JACK VS. TIGER

[Kevin Shields]

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

In 1975-1980 there was 24 majors. There was probably 30 players max that were a serious threat to win them. In reality maybe half that. That leaves a better ratio of tournaments : players who can win them. Today there are at least 100 that are capable of winning. So there is no way you can compare the number of majors won as an indicator of the talent pool. Thats just typical of having a love affair with the era you are most closely invested in. To my dad, nobody will ever be as good as Clemente no matter what. Its just silly logic.

To say Nicklaus played against all these studs is another fallacy. Miller and Weiscoph (can never spell his name right) folded when the Bear came on just like some did with Tiger. Nicklaus said himself that he waited for players to falter down the stretch. Some of Jack's scalps include Isao Aoki, Doug Sanders, Simon ???? from the 78 Open, not all A-list Hall of Famers. Not nearly the global game. Just qualifying for a Major now is an accomplishment. Much easier back then to separate yourself from the pack. Late night drinking, worse equipment, etc made the fields much weaker from #20 on down.

I love Jack as much as anybody but boy, I find it really tough to compare that era with today.

 

[ekennedy]

I kinda hate this thread at this point, but will someone atleast acknowledge that a 58 year old Jack Nicklaus-a part-time player on the Senior Tour at the time, beat Tiger Woods at the Masters one year removed from Eldrick's record setting performance?

Geez...

Where else but golf could Bob Gibson strike out Barry Bonds, Bjorn Borg defeat Pete Sampras, Joe Namath beat Tom Brady, Gordie Howe skate past...wait, is Gordie Howe still playing?

Seriously. If Brian Manzella is correct, and a 10 year old kid from Korea (or wherever) is practicing everyday with Trackman with clubs built for him and the best instuction available, zeroing out shots like its cool, then do we really think that when that kid is 30, Tiger is going to thump him at 56? C'mon. To be the best, you have to be the best for a long, long time. Jack has done that.

 

[Kevin Shields]

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.

I just dont get this "all time greats" thing. Take the world top 30 today and replace them with the worlds best 30 from 1975 and their major totals would be sliced apart. The talent is just too deep. You cant win majors at the rate they once did anymore than someone is going to hit .400. Too much "late inning" talent. The fields have no weaknesses. Just look at your US Open office pool. Nobody gets it right. Too much talent.

 

[willgolfer]

Seriously. If Brian Manzella is correct, and a 10 year old kid from Korea (or wherever) is practicing everyday with Trackman with clubs built for him and the best instuction available, zeroing out shots like its cool, then do we really think that when that kid is 30, Tiger is going to thump him at 56?

You probably didn't think Jack could do it either. Guess we'll have to wait another 21 years to find out.

 

[trickyric67]

Well,you keep refusing to acknowledge that fields have more depth now.How is that different to me refusing to acknowledge 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?

I responded many times,
look at the field of the 1986 master and look at last year. there are a whole lot more HOF caliber players in that field but you just ignore it.
can't debate someone who just throws out the facts they don't like in favor of speculation.
Jack won more majors-fact
Jack had more 2nds in majors-fact
jack had more top 5's in majors- fact
jack won majors in 3 different decades - fact
Jack won his last Major a mere 10 years before Tiger is on tour-fact
what you do is speculate on what might be or what you can't compare.
BTW Tigers record scoring avg is adjusted avg.
Jack's is actual. it makes a huge difference.

 

[trickyric67]

In 1975-1980 there was 24 majors. There was probably 30 players max that were a serious threat to win them. In reality maybe half that. That leaves a better ratio of tournaments : players who can win them. Today there are at least 100 that are capable of winning. So there is no way you can compare the number of majors won as an indicator of the talent pool. Thats just typical of having a love affair with the era you are most closely invested in. To my dad, nobody will ever be as good as Clemente no matter what. Its just silly logic.

