Kevin Shields
Super Moderator
I dont see how anybody cant see that its harder to win now than it was then.
JACK VS. TIGER
- Thread starter b90jos
- Start date
- Status
trickyric67
New
Are you saying that the talent pool is deeper today than 1986 and 1980?
You might want to check the majors leader boads
I would bet that you can point many more HOF calibre players than last years leaderboard
You might want to check the majors leader boads
I would bet that you can point many more HOF calibre players than last years leaderboard
ZAP
New
Nine pages and no clear winner. So I will throw in my two cents. As fortunate as I feel to have seen Tiger play these past few years I still think Jack wins in a comparison. Just look at how many seconds he had and his performance in the majors over such a long career.
That said I think Tiger could be better depending on how he recovers from his latest deal. You just dont go from that driven to dropping girls off at a trailer park and not pick up some demons.
That said I think Tiger could be better depending on how he recovers from his latest deal. You just dont go from that driven to dropping girls off at a trailer park and not pick up some demons.
To be honest I do not think a definitive comparison can be made. Would Jack beat Jones with hickory? I think equipment is a key factor. I played persimmon and balata as a junior. Sure the courses were shorter, but most tipped at or a little over 7000 yards. Anybody that thinks keeping the ball in play with persimmon does not take more skill is too young to participate in this debate!
I shoot these day what I shoot 20 years ago because I hit it 20-40 yards (now that I him hitting it on the up, maybe 50 yards) longer. I will not contest that fields are deeper, but we do not have Trevino and Watson (Tom NOT Bubba) out there. Sure any 20 players can win, afterall Louis Oosthuizen won The Open, right!
Forgive my sentimental streak, but my tendency is to include "the manner in which one wins." By that I mean JN was not (or did not become a twisted SOB.) No doubt the logic of that can be skewered, but Nicklaus did what he did in stride.
Trevino makes a good point. But suggesting that Tiger's "only" achilles heel is the driver (libido?) is kinda self-defeating. Isn't that the best example of power and precision? So, Nicklaus had a better combination of power and precision?
Of course even if Tiger passes Jack (yeah, yeah I know...when!) like a great many modern record it will have an asteriks! OK I am just kidding about that.
I guess what I really wish was that they were contemporaries. It has not been a lot of fun watching Tiger neuter would be challengers!
Anyway, Hogan would have owned them ALL! Just kidding.... Hope y'all are golfing....unlike me. Fun forum.
I shoot these day what I shoot 20 years ago because I hit it 20-40 yards (now that I him hitting it on the up, maybe 50 yards) longer. I will not contest that fields are deeper, but we do not have Trevino and Watson (Tom NOT Bubba) out there. Sure any 20 players can win, afterall Louis Oosthuizen won The Open, right!Forgive my sentimental streak, but my tendency is to include "the manner in which one wins." By that I mean JN was not (or did not become a twisted SOB.) No doubt the logic of that can be skewered, but Nicklaus did what he did in stride.
Trevino makes a good point. But suggesting that Tiger's "only" achilles heel is the driver (libido?) is kinda self-defeating. Isn't that the best example of power and precision? So, Nicklaus had a better combination of power and precision?
Of course even if Tiger passes Jack (yeah, yeah I know...when!) like a great many modern record it will have an asteriks! OK I am just kidding about that.
I guess what I really wish was that they were contemporaries. It has not been a lot of fun watching Tiger neuter would be challengers!
Anyway, Hogan would have owned them ALL! Just kidding....
Hope y'all are golfing....unlike me. Fun forum.The top guys will always be top guys in any era but if Trevino or Watson were playing today where fields are stronger,they might not win as much as they did back in their era.Trevino might only have 3 or 4 majors and suddenly they are at the same level as Padraig Harrington or Vijay Singh.Get my point?
The top guys now just don't have the whole play ground to themselves.
The top guys now just don't have the whole play ground to themselves.
As for the equipment debate,even Jack himself has admitted that modern technology has taken away Tiger's advantage.Players with far lesser skill can now compete with him.
It is a ridiculous assertion to infer that Tiger would not be as great using persimmon.He is regarded as probably the most skilled player that has played the game.Tiger would have been a far better driver of the ball had he used a shorter,heavier club.He was the last person to switch to graphite.
It is a ridiculous assertion to infer that Tiger would not be as great using persimmon.He is regarded as probably the most skilled player that has played the game.Tiger would have been a far better driver of the ball had he used a shorter,heavier club.He was the last person to switch to graphite.
