Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Ira Fishman on October 27, 2019, 09:08:57 PM
-
Enough said.
Ira
-
8)
At times I've been a doubter of him coming back but his talent is other worldy!
-
He is the best golfer ever. And I'm a Nicklaus man.
-
Yes, he is. And I'm a Nicklaus man, too.
But here's a wonderfully written article on the 'other' 82, by the very underrated Guy Yokom. Not as flashy as some, not as self- consciously 'smart' or 'humorous' as others, and not as 'hip' as most (try to be) -- but a better writer, and in this one (for my tastes at least) at his best. I'm glad: because Sam Snead deserves it.
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/its-time-to-remember-sam-snead (https://www.golfdigest.com/story/its-time-to-remember-sam-snead)
-
Some historical perspective from Michael Bamberger...
https://www.golf.com/news/columns/2019/10/27/tiger-woods-82nd-win-zozo-championship/?fbclid=IwAR3fSJXvS_Kab1cdX2dwDkDymkq_b7x2iAUgVNOcLanKWQyg5UEWxXGS18M (https://www.golf.com/news/columns/2019/10/27/tiger-woods-82nd-win-zozo-championship/?fbclid=IwAR3fSJXvS_Kab1cdX2dwDkDymkq_b7x2iAUgVNOcLanKWQyg5UEWxXGS18M)
-
De Vicenzo won 230 professional tournaments worldwide, but not an apples to apples comparison of numbers......
-
8)
I'm thinking Snead and Gary player have shot their age just about every time they played post 72 , pretty cool>two incredible physical specimens
-
Speaking of 82 that is how old this dude is that I’m getting ready to play Wolf with at 6,400 yds.
https://www.nhra.com/news/2016/fast-eddie-schartman (https://www.nhra.com/news/2016/fast-eddie-schartman)
-
I'm not a Nicklaus man but he's the greatest. Woods is though a good contender for no. 2.
Niall
-
Niall,
Who would be the other?
And to what to do attribute to Jack that Tiger hasn't done? 18 professional majors?
I always figured Jack would win the longevity argument, but now 22 years between majors versus 24 is a tie in my book.
-
Barbara breaks the tie.
-
Barbara breaks the tie.
:D
Happy Hockey
-
Niall,
Who would be the other?
And to what to do attribute to Jack that Tiger hasn't done? 18 professional majors?
I always figured Jack would win the longevity argument, but now 22 years between majors versus 24 is a tie in my book.
Before Tiger...
First round leaders rarely won,
Second round leaders occasionally won
third round leaders were about 50-50
Tiger blew those stats out of the water and frankly spoiled/distorted an entire generation's expectations of what was possible/expected.
Interestingly, Jack has two US Amateur wins and Tiger has three.
For years the press referred to Jack as having twenty and suddenly they cut him to 18.
https://www.golf.com/ap-news/missing-majors-jack-nicklaus (https://www.golf.com/ap-news/missing-majors-jack-nicklaus)
So in my mind Tiger has 18 and Jack 20
Young Jack was a skilled, disciplined athlete amongst but amongst a much smaller pool of skilled but less athletic players, later he killed them with his mind-yet still with enough power to compliment his other skills.You can't look at a smaller pool of players and say his competition was better because they won more majors-there will always be more majors to go around in a smaller, less deep pool. Look at any State Open winner Board or Club Championship Board-or for that matter the PGA Tour Champions.(a small number of players dominate the lists)
Jack had a balance in his life which extended his career and kept him healthy for the most part.
Jack's goal was to put himself into position on the final day and see who was left standing-effective much of the time but resulted in more seconds than firsts in Professional majors.
Tiger's goal was to separate himself from the field and he has more than twice as many wins as runnerups.
Tiger burned brighter faster and played the best golf ever played for 10-12 years.
Who knows what in store for his future?
-
Even though I started this thread, I am a Hogan guy largely because of what he accomplished (smaller field acknowledged) after the auto accident. But what Tiger has done is remarkable. His winning percentage is 22.8% (only Hogan also is above 20%).
Ira
-
Jack only had a couple dozen good players in his fields to beat week in and out...
You put Tiger against those fields and he might almost double the number of Jack's wins...
Tiger is the GOAT....
-
With the possible exception of Jim and Jeff, none of the rest of us on this thread know what we're talking about.
Smaller/less talented fields, technology, winning percentage etc. What does any of that mean? The very greatest players stand apart from and above all of that, all of those 'analytics' forged in the feverish brains of a group of couch potatoes.
Only the (very very) small number of other great players have a true insight into what golf mastery is all about.
Yes, I'm a Jack man myself, but Tiger I say is the best of all time -- but that means nothing coming from me (or you).
And in regards the other Mr. 82, for all I know *he* was the greatest of all time.
Why?
Exhibit A, from the article: of all the millions of golf shots he's played and seen played, Lee Trevino says the one that stands out the most is a shot that Snead hit:
Driver, off the fairway, with the ball below his feet -- a high draw to a right-hand flag from 220 yards, with water on the right. “He took very little time, just hit it and reacted like it was something he did all the time.” [Note: Sam was in his mid 50s at the time, using a steel shafted 43 inch driver with a persimmon head.]
Exhibit B:
From Dan Jenkins, the most devoted of Hogan men: “The weeks where Sam showed up with his best game, I’d feel hopeless and mad because I knew Ben couldn’t beat him. No one could.”
Am I saying Sam Snead was the GOAT? No.
But what the hell would I know about it anyway? Or you?
-
It is interesting to watch how Tiger wins these days. It seems different in character than his wins 10 years ago. A big fade off the tee he can rely on to put the ball in play, his usual great iron play and an ability to make the putt that is critical. He no longer has a power advantage but seems more in control off the tee when healthy.
I thought the par 5 midway through the final nine was a classic example. Matsuyama gives himself a short birdie putt to pull within 1. He misses. Tiger hits a crappy 2nd into the rough but a decent third that leaves a bit longer putt. His putt went dead center. I took the dog for a walk.
-
It is interesting to watch how Tiger wins these days. It seems different in character than his wins 10 years ago. A big fade off the tee he can rely on to put the ball in play, his usual great iron play and an ability to make the putt that is critical. He no longer has a power advantage but seems more in control off the tee when healthy.
I thought the par 5 midway through the final nine was a classic example. Matsuyama gives himself a short birdie putt to pull within 1. He misses. Tiger hits a crappy 2nd into the rough but a decent third that leaves a bit longer putt. His putt went dead center. I took the dog for a walk.
I think Tiger’s current playing style is similar to how Nicklaus would win — hit high-percentage shots and wait for others to make crucial mistakes. Particularly in the Masters, that was precisely how he played the final round.
-
I am a Braid man, but here are my thoughts.
1. Making comparisons across eras is a fool's errand.
2. The very elite players of any generation would be so in any other generation.
3. The elite players of Jack's era were better than Tiger's era.
4. Yes, more guys today are capable comepetitors, but fewer are proven big time winners when compared to Jack's era. Really, do you take Rory, Els & Michelson over Watson, Trevino & Player? Not me, thats for sure. Saying guys have the talent may earn some loads of dosh, but doesn't mean much until they proven.