To say Nicklaus played against all these studs is another fallacy. Miller and Weiscoph (can never spell his name right) folded when the Bear came on just like some did with Tiger. Nicklaus said himself that he waited for players to falter down the stretch. Some of Jack's scalps include Isao Aoki, Doug Sanders, Simon ???? from the 78 Open, not all A-list Hall of Famers. Not nearly the global game. Just qualifying for a Major now is an accomplishment. Much easier back then to separate yourself from the pack. Late night drinking, worse equipment, etc made the fields much weaker from #20 on down.

I love Jack as much as anybody but boy, I find it really tough to compare that era with today.

there were 15 differen't major winners from 1975 to 80 and from 2005-2010 wierd how that works?

 

[trickyric67]

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.

I missed this earlier, but this is awsome research!

 

[niblick1]

I just dont get this "all time greats" thing. Take the world top 30 today and replace them with the worlds best 30 from 1975 and their major totals would be sliced apart. The talent is just too deep. You cant win majors at the rate they once did anymore than someone is going to hit .400. Too much "late inning" talent. The fields have no weaknesses. Just look at your US Open office pool. Nobody gets it right. Too much talent.

I'm a huge Nicklaus fan, but i think this is right.

Golf is worldwide now, drawing on talent pools that are hundreds of millions larger. Read Soccernomics to understand how this affects the talent pool and the odds of winning. Many more statistical outliers who are the the truly gifted champions of their country's programs are playing now. Beating the best player from around the world plus the top US players is much tougher than beating the 100 top US plus a few UK golfers.

It was far easier to dominate when Jack and Arnie played. The rivalries then were better because the true outliers in talent rose to the top and found it easier to beat the lower eighty per cent of the bracket regularly and to establish a small group of superior of golfers with rivalries. They didn't have to worry about number 110 or 540 in the world showing up and beating them because they had a hot week with the putter or driver.

Number 1 now vs. number 1 then is an interesting argument.

Number 100 or number 700 now vs. number 100 or number 700 then is no contest.

 

[trickyric67]

I'm a huge Nicklaus fan, but i think this is right.

Golf is worldwide now, drawing on talent pools that are hundreds of millions larger. Read Soccernomics to understand how this affects the talent pool and the odds of winning. Many more statistical outliers who are the the truly gifted champions of their country's programs are playing now. Beating the best player from around the world plus the top US players is much tougher than beating the 100 top US plus a few UK golfers.

It was far easier to dominate when Jack and Arnie played. The rivalries then were better because the true outliers in talent rose to the top and found it easier to beat the lower eighty per cent of the bracket regularly and to establish a small group of superior of golfers with rivalries. They didn't have to worry about number 110 or 540 in the world showing up and beating them because they had a hot week with the putter or driver.

Number 1 now vs. number 1 then is an interesting argument.

Number 100 or number 700 now vs. number 100 or number 700 then is no contest.

my lord do you people do any research before making baseless comments?
Gary Player,Seve Ballesteros,Julios Boros,Roberto Divincenzo,David Graham,Bruce Devlin,Tony Jacklin,Chi Chi Rodrigeuz, Bruce Crampton,Nick Faldo,Bob Charles, Greg Norman, Jumbo Ozaki,Isao Aoki and for you canadians Moe Norman and George Knudson...the list goes on. A few post back a very smart member of this board posted actual statistics that proved the competition may have been better and tighter in the 70's than today but you guys just keep pulling unfounded assumptions out of the air.
it is clear your sense of what is recent history and what is not is warped and you guys certainly don't know your golf history.
BTW did someone actually compare Jacks era to Bobby jones? Really? Jones career was over 40 years before Jacks started??? Jack has actually outscored Tiger in events they played together!
and Kevin, Doug Sanders won 20 PGA tour events, a whole lot more than Mrs Doubtfire "monty" even though they both didn't win a major. Johnny Miller won at Pebble in 1994 only 23 years after winning his first event and he has 2 majors. I guess the competition must have really sucked butt in the 90's because 2 old farts like Miller and Ray Floyd could beat your young studs when they were in their fifties.

 

[Kamloops]

The assertion by Kevin and others is that there are more people who can win now than were capable of winning in the past.

I would contend that the only way we can decide whether or not someone actually is capable of winning at any given time is on the basis that they have done it before. Logical, right? Anything else is pure speculation.

I did my research bit so who is going to dig down and do some research covering a succession of years starting back in the 50s or 60s for us. Tell us how many tournaments there were each year and how many different players won those tournaments.

If the argument that it was easier to win then than it is now now holds up there should be far fewer different players who won in earlier years than there are who win in recent years. Lets see the stats. It is not a perfect way to do it, but it will inform the discussion more than a lot of the the bold statements I'm hearing.

I go back to that thing that you can't argue that someone who has never won is a person who could win. You are guessing.

Just to add a bit of insanity to the argument I quote a great play which became a great film, "Coffee is for closers."

Which era had more coffee drinkers?

 

[DCgolf]

Era comparisons

Some perspective on Jack. 46 times 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in a major. One stretch of 16 straight years in the British, his worse finish was 6th. 10 times 1st or 2nd at Augusta. 8 times 1st or 2nd in the Open. If Jack was playing against club golfers, those stats would still be pretty impressive. But I still Tiger Woods is the best player ever.

 

[ej20]

The assertion by Kevin and others is that there are more people who can win now than were capable of winning in the past.

I would contend that the only way we can decide whether or not someone actually is capable of winning at any given time is on the basis that they have done it before. Logical, right? Anything else is pure speculation.

I did my research bit so who is going to dig down and do some research covering a succession of years starting back in the 50s or 60s for us. Tell us how many tournaments there were each year and how many different players won those tournaments.

If the argument that it was easier to win then than it is now now holds up there should be far fewer different players who won in earlier years than there are who win in recent years. Lets see the stats. It is not a perfect way to do it, but it will inform the discussion more than a lot of the the bold statements I'm hearing.

I go back to that thing that you can't argue that someone who has never won is a person who could win. You are guessing.

Just to add a bit of insanity to the argument I quote a great play which became a great film, "Coffee is for closers."

Which era had more coffee drinkers?

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments.

Pure stats don't always paint the entire picture.They can often be a good indication but you cannot purely rely on them to come to a concrete conclusion.

An example is GIR stats.Someone who is aggressive and shoots at the pin more often is going to miss more greens than someone who always goes for the fat part of the green.You cannot purely use GIR stats to determine who is the better iron player.

Well done though.You must have spent the best part of 2 days coming up with those stats.I am sure I could find a way to use stats to bolster my argument also but I don't plan to waste 2 days.

It is generally accepted that the depth of competition is tougher now than in the past.If that is not good enough for you,we'll just leave it at that.

 

[conkanen]

Let's revisit this in 10 years.

 

[Kevin Shields]

my lord do you people do any research before making baseless comments?
Gary Player,Seve Ballesteros,Julios Boros,Roberto Divincenzo,David Graham,Bruce Devlin,Tony Jacklin,Chi Chi Rodrigeuz, Bruce Crampton,Nick Faldo,Bob Charles, Greg Norman, Jumbo Ozaki,Isao Aoki and for you canadians Moe Norman and George Knudson...the list goes on. A few post back a very smart member of this board posted actual statistics that proved the competition may have been better and tighter in the 70's than today but you guys just keep pulling unfounded assumptions out of the air.
it is clear your sense of what is recent history and what is not is warped and you guys certainly don't know your golf history.
BTW did someone actually compare Jacks era to Bobby jones? Really? Jones career was over 40 years before Jacks started??? Jack has actually outscored Tiger in events they played together!
and Kevin, Doug Sanders won 20 PGA tour events, a whole lot more than Mrs Doubtfire "monty" even though they both didn't win a major. Johnny Miller won at Pebble in 1994 only 23 years after winning his first event and he has 2 majors. I guess the competition must have really sucked butt in the 90's because 2 old farts like Miller and Ray Floyd could beat your young studs when they were in their fifties.

Just like Julius Boros and Sam Snead won in your era at 48 and 52 years old. Weak argument. Kinda speaks alot about that era if Doug Sanders could win 20 times. He couldnt caddy on tour today.

 

[ej20]

Even Nicklaus himself has said that there were not as many good players playing in his era as there is now.This is coming from the mouth of the man himself.

"I had some guys who were very good. We didn't have anywhere near the number of good players in my time as they [have] today, but I had guys who had the experience of winning, so I had more competition; it kept me more on my toes. But as I said, it's a different game today, it's a different time, so we'll see what happens."

I will concede one point.Due to the lack of depth in Jack's era,the top guys won more often and I agree as Jack said,had more experience winning so this made the top guys harder to beat than perhaps the tops guys now.

But my theory stands.If those tops guys were playing against greater numbers of good players,would they have won as much as they did?It would stand to reason that wins would be spread out over a larger number of players.

It is universally accepted that there are greater numbers of good players today than in the past due to the large purses.Why is that so hard to accept?

 

[Weetbix]

It is universally accepted that there are greater numbers of good players today than in the past due to the large purses.Why is that so hard to accept?

While the debate is pointless - we cannot determine who would have been better if Tiger and Jack were at their peak in the same time - but fun, I couldn't help but highlight this statement.

Little gap in logic there ej! It can't be universally accepted if someone doesn't accept it!

No offense, just gave me a chuckle.

 

[ej20]

While the debate is pointless - we cannot determine who would have been better if Tiger and Jack were at their peak in the same time - but fun, I couldn't help but highlight this statement.

Little gap in logic there ej! It can't be universally accepted if someone doesn't accept it!

No offense, just gave me a chuckle.

Ok,perhaps "widely accepted" might have been more apt.

However,Kamloops is probably working feverishly on his calculator right now as we speak to come up with a "stat" to prove me wrong.lol

 

[Kamloops]

It started out as a Jack versus Tiger argument but after that the the question posed by this thread was whether or not it was easier to win on tour in past years than it is now. It was a question of competitiveness. It was not an analysis of how many good players are there now versus then. It was an attempt to discern how many pros played in the rarefied air that belongs to tour winners.

Statistics can be misleading. I absolutely agree. But they can offer some insight and they offer more to the discussion than some kind of "it's so because I say it's so" or "everybody knows" statement.

I don't pretend to have the answer to this. I do think that putting together some stuff on how the Masters field performed over a number of decades was one way to try to get beyond the hyperbole on both sides and might prove interesting. I was prepared to discover anything when I did that. I repeat. I was prepared to discover anything when I did that. I had no preconceived notions. I was trying to see if there was a discernible trend which would indicate that the Masters is more competitive now than it was 50 or 60 years ago. It doesn't seem that it is.

If you look at the 50th ranked guy on the tour, whether by world rankings or money list, how many tournaments has that guy won? Do it for the 100th guy. Do that for a number of years. That would be interesting.

I offer this story to Kevin. It is just an anecdote and certainly doesn't offer proof of anything. In the 60s I saw Arnold Palmer and Doug Sanders do an exhibition. (Yes, I am that old.) Sanders was hitting and Arnold was commentating. Arnold would call out a shot shape at the top of Sander's backswing, high draw, or punch fade, for example, and Sanders would execute flawlessly. Kind of interesting to think that Sanders won against Palmer and Nicklaus all those times. What a slouch he must have been. I used to think of Phil as a modern day Doug Sanders until he managed to eke out a few majors.

Coffee is for closers.

 

[ej20]

If the argument that it was easier to win then than it is now now holds up there should be far fewer different players who won in earlier years than there are who win in recent years. Lets see the stats.

I don't think anybody is going to waste that much time to do the complete stats but here is something I dug up in about 10 minutes.

There were 50 different major winner between 1990 and 2010.

There were 37 different major winners between 1960 and 1980.

Does that prove anything?

 

[strav]

I don't think anybody is going to waste that much time to do the complete stats but here is something I dug up in about 10 minutes.

There were 50 different major winner between 1990 and 2010.

There were 37 different major winners between 1960 and 1980.

Does that prove anything?

Maybe not but to my mind it lends compelling support to the argument that
no one player can dominate now as they did then.
How would you refute those stats without resorting to cliches?