Last I heard Jack won most of his majors in the 60's and 70's,not the 80's.
Fields were definitely not as deep back then.This is commonly accepted as fact even from the players who played in that era.
Let's also not forget in todays bomb and gouge game,players are just swinging for the fences and then wedge it out of the rough.
Jack hit a lot of fairways because he rarely went at it 100%.Look at his driving distance stats in the early 80's and they are not mind boggling...265 yards or so.If he were playing today and had to swing harder with the longer lighter drivers,would he have been as accurate?
I think we punish Tiger's driving a litle too much.It's a different game now.It's not like he's a 15 handicapper with the driver.
Jack hit a lot of fairways because he rarely went at it 100%.Look at his driving distance stats in the early 80's and they are not mind boggling...265 yards or so.If he were playing today and had to swing harder with the longer lighter drivers,would he have been as accurate?
I think we punish Tiger's driving a litle too much.It's a different game now.It's not like he's a 15 handicapper with the driver.
me neither.. Do they how popular golf has became since then?? Do they know about the 1,000s of golf academies that instructors have these days trying to create the next tiger?(not jack..tiger).. Tiger has changed the game..period..he's the best of all time period. His stats may not even be the best..but guess what? He knows how win... and wins when it counts..
BTW, no one has came up with an argument against ej20.. NO ONE.. everyone keeps saying the same thing and after time again he makes em look like they know nothing.
I don't think Jack would have had to swing harder. If he was swinging 120 or so with a shorter steel shaft, he wouldn't have to swing harder to keep up, given the longer and lighter club; he'd still be up there with the longer hitters. And because of his mentality, I don't think that he would have gone the all-out route. Jack played more methodically and was less aggressive than most power hitters, from what I've read. If that's the case, then I don't see why he would be significantly less accurate today.
One big irony is that Tiger seemed to be more accurate with the less forgiving, more workable woods than he is with the new stuff (possibly due in part to the b&g mentality you mentioned). Like Jack said, take away the newer stuff, and Tiger's fine, because he grew up playing old school golf, and he has that crazy short game. I think he and Jack would have played just fine in either era.
I think that it would really come down to who was playing better between the two at any given time. In fact, if you take into account their contrasting styles on approach shots (Tiger more aggressive that Jack's approach), it would really come down to a putting match. Now that would be something to see, especially if they were both on...
trickyric67
New
3 in the 80's isn't that more than most of the PGA tour players have since the 60's?
Jack was born in 1940 in his "prime years" it would have been the 70's-80's
you are obviously young and couldn't care less for for the facts because you so easily dismiss all the HOF er's from the 70-80's as if it were the 20's. I give up talking to you becuase the 1986 masters field was filled with many of the best players in history and you just refuse to acknowledge it.
in your world Joe Montana and Deione Sanders wouldn't be able to compete today and either would Barry Bonds or Roger Clemmons.
The 70's and 80's weren't that long ago like you keep trying to make them.
TIGER JOINED THE TOUR 10 YEARS AFTER JACK WON HIS LAST MAJOR NOT 100 YEARS!
I don't know any other way to put that.
As for the "hating Tiger crap, I am a Tiger fan, I just look at the reality and facts of how Jack was winning or in the top 5 in majors almost his entire career. You keep trying to pull this reality or facts bull and that is all it is because the fact state that jack has the greatest record in history both in winning and top 5's, but you can't except that so I am out.
Last edited:
I guess it depends on what you're looking at; the overall depth of the fields, or the number of all time greats competing.
In my view, if you're talking about how hard it is to win vs staying on tour, then it really doesn't matter if #10, #15, or #25 is better now than then. While you're technically competing against the field, you only have to beat the guy at the top. And there were more hof players at the top then.
That said, more depth today means that the wins are spread out more, so that it's harder today to build a hall of fame type resume, because more guys are winning today.
Great discussion either way.
Bigwill,we could speculate all day on how fast Jack really swung his driver but one thing is for sure,Jack was very conservative and rarely swung full out,only when he needed to.This would account for his accuracy but his distance is not what some people would have you believe.He could hit a mile when he wanted to of course but that was rare.
Tiger however,has the mentality that he never wants to be outdriven.Combined with the B&G game played today,it doesn't really make for a lot of fairways hit.
Tiger however,has the mentality that he never wants to be outdriven.Combined with the B&G game played today,it doesn't really make for a lot of fairways hit.