5. You can only beat who plays.
6. The majors are the only real measurement of greatness. It makes it easier to compare (yes a fools errand) jack and Tiger because both are post 1960...the year when I consider the PGA to Masters to be proper majors. Once a guy wins dozens of non-majors the final tally is meaningless for this type of discussion. Jack having one more each of The Masters, PGA and US Open means more to me than x more tour victories or holding all four majors at once...which is in essence the result of being the dominant player in the world for a good few years. Still, this to me is one of the most impressive feats ever in golf. Combine that with longevity, majors and tour wins and I reckon Tiger is still at least two majors shy of passing Jack. Thats how good Jack was and that isn't taking into account his awesome top 5 finishes record in majors. However, its not just any two majors because not all majors are equal! If Tiger can win an Open and any other major I will happily concede he was better than Jack. If Tiger can win three of any comination of majors I will concede the same.
Happy Hockey
-
I am a Braid man, but here are my thoughts.
1. Making comparisons across eras is a fool's errand.
2. The very elite players of any generation would be so in any other generation.
3. The elite players of Jack's era were better than Tiger's era.
4. Yes, more guys today are capable comepetitors, but fewer are proven big time winners when compared to Jack's era. Really, do you take Rory, Els & Michelson over Watson, Trevino & Player? Not me, thats for sure. Saying guys have the talent may earn some loads of dosh, but doesn't mean much until they proven.
5. You can only beat who plays.
6. The majors are the only real measurement of greatness. It makes it easier to compare (yes a fools errand) jack and Tiger because both are post 1960...the year when I consider the PGA to Masters to be proper majors. Once a guy wins dozens of non-majors the final tally is meaningless for this type of discussion. Jack having one more each of The Masters, PGA and US Open means more to me than x more tour victories or holding all four majors at once...which is in essence the result of being the dominant player in the world for a good few years. Still, this to me is one of the most impressive feats ever in golf. Combine that with longevity, majors and tour wins and I reckon Tiger is still at least two majors shy of passing Jack. Thats how good Jack was and that isn't taking into account his awesome top 5 finishes record in majors. However, its not just any two majors because not all majors are equal! If Tiger can win an Open and any other major I will happily concede he was better than Jack. If Tiger can win three of any comination of majors I will concede the same.
Happy Hockey
Only one guy can win any tournament, which is why your point #3 is just flat wrong.
-
I am a Braid man, but here are my thoughts.
1. Making comparisons across eras is a fool's errand.
2. The very elite players of any generation would be so in any other generation.
3. The elite players of Jack's era were better than Tiger's era.
4. Yes, more guys today are capable comepetitors, but fewer are proven big time winners when compared to Jack's era. Really, do you take Rory, Els & Michelson over Watson, Trevino & Player? Not me, thats for sure. Saying guys have the talent may earn some loads of dosh, but doesn't mean much until they proven.
5. You can only beat who plays.
6. The majors are the only real measurement of greatness. It makes it easier to compare (yes a fools errand) jack and Tiger because both are post 1960...the year when I consider the PGA to Masters to be proper majors. Once a guy wins dozens of non-majors the final tally is meaningless for this type of discussion. Jack having one more each of The Masters, PGA and US Open means more to me than x more tour victories or holding all four majors at once...which is in essence the result of being the dominant player in the world for a good few years. Still, this to me is one of the most impressive feats ever in golf. Combine that with longevity, majors and tour wins and I reckon Tiger is still at least two majors shy of passing Jack. Thats how good Jack was and that isn't taking into account his awesome top 5 finishes record in majors. However, its not just any two majors because not all majors are equal! If Tiger can win an Open and any other major I will happily concede he was better than Jack. If Tiger can win three of any comination of majors I will concede the same.
Happy Hockey
Only one guy can win any tournament, which is why your point #3 is just flat wrong.
I am not sure I understand you, but thats ok because your point was stated vehemently.
Happy Hockey
-
It wasn't vehement.
The subset of golfers that could win in Jack's era was much smaller, therefore, their success rate is much higher. Half the field 40 years ago was hardly trying, at least not at the level that the bottom half of a PGA Tour field tries in this day and age. Your Monday qualifiers aren't local club pros today - they're mini-tour types.
We are still in the midst of the Tiger era.
-
It wasn't vehement.
The subset of golfers that could win in Jack's era was much smaller, therefore, their success rate is much higher. Half the field 40 years ago was hardly trying, at least not at the level that the bottom half of a PGA Tour field tries in this day and age. Your Monday qualifiers aren't local club pros today - they're mini-tour types.
We are still in the midst of the Tiger era.
Yes, I understand...see #4. However, Jack's elite competition was better than Tiger's. I say that because they won loads of majors which in effect is by far the best measuring stick. All anyone can think about Tiger's elite competition is assume they would have won more majors if not for stronger overall competition. I don't use the word elite lightly...it includes guys like Palmer, Player, Watson and Trevino. I can't say any of Tiger's elite competition has reached that level. Although, Els is knocking on the door. Phil and Rory aren't all that far behind. I hope other modern big guns can get going on a run. It would be fun to watch.
Happy Hockey
-
With the possible exception of Jim and Jeff, none of the rest of us on this thread know what we're talking about.
Smaller/less talented fields, technology, winning percentage etc. What does any of that mean? The very greatest players stand apart from and above all of that, all of those 'analytics' forged in the feverish brains of a group of couch potatoes.
Only the (very very) small number of other great players have a true insight into what golf mastery is all about.
Yes, I'm a Jack man myself, but Tiger I say is the best of all time -- but that means nothing coming from me (or you).
And in regards the other Mr. 82, for all I know *he* was the greatest of all time.
Why?
Exhibit A, from the article: of all the millions of golf shots he's played and seen played, Lee Trevino says the one that stands out the most is a shot that Snead hit:
Driver, off the fairway, with the ball below his feet -- a high draw to a right-hand flag from 220 yards, with water on the right. “He took very little time, just hit it and reacted like it was something he did all the time.” [Note: Sam was in his mid 50s at the time, using a steel shafted 43 inch driver with a persimmon head.]
Exhibit B:
From Dan Jenkins, the most devoted of Hogan men: “The weeks where Sam showed up with his best game, I’d feel hopeless and mad because I knew Ben couldn’t beat him. No one could.”
Am I saying Sam Snead was the GOAT? No.
But what the hell would I know about it anyway? Or you?
Peter,
I have picked a GOAT in a sport only once. But not so much for the reasons you state. Having spent 10 years working in American Professional football, I know that I could never tell you which player coming out of college will be successful because that does require knowledge about how the game really is played. However, a fan who pays attention across a long period of time does have very good insight into the quality of the players. I have not picked a GOAT because of all the variables in measuring across eras, and in team sports the additional variables multiply. But I certainly feel I am knowledgeable enough to tell you which players should be in the conversation for GOAT.
The one time I have picked: Michael Jordan. Not exactly going out on a limb I admit.
Ira
-
I’ve known far to many amateur golfers who have sacrificed relationships because of their golf habit and everything that comes with it. If we are going to look up to a man who we consider the greatest of all time we need to look past just the numbers of wins and such. I’m sure that jack has made mistakes as both a husband and father but Barbara is still there and Jack had his son on the bag for the greatest championship ever won. He is a goddamned stone cold family man of the first order. Maybe Tiger will find a good woman and have his son on the bag for that 19th Major. Maybe not.
-
Sean,
I think Kyle is spot on here with his analysis. Because it wasn't just Jack benefiting of playing against much weaker overall fields, so did those other guys who won 7-8 majors in Jacks era. When Jack was on, he'd get the W, but when he wasn't, it was the handful of next tier guys who accumulated most of the rest of them between em...
-
The one time I have picked: Michael Jordan. Not exactly going out on a limb I admit.
Ira, interesting you say this. Several other players have more or the same amount of rings than Jordan like Russell or Kareem while others like Magic, Duncan, and Kobe only have 1 less.
If anything the only GOAT by this criteria is Tom Brady as his 6 rings, (probably 7 after this year), blows everyone else out of the water.
-
Sean,
I think Kyle is spot on here with his analysis. Because it wasn't just Jack benefiting of playing against much weaker overall fields, so did those other guys who won 7-8 majors in Jacks era. When Jack was on, he'd get the W, but when he wasn't, it was the handful of next tier guys who accumulated most of the rest of them between em...
That is your assumption. I wouldn't presume to say that Watson, Trevino Player and Palmer only hoovered Jack leftovers because of weak overall competition. Hell, you could argue Jack would have won more on the same assumption basis if not for his elite competition. I think it's best to focus on what happened rather than what might have been.
Watson was a pain in the ass for Jack.
Happy Hockey
-
The one time I have picked: Michael Jordan. Not exactly going out on a limb I admit.
Ira, interesting you say this. Several other players have more or the same amount of rings than Jordan like Russell or Kareem while others like Magic, Duncan, and Kobe only have 1 less.
If anything the only GOAT by this criteria is Tom Brady as his 6 rings, (probably 7 after this year), blows everyone else out of the water.
Not to sidetrack us further when golf is plenty to debate, but I do not use rings as the sole or even primary criterion. That is why team sports particularly complicated. Bill Russell is my favorite player (yes, I am old enough to have seen him play), but Michael's all around body of work is unmatched.
Ira
-
Which life would you wish upon your son? Only a millennial would pick Tiger.
-
There is a huge difference between taking all you want and all you can get. That is what defines true greatness.
-
The one time I have picked: Michael Jordan. Not exactly going out on a limb I admit.
Ira, interesting you say this. Several other players have more or the same amount of rings than Jordan like Russell or Kareem while others like Magic, Duncan, and Kobe only have 1 less.
If anything the only GOAT by this criteria is Tom Brady as his 6 rings, (probably 7 after this year), blows everyone else out of the water.
Not to sidetrack us further when golf is plenty to debate, but I do not use rings as the sole or even primary criterion. That is why team sports particularly complicated. Bill Russell is my favorite player (yes, I am old enough to have seen him play), but Michael's all around body of work is unmatched.
Ira
Agreed.
However, the man in the avatar was the best RB in the history of the NFL, especially if he had any OL to block for him like Emmett Smith did in the 70's and early 80's. I think he had Revie Sorey, 3 lightpoles, and a mailbox on the line.
In team sports it is harder to extrapolate who is the best for much is dependent on your teammates to allow you to shine. In individual sports we don't have that problem. Whoever wins is the best at that activity and the only comparison is across eras.
-
If you have to be given the spotlight you are not the GOAT.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/beargoggleson.com/2017/03/03/chicago-bears-super-bowl-xx-history-touchdown-wasnt/amp/ (https://www.google.com/amp/s/beargoggleson.com/2017/03/03/chicago-bears-super-bowl-xx-history-touchdown-wasnt/amp/)
-
It is Bobby Jones. Without him there is no Masters and all the histrionics of most of the greatest professional golfers - Palmer, Nicklaus and Woods. If you cite Barbara, what did Winnie do wrong to not be included? Palmer, Nicklaus, Watson et al had a continual duel from the 60's through the mid 80's, but for 10-15 years after that there were no dominant American players. Maybe golf wouldn't have been a major TV presence and Tiger Wood's father would have started him on tennis lessons.
For those who credit Barbara and Winnie, if Tiger had been luckier in that respect, we would have had this argument five or more years ago, ten if you add injuries.
-
If you have to be given the spotlight you are not the GOAT.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/beargoggleson.com/2017/03/03/chicago-bears-super-bowl-xx-history-touchdown-wasnt/amp/ (https://www.google.com/amp/s/beargoggleson.com/2017/03/03/chicago-bears-super-bowl-xx-history-touchdown-wasnt/amp/)
As the article indicates, Payton never complained or even talked about the incident. It is one of the many reasons that he is my favorite in any sport. But picking a GOAT in American Football is just too darn hard. Plus I am not about to risk ticking off any of the active player candidates who help pay my salary which funds my fun playing golf.
Ira
-
If you have to be given the spotlight you are not the GOAT.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/beargoggleson.com/2017/03/03/chicago-bears-super-bowl-xx-history-touchdown-wasnt/amp/ (https://www.google.com/amp/s/beargoggleson.com/2017/03/03/chicago-bears-super-bowl-xx-history-touchdown-wasnt/amp/)
Blasphemy / fake news / etc.......
-
Everyone has electric fences in our relationships that remind us where the boundaries are. Jack and Arnie didn’t cross that fence one too many times out of respect for not only their families but those of us who loved them.
-
If Jack had divorced Barbara and started banging Peggy Fleming in 1968 he wouldn’t even be in this discussion.
-
Safe to say given how much this site bickers and often wildly disagrees on course rankings, (which is a topic I would presume as a group this place has far more domain knowledge than the average person), I sure as hell won't expect them to agree on GOATs in other areas.... ;D
-
I think the argument that Nicklaus faced better high end competition is pretty compelling.
4+ majors and competed in the same era:
Nicklaus: Player, Watson, Palmer, Trevino, Ballesteros, Floyd
Woods: Mickelson, Els, Maclroy, Koepka
3 majors, same era:
Nicklaus: Irwin, Casper, L. Nelson
Woods: Spieth, Harrington
2 majors, same era:
Nicklaus: Miller, Crenshaw, Green, Strange, Stockton, Zoeller, Lyle
Woods: O'Meara, Daly, Olaazabal, Z. Johnson, B. Watson, R. Goosen
Left out because they really hit the gap in-between the two - Faldo, Price, P. Stewart.
I would take the old guys in each of these groups.
[/size]
[/size]One could argue that 2010-2017 should be left out for Tiger would make the case for Nicklaus stronger.If one counts second and third place finishes, Nicklaus wins. [/font]
-
Ira, Jeff
as Richard Pryor quipped about Jim Brown:
He played for 9 years, never got hurt, never missed a game, and ran for over 12,000 yards -- and that was when there was but 3 black guys in the whole league, so you know he didn't have anyone blocking for him!
-
However, the man in the avatar was the best RB in the history of the NFL, especially if he had any OL to block for him like Emmett Smith did in the 70's and early 80's. I think he had Revie Sorey, 3 lightpoles, and a mailbox on the line.
In team sports it is harder to extrapolate who is the best for much is dependent on your teammates to allow you to shine. In individual sports we don't have that problem. Whoever wins is the best at that activity and the only comparison is across eras.
When I heard best RB in the history of the NFL I thought you meant Barry Sanders.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, with Jack mostly retired, the common refrain I heard was that no one would ever again dominate pro golf. Competition had grown too fierce, with boatloads of top-notch players.
It's ironic to now hear the exact opposite: Tiger dominated because he faced weaker competition.
If Jack had divorced Barbara and started banging Peggy Fleming in 1968 he wouldn’t even be in this discussion.
From what I read, Arnie way out-did Tiger in the fooling-around department, the differences being 1) Arnie stayed married, and 2) he was pre-internet. I wonder how differently Arnie might have fared in the court of public opinion, if he had played under today's microscope .
-
However, the man in the avatar was the best RB in the history of the NFL, especially if he had any OL to block for him like Emmett Smith did in the 70's and early 80's. I think he had Revie Sorey, 3 lightpoles, and a mailbox on the line.
In team sports it is harder to extrapolate who is the best for much is dependent on your teammates to allow you to shine. In individual sports we don't have that problem. Whoever wins is the best at that activity and the only comparison is across eras.
When I heard best RB in the history of the NFL I thought you meant Barry Sanders.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, with Jack mostly retired, the common refrain I heard was that no one would ever again dominate pro golf. Competition had grown too fierce, with boatloads of top-notch players.
It's ironic to now hear the exact opposite: Tiger dominated because he faced weaker competition.
If Jack had divorced Barbara and started banging Peggy Fleming in 1968 he wouldn’t even be in this discussion.
From what I read, Arnie way out-did Tiger in the fooling-around department, the differences being 1) Arnie stayed married, and 2) he was pre-internet. I wonder how differently Arnie might have fared in the court of public opinion, if he had played under today's microscope .
I absolutely do not believe Tiger dominated because of weak competition. Tiger dominated because he was far and away the best player of his time. The same is true of Jack, but for some reason people don't believe it. Instead they create fiction about Jack's top level competition based on supposition.
Happy Hockey
-
I think the argument that Nicklaus faced better high end competition is pretty compelling.
Jason -
You left out Angel Cabrera, Martin Kaymer, and some guy from . . . Fiji . . . who won three majors and beat Tiger dozens of times.
These players, especially Vijay and his improbable rise, are vital to this debate. I never hesitate to ask 70-year-old golfers about Nicklaus v. Woods. They invariably tell me that Nicklaus played mainly against Americans, and some guys from England and a guy from Spain and a couple from South Africa, and that Woods took on the world.
-
It is interesting to watch how Tiger wins these days. It seems different in character than his wins 10 years ago. A big fade off the tee he can rely on to put the ball in play, his usual great iron play and an ability to make the putt that is critical. He no longer has a power advantage but seems more in control off the tee when healthy.
I thought the par 5 midway through the final nine was a classic example. Matsuyama gives himself a short birdie putt to pull within 1. He misses. Tiger hits a crappy 2nd into the rough but a decent third that leaves a bit longer putt. His putt went dead center. I took the dog for a walk.
I think Tiger’s current playing style is similar to how Nicklaus would win — hit high-percentage shots and wait for others to make crucial mistakes. Particularly in the Masters, that was precisely how he played the final round.
very true-especially in my span of Jack/Augusta watching- 1974 to say 1998 where he finished sixth at The Masters at age 58!
I did not witness young Jack who by all accounts was dominant in length and strength, and his early career was reminiscent of early Tiger.
He was Looong as a fat (appearing) 23 year old)and hit towering long irons and as Bobby Jones said "he plays a game with which I am not familiar"
Later Jack was simply solid, consistent, a great putter, and strategic-never beat himself--but did get beat a few times.
Tiger never had a Watson(who got the best of Jack directly head to head several times), I'd say he had a Palmer(Mickelson)
Maybe Koepka and Rory are his Player and Casper
-
I'm in the camp that says it's a lot harder to win multiple times when 100 plus of the players in the field can win, as opposed to 15.
In the 1960's and even into the 70's many of the players in a given week were club pros with jobs in the summer.
But....
The other side of me says that due to less people capable of winning, a very strong corps of major winners was developed.
Meaning, even though the thinner fields may have created more "elites" (as defined by Major wins)
those elites were tougher to beat when in the hunt BECAUSE they were USED to being in the hunt, and didn't fade away as much of Tiger's competition did from not being used to the rarified air in the spotlight.
In other words, I agree it's hard to compare different eras.
I've got Jack as the GOAT but just by a whisker and majors at 20-18 Jack.
-
The only reason 100 people can win at anytime now is because it doesn't matter if they lose. It comes down to the old question of how many 5th graders can you beat up at any one time. No matter how many it takes they are all just 5th graders. Jack went up against individuals who needed to and could win on their own. Tiger plays against one shot wonders with Ferrari collections.
-
I'm in the camp that says it's a lot harder to win multiple times when 100 plus of the players in the field can win, as opposed to 15.
In the 1960's and even into the 70's many of the players in a given week were club pros with jobs in the summer.
But....
The other side of me says that due to less people capable of winning, a very strong corps of major winners was developed.
Meaning, even though the thinner fields may have created more "elites" (as defined by Major wins)
those elites were tougher to beat when in the hunt BECAUSE they were USED to being in the hunt, and didn't fade away as much of Tiger's competition did from not being used to the rarified air in the spotlight.
In other words, I agree it's hard to compare different eras.
I've got Jack as the GOAT but just by a whisker and majors at 20-18 Jack.
Jeff,
What has always amazed me is the number of 2nd and 3rd place finishes Jack had in majors. Tiger either won or was seemingly out of the hunt. IMO that gives the edge to Jack.
-
I'm in the camp that says it's a lot harder to win multiple times when 100 plus of the players in the field can win, as opposed to 15.
In the 1960's and even into the 70's many of the players in a given week were club pros with jobs in the summer.
But....
The other side of me says that due to less people capable of winning, a very strong corps of major winners was developed.
Meaning, even though the thinner fields may have created more "elites" (as defined by Major wins)
those elites were tougher to beat when in the hunt BECAUSE they were USED to being in the hunt, and didn't fade away as much of Tiger's competition did from not being used to the rarified air in the spotlight.
In other words, I agree it's hard to compare different eras.
I've got Jack as the GOAT but just by a whisker and majors at 20-18 Jack.
Jeff,
What has always amazed me is the number of 2nd and 3rd place finishes Jack had in majors. Tiger either won or was seemingly out of the hunt. IMO that gives the edge to Jack.
Not unless you start a thread called 37.... ;D
-
I think the argument that Nicklaus faced better high end competition is pretty compelling.
Jason -
You left out Angel Cabrera, Martin Kaymer, and some guy from . . . Fiji . . . who won three majors and beat Tiger dozens of times.
These players, especially Vijay and his improbable rise, are vital to this debate. I never hesitate to ask 70-year-old golfers about Nicklaus v. Woods. They invariably tell me that Nicklaus played mainly against Americans, and some guys from England and a guy from Spain and a couple from South Africa, and that Woods took on the world.
I stand corrected. I do not think it changes the analysis.
-
As a Boston native, I've always been a Bobby Orr guy. But when it comes to GOATs, it's hard to argue against Gretsky. Is there any athlete in a major sport who holds all the major scoring records, and has put them so far out of reach it's laughable?
Arguments can be made in the other sports (although Jordan seems like a lock as well), but in hockey, I feel like the case is closed.
In golf ... Tiger's career isn't over. And more than any athlete in history, he's the one guy I would never bet against.
-
Dan -
I'm a Toronto kid who so loved Bobby Orr that I refused to wear #4 -- even though I was a defenceman and the coach offered it to me -- because I didn't feel I could do it justice, and didn't want to besmirch in any way Bobby's name. [I suppose I was an overly serious 12 year old. I'd read his book, "Orr on Ice", six times, and I was still drinking tons of milk, just like he said he did, along with his steak, as his game-day meal.] And, while it's impossible to take a single thing away from the Great One, truly, from where I sat there was no one, nobody, no one ever, who could control a game and the pace of a game, and make it his own, both on defence and offence, like Bobby Orr. On one knee.
Despite what I said before about none of us knowing anything, I feel safe in saying that Bobby Orr was the GOAT.
Oh, and Ira: on basketball I'm much less sure, and I don't proclaim a GOAT. Jordan was magnificent, but if I were starting a basketball team today, and I had to pick one player to be its centrepiece, I wouldn't pick Jordan or LeBron. It would be Magic.
-
Nicklaus didn't start the game playing hickories and switch to steel shafts, among other equivalent equipment changes that we've seen since the onset of Tiger.
Jack didn't move the golfing needle as sport such that he had to compete with the direct result of the influx of more talented/athletic people.
Jack dominated, yes, and perhaps moreso in his era than Tiger did across the span of of his (still going) era.
Tiger's Player and Casper as Koepka and Rory? So Jack's major pushes were before him and Tiger's are the result of Tiger?
I suggest that the amount of runner-up finishes also suggests Jack couldn't close it out the way Tiger could as well as suggest it shows the depth of the fields in the Tiger era.
Peak Tiger is beating Peak Jack 5&4.
-
Is there any athlete in a major sport who holds all the major scoring records, and has put them so far out of reach it's laughable?
Dan C.
Jerry Rice owns virtually every significant receiving mark. Some of the more notable career records include receptions (1,549); receiving yards (22,895 yards); most 1,000-yard receiving seasons (14); total touchdowns (208); and combined net yards (23,546). Rice has a hold on multiple NFL playoff and Super Bowl records. As of 2017, Rice holds over 100 NFL records, the most of any player by a wide margin.
Maybe not quite as dominant as Gretsky, but pretty impressive.
DT
-
Is there any athlete in a major sport who holds all the major scoring records, and has put them so far out of reach it's laughable?
Dan C.
Jerry Rice owns virtually every significant receiving mark. Some of the more notable career records include receptions (1,549); receiving yards (22,895 yards); most 1,000-yard receiving seasons (14); total touchdowns (208); and combined net yards (23,546). Rice has a hold on multiple NFL playoff and Super Bowl records. As of 2017, Rice holds over 100 NFL records, the most of any player by a wide margin.
Maybe not quite as dominant as Gretsky, but pretty impressive.
DT
Phil Taylor in Darts
Usain Bolt in Athletics
Michael Phelps in Swimming
New Zealand (All Blacks) in Rugby Union - probably the most dominant team in any team sport - just over 77 percent in wins since the 1880's in test matches. Incredible feat for such a small country with 4.5m people.
-
Niall,
Who would be the other?
And to what to do attribute to Jack that Tiger hasn't done? 18 professional majors?
I always figured Jack would win the longevity argument, but now 22 years between majors versus 24 is a tie in my book.
Jim
I think there are several in the discussion for best of the rest. Sean mentions Braid which is interesting. Of that era many might pick Vardon since he won 6 Opens against Braids 5 but then Braid won the News of the World more times than Vardon. Braid's golden era was the first decade of the 20th century when he won all his Open's whereas Vardon only 1 during that decade, having won 3 before and 2 after. By that time Braid was concentrating on his club job and designing courses. Vardon did of course win the US Open but that wasn't in any way a major at that time. Arguably Braid's dominance might have continued if he had continued to concentrate on competitive golf and he'd be the one with more than 5 Opens to his name, who knows.
That said, Walter Hagen considered Vardon to be the greatest ever but then you could also add Hagen as a contender. Did Hagen not also win 5 Western Opens which were near enough majors at that time ? That's the difficulty with trying to compare different eras and basing it on what we now refer to as the majors. The list goes on but I think to be a contender you need to be (arguably) the best of your era, that's why I wouldn't include Watson even though I think he's the best links player I've ever seen.
Niall
-
New Zealand (All Blacks) in Rugby Union - probably the most dominant team in any team sport - just over 77 percent in wins since the 1880's in test matches. Incredible feat for such a small country with 4.5m people.
yes, but 4.49m of them are rugby players ;D
Niall
-
Peak Tiger is beating Peak Jack 5&4.
Luckily you have a fine career and a bright future as a golf course superintendent, so you'll never risk falling into utter ruin and abject poverty as a bookie.
-
Peak Tiger is beating Peak Jack 5&4.
Luckily you have a fine career and a bright future as a golf course superintendent, so you'll never risk falling into utter ruin and abject poverty as a bookie.
I'm with Peter. The argument can certainly be made TW was the better player--but peak JN was pretty dominant.
-
Peak Tiger is beating Peak Jack 5&4.
There is no possible way to know that.
-
I also see Tigers lack of 2nd and 3rd place finishes due to much stronger fields. When Tiger wasn't on, there was 10-20 other guys who were beating em and down the leader board he went. But when Jack wasn't on? Due to lack of field depth he was still getting those 2nd and 3rd place finishes.
David.
Excellent point, as a 9er fan how could I forget Rice! Perhaps in Football we need GOATs per position! ;)
-
As a Boston native, I've always been a Bobby Orr guy. But when it comes to GOATs, it's hard to argue against Gretsky. Is there any athlete in a major sport who holds all the major scoring records, and has put them so far out of reach it's laughable?
Arguments can be made in the other sports (although Jordan seems like a lock as well), but in hockey, I feel like the case is closed.
In golf ... Tiger's career isn't over. And more than any athlete in history, he's the one guy I would never bet against.
Dan,
I do believe that Ovechkin has the chance to break Gretzky's goal scoring record, and considering the current low goals per game era, I would argue Ovechkin is the best goal scorer ever. Time will tell, but Gretzky's career assists and point totals will never be touched.
Tyler
-
One nice thing about the longevity of golf careers is that we have more cross over situations.
Nicklaus beating Tiger at the 1998 Masters was pretty unbelievable. Watson almost winning the '09 Open. And now Tiger re-emerging to remind us that the new breed of players that we thought were so good really aren't when compared to his old man game.
-
Here is some nice footage of Snead at the age of 62 playing well enough from tee to green to win a PGA championship! Only Nicklaus and Trevino scored lower than him. This was the year before the birth of Tiger.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btoK_c43boA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btoK_c43boA)
That swing would look completely in place in 2019 on tour.
-
The one time I have picked: Michael Jordan. Not exactly going out on a limb I admit.
Ira, interesting you say this. Several other players have more or the same amount of rings than Jordan like Russell or Kareem while others like Magic, Duncan, and Kobe only have 1 less.
If anything the only GOAT by this criteria is Tom Brady as his 6 rings, (probably 7 after this year), blows everyone else out of the water.
Joe DiMaggio had 9 World Series rings.
-
The one time I have picked: Michael Jordan. Not exactly going out on a limb I admit.
Ira, interesting you say this. Several other players have more or the same amount of rings than Jordan like Russell or Kareem while others like Magic, Duncan, and Kobe only have 1 less.
If anything the only GOAT by this criteria is Tom Brady as his 6 rings, (probably 7 after this year), blows everyone else out of the water.
Joe DiMaggio had 9 World Series rings.
Piece of piss. A few French Canadians hit double digit Stanley Cup rings. More importantly, Gretzy won the Hart Trophy 8 times on the trot!
Happy Hockey
-
I think there are some data points we can look at to measure the effect of weaker fields vs full strength ones in a apples to apples comparison.
I compared:
- The list of Masters Winners from 1997 to 2019, (the start of Tigers dominance, 1st major win). I used this as the Masters has the weakest overall field of any PGA tournament year over year.
- The list of winners from The Players Championship, the toughest field in terms of player rankings over the same time period (1997 to 2019).
Overall, while the Masters had 7 instances of a previous winner winning again in that time period, the Players only had 1 and the list of Masters winners is far less diverse.
Number of unique champions: Masters 16, Players 22.
Number of repeat winners in time period: Masters - 3, (Tiger 5, Phil 3, Bubba 2). Players - 1 (Tiger 2)
Number of winners who have won multiple Majors: Masters 9, Players 4
Number of winners in Players never to have won a major: 8
While this only compares two tournaments, as stated they are the weakest overall field each year to the strongest one, and at least partially suggests its easier to win multiple times in the former scenario.
P.S.
As a smaller data point, Tigers wins seem to fit overall with Strength of field from easiest to hardest
Masters: 5
PGA: 4
The Open: 3
US Open: 3
Players: 2
-
The one time I have picked: Michael Jordan. Not exactly going out on a limb I admit.
Ira, interesting you say this. Several other players have more or the same amount of rings than Jordan like Russell or Kareem while others like Magic, Duncan, and Kobe only have 1 less.
If anything the only GOAT by this criteria is Tom Brady as his 6 rings, (probably 7 after this year), blows everyone else out of the water.
Joe DiMaggio had 9 World Series rings.
Piece of piss. A few French Canadians hit double digit Stanley Cup rings. More importantly, Gretzy won the Hart Trophy 8 times on the trot!
Happy Hockey
Sean-I think hockey is tougher to handicap as Gretzky won 4 Stanley Cups but many consider him the GOAT as his list of personal accomplishments is off the charts as you noted. That said he isn’t in the Top 50 for players with most Stanley Cup wins.
-
Kalen, it's easy to believe the Masters is the easiest major to win, because as you point out it has the smallest field, by far.
Do you believe your other data about Tiger's wins have any statistical significance though?
-
Kalen, it's easy to believe the Masters is the easiest major to win, because as you point out it has the smallest field, by far.
Do you believe your other data about Tiger's wins have any statistical significance though?
Jim
I'm guessing none of it is statistically significant by the technical definitions. ;D I'm just trying to bring some kind of qualitative analysis to the table, instead of talking about subjective stuff or heaven forbid wives.... but totally understand its a tough task.
P.S. I thought about doing something similar with the PGA and the Opens over the same time period...
-
Looking at Wikipedia I was not impressed with most of the second place finishers when JN was the champion.
-
Which life would you wish upon your son? Only a millennial would pick Tiger.
John, what does that have to do with who is the greatest golfer? But if you're interested, the life I wish upon my 9 year old son is whatever makes him truly happy.
-
I thought Tiger played as well this week as he has in maybe a decade. His irons were spot on, his putting was excellent, and he was driving the ball in the fairway. His swing looked loose and effortless....He was consistent...If he maintains this level he will win many more times....this year!
-
Which life would you wish upon your son? Only a millennial would pick Tiger.
John, what does that have to do with who is the greatest golfer? But if you're interested, the life I wish upon my 9 year old son is whatever makes him truly happy.
Golf is a lifestyle. The greatest golfer of all time should project a lifestyle that that any golfer would be proud to emulate. Btw: That is one hell of a lot of pressure to put upon your son. Truly happy...Good one.
-
Which life would you wish upon your son? Only a millennial would pick Tiger.
John, what does that have to do with who is the greatest golfer? But if you're interested, the life I wish upon my 9 year old son is whatever makes him truly happy.
Golf is a lifestyle. The greatest golfer of all time should project a lifestyle that that any golfer would be proud to emulate. Btw: That is one hell of a lot of pressure to put upon your son. Truly happy...Good one.
But if Woods ends up being the greatest golfer of all time by beating Jack’s major record are you going to hold it against him that he wasn’t a good husband?
That’s my wish for my son. I’m his father and of course I want the best for him. I’m an eternal optimist and he’s a great kid. I’m sad for you that you look at this in a cynical way.
-
I’ve found that you can’t be truly happy without disregarding the happiness of the people who love you. That’s all.
-
I’ve found that you can’t be truly happy without disregarding the happiness of the people who love you. That’s all.
We are getting OT but I don’t find that to be true. In fact regarding their happiness is when I’m the happiest.
-
I type this as I sit at the airport waiting on my wife. She could have taken an Uber home.
-
Looking at Wikipedia I was not impressed with most of the second place finishers when JN was the champion.
Here are the victims- I include all runner up finishers, even if they were tied for runner up.
Arnold Palmer (3x)
Tony Lema
Dave Ragan
Gary Player
Tommy Jacobs
Doug Sanders (2x)
Dave Thomas
Billy Casper
Bruce Crampton (4x)
Bobby Mitchell
Tom Weiskopf (2x)
Johnny Miller
Ben Crenshaw
Raymond Floyd
Tom Kite (2x)
Simon Owen
Isao Aoki
Andy Bean
Greg Norman
Here is Tiger's list:
Tom Kite
Sergio Garcia
Ernie Els (2x)
Miguel Angel Jimenez
Thomas Bjorn
Bob May
David Duval
Retief Goosen
Phil Mickelson
Chris DiMarco (2x)
Colin Montgomerie
Shaun Micheel
Woody Austin
Rocco mediate
Dustin Johnson
Brooks Koepka
Xander Schauffele
Tom Kite gets the trivia honor as the only player in history to ever finish runner up to Jack and Tiger in a major.
If Jack Nicklaus never existed, it looks like Bruce Crampton would be much more well known.
-
FWIW.
I'm from a family of golf professionals, which only means I've been around the game my whole life, not that I have special knowledge that must be acknowledged, just my own memories and thoughts.
My dad played in a few tour events, and even as a very young kid, I watched Westchester and the old Philadelphia IVB Classic. I was fortunate to see a lot of amazing golf. Later I got to play, now I get coach a bit and be around some really good young players trying to find their way.
I'm NOT going to comment on Nicklaus' competition, because other than as a fan, I simply was not near enough to it.
But I'd bet my house that the depth and abilities of the players the last ten years is significantly better than the early/mid 90's when I was playing. The fact that at his age, after his injuries, and after his self induced damages, that Tiger can still basically beat todays' players is amazing.
I do not believe that Jack beat better competition, I do believe he beat some great players.
But I truly believe nobody has come close to ever playing the game of tournament golf better than Tiger.
Jack has the best record, Tiger has played the game better than anybody. IMO
-
FWIW.
I'm from a family of golf professionals, which only means I've been around the game my whole life, not that I have special knowledge that must be acknowledged, just my own memories and thoughts.
My dad played in a few tour events, and even as a very young kid, I watched Westchester and the old Philadelphia IVB Classic. I was fortunate to see a lot of amazing golf. Later I got to play, now I get coach a bit and be around some really good young players trying to find their way.
I'm NOT going to comment on Nicklaus' competition, because other than as a fan, I simply was not near enough to it.
But I'd bet my house that the depth and abilities of the players the last ten years is significantly better than the early/mid 90's when I was playing. The fact that at his age, after his injuries, and after his self induced damages, that Tiger can still basically beat todays' players is amazing.
I do not believe that Jack beat better competition, I do believe he beat some great players.
But I truly believe nobody has come close to ever playing the game of tournament golf better than Tiger.
Jack has the best record, Tiger has played the game better than anybody. IMO
Again,thanks for taking the time to type that. Your opinion is more equal than most anyone else's.
-
Good post Pat, thank you.
Here's a view of the debate on Nicklaus' competition versus Tiger's...and overall depth of professional golf in those eras
The position seems to be that because the primary challengers to Nicklaus were fewer and more successful, they were better. Watson, Trevino, Player, Palmer...all viewed as all-time greats while only a few of Tiger's primary competitors even come close to those levels with Mickelson, Els and Singh as the top three (I think).
How does Nicklaus' competition compare to that of Snead? It's difficult to argue that any of Nicklaus' competition reaches the heights of Nelson and Hogan, isn't it? They are two all-time top 10 players playing right along side Snead...
-
The amazing things is, we can argue there was less competition(and there was in the bottom half of the fields), but man...
Just looking at the golf swings and ball striking prowess of Hogan, Snead and Nelson-all simultaneously
Then consider Bobby Locke, who beat up on them all, was barred from competing...
Different eras
-
As a Boston native, I've always been a Bobby Orr guy. But when it comes to GOATs, it's hard to argue against Gretsky. Is there any athlete in a major sport who holds all the major scoring records, and has put them so far out of reach it's laughable?
Arguments can be made in the other sports (although Jordan seems like a lock as well), but in hockey, I feel like the case is closed.
In golf ... Tiger's career isn't over. And more than any athlete in history, he's the one guy I would never bet against.
My favourite Gretzky stat is that he and his brother hold the record for the most points by brothers in NHL history (his brother I believe had one assist).
As to other sports, Jahangir Khan won 555 consecutive matches at squash. I think it was nearly 10 years without losing a single match. Don Bradman in cricket would be another contender. For the Americans here, I read that by number of standard deviations above the mean, Bradman's batting average would be roughly equivalent to a .376 batting average in baseball.
IMO Tiger's record stands above all others. I think it's vaguely arguable that Jack is the GOAT (although I think you're on loose ground in the process). I don't think there is any doubt that Tiger is the BOAT. 4 majors in a row and winning a Masters by 12 and a US Open by 15 seal that one in my mind.
-
I do not believe that Jack beat better competition, I do believe he beat some great players.
But I truly believe nobody has come close to ever playing the game of tournament golf better than Tiger.
I was at OSU when Nicklaus, Weiskopf, and Sneed (Ed) played their best golf and watched each pretty closely. I am obviously biased, but agree wholeheartedly with Pat (who, btw, has no need to be so humble).
We are privileged to be witnessing the Tiger era (as I was during JN's when I was playing my best golf and paid much closer attention). JN had a more nurturing, stable upbringing and better guidance. Both were blessed with great self-assurance and competitive minds. Perhaps Tiger had more physical ability and drive?
-
As a Boston native, I've always been a Bobby Orr guy. But when it comes to GOATs, it's hard to argue against Gretsky. Is there any athlete in a major sport who holds all the major scoring records, and has put them so far out of reach it's laughable?
Arguments can be made in the other sports (although Jordan seems like a lock as well), but in hockey, I feel like the case is closed.
In golf ... Tiger's career isn't over. And more than any athlete in history, he's the one guy I would never bet against.
My favourite Gretzky stat is that he and his brother hold the record for the most points by brothers in NHL history (his brother I believe had one assist).
As to other sports, Jahangir Khan won 555 consecutive matches at squash. I think it was nearly 10 years without losing a single match. Don Bradman in cricket would be another contender. For the Americans here, I read that by number of standard deviations above the mean, Bradman's batting average would be roughly equivalent to a .376 batting average in baseball.
IMO Tiger's record stands above all others. I think it's vaguely arguable that Jack is the GOAT (although I think you're on loose ground in the process). I don't think there is any doubt that Tiger is the BOAT. 4 majors in a row and winning a Masters by 12 and a US Open by 15 seal that one in my mind.
Michael,
I've heard that stat many times about the Gretzky's holding the record for most points by brothers - the joke being Wayne accumulated 2,857 points while brother Brent picked up 4 points in his career. After reading your post, my mind jumped straight to the Sutter brothers from Alberta and they actually have more points, granted there are 6 Sutter's (Brent 829 pts., Brian 636 pts., Darryl 279 pts., Duane 342 pts., Rich 315 pts., Ron 533 pts.,) who totalled 2,934 combined points.
Tyler
-
As a Boston native, I've always been a Bobby Orr guy. But when it comes to GOATs, it's hard to argue against Gretsky. Is there any athlete in a major sport who holds all the major scoring records, and has put them so far out of reach it's laughable?
Arguments can be made in the other sports (although Jordan seems like a lock as well), but in hockey, I feel like the case is closed.
In golf ... Tiger's career isn't over. And more than any athlete in history, he's the one guy I would never bet against.
My favourite Gretzky stat is that he and his brother hold the record for the most points by brothers in NHL history (his brother I believe had one assist).
As to other sports, Jahangir Khan won 555 consecutive matches at squash. I think it was nearly 10 years without losing a single match. Don Bradman in cricket would be another contender. For the Americans here, I read that by number of standard deviations above the mean, Bradman's batting average would be roughly equivalent to a .376 batting average in baseball.
IMO Tiger's record stands above all others. I think it's vaguely arguable that Jack is the GOAT (although I think you're on loose ground in the process). I don't think there is any doubt that Tiger is the BOAT. 4 majors in a row and winning a Masters by 12 and a US Open by 15 seal that one in my mind.
The Khan record brought to mind Edwin Moses who won 122 400 Meter Hurdle races, a winning streak that lasted just short of 10 years. However, I would not be confident naming him the GOAT in track and field because there are so many other worthy contenders.
Ira
-
We are privileged to be witnessing the Tiger era (as I was during JN's when I was playing my best golf and paid much closer attention). JN had a more nurturing, stable upbringing and better guidance. Both were blessed with great self-assurance and competitive minds. Perhaps Tiger had more physical ability and drive?
Lou
Interesting you mention upbringing and support. In terms of upbringing what makes you think that Tigers was any less good than Jack's ? For sure Jack appears to have had a very happy family life as an adult whereas Tiger's has been very much more traumatic, but is that down to the parents or perhaps bad choices/more temptation in the case of Tiger ? And if you are looking at the impact of their upbringing purely in terms of their golf career, where did Tiger's folks go wrong ?
In terms of support, other than from family, has there ever been a player better supported than Tiger ? From his sponsors (both Titliest and Nike) to his management company, he has had the most fantastic support. Ever since he hit the scene as a phenomenally talented amateur he has been looked after in every way. Not only logistical and financial support but also mentoring from guys like Crenshaw and O'Meara. I'm not sure Nicklaus got any support like that as he was more of an ugly duckling when he started. Nicklaus also had to go through qualifying for tournaments and probably flew on commercial scheduled flights for a lot of his career. When do you think Tiger last saw the inside of a Ryan Air plane ? ;D
Niall
-
As an aside, Cathy Whitworth had many more than 82 professional wins as did Mickie Wright and Mickie Wright retired when she was her mid-30’s.
Atb
-
We are privileged to be witnessing the Tiger era (as I was during JN's when I was playing my best golf and paid much closer attention). JN had a more nurturing, stable upbringing and better guidance. Both were blessed with great self-assurance and competitive minds. Perhaps Tiger had more physical ability and drive?
Lou
Interesting you mention upbringing and support. In terms of upbringing what makes you think that Tigers was any less good than Jack's ? For sure Jack appears to have had a very happy family life as an adult whereas Tiger's has been very much more traumatic, but is that down to the parents or perhaps bad choices/more temptation in the case of Tiger ? And if you are looking at the impact of their upbringing purely in terms of their golf career, where did Tiger's folks go wrong ?
In terms of support, other than from family, has there ever been a player better supported than Tiger ? From his sponsors (both Titliest and Nike) to his management company, he has had the most fantastic support. Ever since he hit the scene as a phenomenally talented amateur he has been looked after in every way. Not only logistical and financial support but also mentoring from guys like Crenshaw and O'Meara. I'm not sure Nicklaus got any support like that as he was more of an ugly duckling when he started. Nicklaus also had to go through qualifying for tournaments and probably flew on commercial scheduled flights for a lot of his career. When do you think Tiger last saw the inside of a Ryan Air plane ? ;D
Niall
How can we possibly psycho analyze why Tiger made his continuous infidelities? It is also the times we live, where Tiger's parents were divorced/separated (not living together for sure) and his dad was a philanderer. This wasn't the 1940/50's when people stayed married and committed to each and their families to a much higher degree. Unfortunately more than half of the marriages end in divorce and this IMO has had a corrosive effect on society in many ways, with Tiger's case perhaps just being another instance.
-
Drop the marriage argument if you want and discuss other team events like caddie relationships and Ryder Cup performance.
-
After reading this article why would anyone buy the book?
https://nypost.com/2019/11/02/how-tiger-woods-became-a-narcissistic-cheapskate-whod-look-right-through-you/
-
Well Jeff, you might not be able to psycho-analyse Tiger but you had a right good go at doing it for society as a whole. Anyway, let's wait and see what Dr Duran says ;)
Niall
-
After reading this article why would anyone buy the book?
https://nypost.com/2019/11/02/how-tiger-woods-became-a-narcissistic-cheapskate-whod-look-right-through-you/ (https://nypost.com/2019/11/02/how-tiger-woods-became-a-narcissistic-cheapskate-whod-look-right-through-you/)
Good question. Amusing that those who accuse him of being cheap, a bad tipper rode his coat tails and benefited greatly by association (Tiger's coach, caddie, subject of books, etc.). It's all relative, right? (I was once denounced in front of several people as a "bad tipper" by someone in this DG because I "only" gave his hired bartender a $10 bill for getting me one beer and a small bowl of gumbo, an amount that I would have thought as a former bartender as extremely generous.)
As someone who knows a bit about Messrs. Haney and Sampson, both with strong north Texas connections, I suspect that they know intimately about transactional relationships. In fact, such is human nature; songs have been written about it (e.g. "Nobody Knows You When You're Down and Out"). I've seen it often at GCA.com events.
Niall,
Ok, I will bite. It is my opinion that a nurturing, stable, supportive upbringing is more conducive to well-functioning adults. I am sure that JN has had some dysfunction in his life, most of us have. But TW in addition to fighting the racial prejudices of his time, had an overbearing, philandering father and a mother who though may have provided some normalcy, could not have been happy with the situation at home. Add the financial pressures he faced vs. JN's Scioto Country Club lifestyle to the mix.
As to support from others, I knew of some in JN's inner circle- took two lessons from Jack Grout at MV before moving to TX- and none that I can think of depended on JN for their commercial success (Grout probably got as much notoriety and commercial value late in his career for helping Ray Floyd with hitting his 5-wood en-route to winning the Masters as he did rearing JN). Angelo and Stevie were very different animals; the former much more of a bag carrier than an advisor; the latter, just like Haney, obviously seeking to be credited substantially for their principal's success.
What better mentoring could one have than loving, nurturing parents who didn't push their son in a single direction? JN played multiple sports well into college. Woody Hayes even looked at him for football and encouraged him to pursue golf. Supposedly he was a good basketball and tennis player.
TW is a phenomenal athlete with a great golf mind. We don't know what he would have accomplished if he had a different, stable upbringing, but my bet is that much of the turmoil at the peak of his career would have been avoided. Against all odds, his story continues, not only as a golfer, but as an engaged human being. I think that he is more important to golf today than JN ever was and his work with the First Tee Program is extremely important.
P.S.- I fell couple degrees short in the subject discipline, but you may address me as Carnac if you like.
-
Jack only had a couple dozen good players in his fields to beat week in and out...
You put Tiger against those fields and he might almost double the number of Jack's wins...
Tiger is the GOAT....
Bingo.
Yes, I understand...see #4. However, Jack's elite competition was better than Tiger's. I say that because they won loads of majors which in effect is by far the best measuring stick.
Nah. They also benefited from the weak fields.
Half the fields in a lot of Jack's tournaments were club pros. Very few international players. Gary Player won a "major" in which three or four Americans - two amateurs and NONE of any name - even bothered to play (I think none made the cut).
Sean,
I think Kyle is spot on here with his analysis. Because it wasn't just Jack benefiting of playing against much weaker overall fields, so did those other guys who won 7-8 majors in Jacks era. When Jack was on, he'd get the W, but when he wasn't, it was the handful of next tier guys who accumulated most of the rest of them between em...
Yep.
I absolutely do not believe Tiger dominated because of weak competition. Tiger dominated because he was far and away the best player of his time. The same is true of Jack, but for some reason people don't believe it. Instead they create fiction about Jack's top level competition based on supposition.
It's not supposition. It's just math.
What has always amazed me is the number of 2nd and 3rd place finishes Jack had in majors. Tiger either won or was seemingly out of the hunt. IMO that gives the edge to Jack.
Another result of… wait for it… the incredibly weak fields Jack faced.
As a Boston native, I've always been a Bobby Orr guy. But when it comes to GOATs, it's hard to argue against Gretsky.
One can make a REALLY good case for Mario Lemieux.
Jack dominated, yes, and perhaps moreso in his era than Tiger did across the span of of his (still going) era.
Jack didn't really "dominate." He wasn't even the most dominant player for the year half as often as Tiger has been against stiffer competition.
-
Really, math proves Tiger was better? Very heavy sigh.
Happy Hockey
-
Well Jeff, you might not be able to psycho-analyse Tiger but you had a right good go at doing it for society as a whole. Anyway, let's wait and see what Dr Duran says ;)
Niall
Book an appointment with my secretary as I'll be here all week. :)
-
Really, math proves Tiger was better? Very heavy sigh.
Math supports the idea that the strength and depth of field is much, much better now than in Jack's day. That Tiger had to beat significantly more and better players overall. That it was easier to win majors in the 60s and 70s than it has been in the 90s to 2010s.
The only number to which Jack people can cling is 18 > 15, but if you add in strength and depth of field, 15 >>> 18 in the minds of many, and 82 > 72. And Tiger was far, far more dominant to boot: if you sort their years in order from best to worst and play match play against them, you get to about year 12 or 13 before Jack notches a win.
If you honestly believe that Jack was the better player, IMO you're ignorant to the strength and depth of field, you think that Jack didn't really try that hard or something, or you're weighting the stuff outside of golf (personal life, family, wife, general like or dislike) into the equation.
-
Modern equipment has created the illusion of strength of field. Anyone can win because anyone can find the club face under pressure.
-
In the anonymous poll of tour pros out this week (in one of the magazines), over 60% answered 'no' to the question of whether everyone in the top 125 is capable of winning a major.
Made me think: yes, modern equipment as an equalizer, but how about 'character' - and the ability to deal with pressure.
Imagine WWII vet Lloyd Mangrum coming down the stretch of a US Open up against Jason Day, Justin Thomas, Jordan Spieth and Rickie Fowler -- if his cigarette smoke didn't kill them, one dead-eyed stare from across the fairway probably would.
But of course that's nonsense too: I don't know what I'm talking about, and no one else here does either.
It's golf. Bowling aside, no other sport/game has changed less in 80 years in terms of what you need in order to play it at the very highest level.
PS - had to go look up Mr. