prime now for a new superstar, maybe from Japan, maybe Spieth. There will be someone soon who plays consistently at the very highest level for a long time.

[bwrichmond]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380733126' post='7942775']
Today's snails are faster than the ones from 20 to 40 years ago too.
[/quote]

Charles Darwin called from the Galapagos Islands and said this is actually probably true...

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='bwrichmond' timestamp='1380739297' post='7943275']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380733126' post='7942775']
Today's snails are faster than the ones from 20 to 40 years ago too.
[/quote]

Charles Darwin called from the Galapagos Islands and said this is actually probably true...
[/quote]

Charles Darwin shot himself when he realized that the participants in this thread are the end product of billions of years of evolution.

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1380735117' post='7942937']
[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1380732036' post='7942677']
These are cumulative numbers. Meaningful, of course, but they are also skewed for the more recent pitchers who benefited from a number of things.

And if you look at individual seasons, you will see that all of the above display [i]extreme[/i] dominance of similar magnitude in often the same amount of individual seasons.

Baseball is has lots of idiosyncrasies with respect to talent that factor into success and it has always been extremely popular and attracted the best athletes in the nation. Hard to say that the best "now" is any better than the best "then".
[/quote]
If you sort by best individual season, you get this:
Clemens 11.9
Martinez 11.7
Gibson 11.2
Johnson 10.9
Koufax 10.7
Seaver 10.6
Maddux 9.7
Ryan 7.8

As for same number of great individual seasons, wrong again. WAR is defined as 8.0 being a great season. Here's the list sorted by number of seasons with a WAR of 8.0 or greater:

Johnson 7
Clemens 6
Martinez 4
Koufax 3
Gibson 3
Maddux 2
Seaver 2
Ryan 0
[/quote]

There is no right and wrong in this case.

I can say that out of the top 6 individual seasons with WAR over 10

3 are old guys and 3 are new.

I can say that (don't have the time now) but if you look at guys with # of WAR seasons over 9.0 or 10, I bet it's revealing.

I could ask you

Why is Roger Clemens not in the HOF?

[gusmahler]

Well, the point tstephens was trying to make was that the pitchers of yesteryear were better than the teaches of "modern" day. He was pretty clearly wrong.

Clemens isn't in the HOF because the HOF voters are a bunch of idiots.

[tstephen]

[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1380752004' post='7944199']
Well, the point tstephens was trying to make was that the pitchers of yesteryear were better than the teaches of "modern" day. He was pretty clearly wrong.

Clemens isn't in the HOF because the HOF voters are a bunch of idiots.
[/quote]

Clemens is the idiot. First taking steroids and then pointing the finger at his best friend for lying and involving his wife. What a guy! He could hang with Tiger and be best buddies until they would eventually turn on one another.

Tony Gwynn is the man. Clean and has done more to clean up drugs in baseball. Loyal to his team and city. .338 against the better fielders, long relievers, short relievers, starters, and closers.

Maybe Tiger can have Clemens loop for him in The Masters. Tiger will average 400 off the tee and Clemens will do his thing if someone tries to nail Tiger for cheating.

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1380752004' post='7944199']
Well, the point tstephens was trying to make was that the pitchers of yesteryear were better than the teaches of "modern" day. He was pretty clearly wrong.

Clemens isn't in the HOF because the HOF voters are a bunch of idiots.
[/quote]

Gotcha. I would agree that there a more, better baseball players now. And golfers as well. I do not agree that Trevino, Watson, Floyd would do better now. The same way I wouldn't say Mantle would be better now.

But, it's extremely complicated, I don't think sports like baseball or golf can be examined the same way swimming or football would be. For example, I think Jack or Mickey Mantle or Bob Gibson could be extremely competitive now, even more strongly, pushing to the top of the pyramid. Where, its hard to make the case that certain football players could even compete, much less be at the top.

Then again....

Dick Butkus is a great question to consider. Would he be "cut"? Or with the right coaching and "help" like all the guys get now, would his size, nose for the ball and innate talent for the game make him a top player?

This instincts and ability are a sight to behold in any era. He played at 6'3, 250. No juice, in fact, did he ever lift a weight?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28c_nrbOpdE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Very complicated indeed.

[tstephen]

Steroids in college football.

Training and better breathing techniques in swimming. Still say a lot of men's world records will hold up for 20 years plus just because training and technique have peaked and the sleek body suits are out.

Technology has just about peaked in golf as well. Should help the next group of young superstars with the consistency thing.

[Tim Meitner]

I would have stacked a pre-knee blowout Mantle against virtually anyone who ever came down the chute. Too bad he wasn't able to have at least a few healthy years to see what he would have been capable of.[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1380723896' post='7942063']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380681621' post='7940713']
[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1380679468' post='7940535']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380677667' post='7940383']
Being a great golfer is like being a great artist. Composers, painters, sculptors, and golfers are in the same class. Better yet Brock, since you are a literary scholar, are there also so many more great writers today?

I would still start any MLB team today with Mays, Mantle, and Clemente in the outfield and Koufax, Gibson, Ryan, and Seaver as my starting rotation. I could complete the team with whatever players were left in today's draft and I am going to The World Series.

Football players are so much bigger and faster today. Let me ask a 2 year old why that is true?
[/quote]

And do you think the rosters of major league baseball team were as strong top to bottom as they are now? Sure, there were some great players back then, but the rosters were nowhere near as strong as they are today. There were players who can dominate, but there was a huge talent drop off from the top players to the rest.

Just like in golf, there were some great players at the top during jack's era, but there were fewer players who had the potential to win. When there are fewer players who have the potential to win, then the top players end up winning more.
[/quote]

Exactly. That is my point. I would probably do better today completing my team. Even so, what 3 outfielders and 4 starters from the last 25 years would you pick for the core of your team before going to the draft? Steroid free or not?
[/quote]Sounds like you're just stuck in the past, then. I'd put Clemens, Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, and Pedro Martinez over any of the pitchers you listed from the 60s. Advanced stats show that Clemens is the greatest pitcher since Walter Johnson. Similarly, Pedro has the greatest peak since the 40s also. But since they are from Tiger's era, you ignore them.

Just like you acknowledge that swimming stats from 2009 are inflated, so are pitching stats from the 60s. Gibson's famous 1968 season? Both Clemens' 1997 and Martinez's 2000 are better, when adjusted for era. Koufax is one of the most overrated pitchers of all-time--he had a 11 year career, but was only good for 5 of them. And only great for 2 of them. Nolan Ryan had possibly the greatest longevity ever. But his peak was far below any of the pitchers listed by either you or me. As for Seaver, great pitcher, had a better career than 3 of the pitchers I mentioned and is the second best pitcher listed. But not even close to Clemens.

In fact, using Wins Above Replacement to rank the 8 pitchers we listed, the rankings would have the "modern" pitchers as #1, 3, 4, and 5, with your pitchers bringing up the rear:

Clemens: 139.4 (third best WAR of all-time, only behind Cy Young and Walter Johnson, who both played in the dead ball era and have inflated stats because of it)
Seaver: 106.3
Maddux: 104.6
Johnson: 104.3
Pedro: 86.0
Ryan: 83.8
Gibson: 81.9
Koufax: 53.2
[/quote]

[Tim Meitner]

[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1380723896' post='7942063']
Koufax is one of the most overrated pitchers of all-time--he had a 11 year career, but was only good for 5 of them.[b] And only great for 2 of them[/b].
[/quote]

'63 - '66 were ALL great years.

[gusmahler]

[quote name='Tim Meitner' timestamp='1380758796' post='7944761']
[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1380723896' post='7942063']
Koufax is one of the most overrated pitchers of all-time--he had a 11 year career, but was only good for 5 of them.[b] And only great for 2 of them[/b].
[/quote]

'63 - '66 were ALL great years.
[/quote]They were very good years. But only 63 and 66 (and arguably 65) were historically great. 64, he pitched 100 less innings than the other years. 65 was really good, but Marichal was better. Still, 4 good years out of an 12 year career kind of sucks.

[Tim Meitner]

To each their own Gus, and there are good points you make....but if I had to win one game, I'd have a hard time picking anyone other than a prime Koufax to be on the hill.

[tstephen]

Nobody goes down the first base line faster than Mantle. Nobody has come close to Mantle's 565 ft hr. Technology has not changed very much in baseball unlike golf.

I would have so much fun watching a young Jack with today's technology. He knew how to hit it super long and in play. His long drive in the US long drive championship that coincided with The PGA Championship in 1963 was still the longest recorded drive at sea level into the 90's.

[gusmahler]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380762337' post='7945025']
Nobody goes down the first base line faster than Mantle.
[/quote]There's just no way that's true. I've seen the articles that make the same claim, but it's absurd. E.g., the winning time in the 1956 Olympics was 10.5 seconds. That's 0.9 seconds slower than Usain Bolt's record. Are we really to believe that, while the best 100m runner is nearly 1 second faster than 60 years ago, that the world's fastest baseball player is actually from the 1950s? Faster than Rickey Henderson or ichiro or Mike Trout? I suspect that some scout had an itchy stopwatch finger. either that, or all the faster athletes chose football or soccer.

[tstephen]

[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1380769956' post='7945683']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380762337' post='7945025']
Nobody goes down the first base line faster than Mantle.
[/quote]There's just no way that's true. I've seen the articles that make the same claim, but it's absurd. E.g., the winning time in the 1956 Olympics was 10.5 seconds. That's 0.9 seconds slower than Usain Bolt's record. Are we really to believe that, while the best 100m runner is nearly 1 second faster than 60 years ago, that the world's fastest baseball player is actually from the 1950s? Faster than Rickey Henderson or ichiro or Mike Trout? I suspect that some scout had an itchy stopwatch finger. either that, or all the faster athletes chose football or soccer.
[/quote]

It's like the Bob Feller 107 mph fastball. We will never know. Jack was the longest hitter of a golf ball and one of the 5 best putters ever. Locke, Casper, Crenshaw, and Tiger would round out the top 5. Not necessarily in that order Brock and Turtleback(Aka Machete, Breaking Bad humor).
Mantle was super fast and you are right, Ricky was something else. What about a 565 ft HR?

[tstephen]

[quote name='Guia' timestamp='1380605306' post='7936061']
TSTEPHEN: The Senior PGA Championship Tournament has been around since 1937, but not the Championship
Tour. The Senior PGA Championship, founded in 1937, was for many years the only high-profile tournament for golfers over 50. The idea for a senior tour grew out of a highly successful event in 1978, the Legends of Golf, which featured competition between two-member teams of some of the greatest older golfers of that day. The tour was formally established in 1980 and was known as the Senior PGA Tour until October 2002.

I attended the 1978 Senior Event and had a good time watching the great players of yesterday. To me
though that was a unique experience to see many players that were not fully exposed by TV in their
Heyday. IMO the Championship Tour is boring, I have seen them all at their best, and they are now well
past those days. The courses they play are set up easier and most of them are but faded champions.
They are boring, boring, boring.
[/quote]

So you went to a Non-Senior Tour event when there were only 2 tournaments in existence? The Senior Tour events I have gone to over the last 25 years have been great. Lots of fun side events(shoot outs, skills, short game contests), exhibitions by players with tones of knowledge. Not to mention Fred, Freddie, and Corey vs Hunter, Bubba, And Westwood in commercials. It is the regular tour guys who are boring. And I will admit, having played junior and college golf with many current Champion Tour players that I am biased. But I am so tired of people with limited experience of the past arguing that everyone from today is more talented. I have not been able to figure out where Brock is coming from since he rarely talks favorable of the talented players from the past. What does that mean for all the great things Tiger has done in 30-40 years from now? Most guys then will say big deal, he really was not that good. He never shot 3 rounds in the 50's and had a 67.2 scoring average although he did win a lot more majors, so what. AND of course he never won 14 straight inter-galactic events.

[nochct1]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380762337' post='7945025']
Nobody goes down the first base line faster than Mantle. Nobody has come close to Mantle's 565 ft hr. Technology has not changed very much in baseball unlike golf.

I would have so much fun watching a young Jack with today's technology. He knew how to hit it super long and in play. His long drive in the US long drive championship that coincided with The PGA Championship in 1963 was still the longest recorded drive at sea level into the 90's.
[/quote]

But there is better overall talent on the rosters now then there was then. Mantle is one of the best players of all time, but he didn't face the level of talent that they have now. That's the point of this entire discussion. The top players are always going to be the top players. Its the players in the middle and bottom of the rosters that have improved, mainly due to all sports becoming more global.

In golf, only one person can win an event. If they are really only competing against a handful of golfers capable of winning, then the top players will win more often.

As the talent level increases from top to bottom we see more players who are capable of winning and therefore the opportunity for a top player to win decreases.

Example, if there are 25 events and there is a field of 100 golfers but only 10 golfers have the skill to truly contend, then the odds of one of those 10 winning increase, with of course the top 2 or 3 players having the best odds. If, for those same 25 events with 100 people playing but there are now 60 golfers who can truly be expected to contend, then the odds of the top 2 or 3 players decreases.

Those are just simple numbers, but please tell me how its wrong. We've determined that there are great players at the top in every sport from every generation, but the rest of the players have improved based on the globalization of sports.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380819617' post='7947865']
But I am so tired of people with limited experience of the past arguing that everyone from today is more talented. I have not been able to figure out where Brock is coming from since he rarely talks favorable of the talented players from the past.
[/quote]

If you could find a post where I've said that the players of today are more talented than in the past, I would be happy to explain it to you. But I don't think you can.

What I've said is that Tiger was more dominant than Jack, for more years, and that most of the events he played had many more of the world top 100 in the field when he won. Your only intelligible reply to that was to cite the ridiculous McCormack rankings, which would be like polling the gallery in Columbus today on which college football team is the best.

I've also said that it doesn't make sense that the fields of today have less talent when they are selected from a much larger talent pool, nor does it make sense that golf is the only sport where the athletes have gotten worse over the last 50 years, and that I agree with Jack's 1996 analysis of how much harder it is to dominate in the modern era than it was in his time. You have not made any relevant replies to those assertions; you either change the subject, or say something inane about snails.

[richard t]

Jones is the legend. Love Arnie till I die. Hogan too. One word- JACK! That's all there is to it.
Oh yeah, and Whitey Ford, Warren Spahn, Bob Gibson and Sandy Kaufax when the money was on the line.

[Guia]

TSTEPHEN: You mentioned my limited experience, that is quite an assumption. I am 74 years young and
been playing for 60 years. You enjoy watching the Seniors play, good for you. However, don't assume
that because others (me)think they are boring that we (me) don't know what we (me) are talking about.
Your very opinionated.