Well,you keep refusing to acknowledge that fields have more depth now.How is that different to me refusing to acknoledge that the best players in history were all in Jack's era like they broke the mold after 1970?
I keep trying to say,and I'm starting to sound like a broken record,that those players you talk about may not have as many wins if they played in stronger fields and the wins would be more evenly spread out.Would you even concede that is a possibility?
Sure,a win is a win.Tiger still has to beat Jack's record.
But some people are saying a win for Tiger means less than a win for Jack because Jack had Trevino to deal with and guys like Els,Mickelson,Singh,Harrington are all hacks compared to Lee.
natep
New
Yes, I agree with you on this point. If anything, it's the opposite of that assertion.
Lot of anecdotal stuff in this thread. Just for the hell of it I looked at some Masters statistics. If the idea is that it is harder to win now than it was back in the day you would expect an upward compression in scores; more people closer to the leader. More people challenging, overall better scores.
Here is an analysis of the Masters from 1950 to the present. I tried to identify how many strokes separated the top 10, 20, 30 and 40 players on each leaderboard. Sometimes I couldn't have a person who placed number "10" because there were ties. That is why I may have quoted the strokes at the 11th position or the 21st position. You have to allow for that.
The first two columns are a little more detailed. I identified how many strokes the person at position 10 was from the winner and also how many players finished within position 10. In other words, how "crowded" was the top ten of the leaderboard.
As an example, let's look at 1950 and 2010:
In 1950
1. The tenth position was 11 strokes behind the winner.
2. There were 10 players within 11 strokes of the winner.
3. 21st was 15 strokes behind the winner
4. 29th was 19 strokes behind the winner.
5. 42nd was 23 strokes behind the winner.
An analysis of the 2010 Masters:
1. The 10th position was 11 strokes behind the winner
2. There were 10 players within 11 strokes of the winner
3. 18th was 13 strokes behind the winner
4. 30th was 19 strokes behind the winner
5. 38 was 22 strokes behind the winner
Masters Analysis
Pos./Stks. Players Pos./Stks. Pos./Stks. Pos./Stks.
1950 10 11 10 21 15 29 19 42 23
1960 9 8 9 20 13 29 16 39 19
1970 10 8 8 21 12 29 14 38 17
1980 12 9 12 19 12 26 14 38 17
1990 7 8 11 20 11 30 15 40 18
2000 10 11 9 19 13 28 15 40 17
2010 10 11 10 18 13 30 19 38 22
I think if you look closely at all this stuff it was just as difficult to win in the mid part of the 20th century as it was last year. There is no substantial compression at the top with more players within fewer strokes of the winner. There is a statistical consistency all the way through. It's apples to apples as best I can do it.
Have fun guys.
Here is an analysis of the Masters from 1950 to the present. I tried to identify how many strokes separated the top 10, 20, 30 and 40 players on each leaderboard. Sometimes I couldn't have a person who placed number "10" because there were ties. That is why I may have quoted the strokes at the 11th position or the 21st position. You have to allow for that.
The first two columns are a little more detailed. I identified how many strokes the person at position 10 was from the winner and also how many players finished within position 10. In other words, how "crowded" was the top ten of the leaderboard.
As an example, let's look at 1950 and 2010:
In 1950
1. The tenth position was 11 strokes behind the winner.
2. There were 10 players within 11 strokes of the winner.
3. 21st was 15 strokes behind the winner
4. 29th was 19 strokes behind the winner.
5. 42nd was 23 strokes behind the winner.
An analysis of the 2010 Masters:
1. The 10th position was 11 strokes behind the winner
2. There were 10 players within 11 strokes of the winner
3. 18th was 13 strokes behind the winner
4. 30th was 19 strokes behind the winner
5. 38 was 22 strokes behind the winner
Masters Analysis
Pos./Stks. Players Pos./Stks. Pos./Stks. Pos./Stks.
1950 10 11 10 21 15 29 19 42 23
1960 9 8 9 20 13 29 16 39 19
1970 10 8 8 21 12 29 14 38 17
1980 12 9 12 19 12 26 14 38 17
1990 7 8 11 20 11 30 15 40 18
2000 10 11 9 19 13 28 15 40 17
2010 10 11 10 18 13 30 19 38 22
I think if you look closely at all this stuff it was just as difficult to win in the mid part of the 20th century as it was last year. There is no substantial compression at the top with more players within fewer strokes of the winner. There is a statistical consistency all the way through. It's apples to apples as best I can do it.
Have fun guys.
- Status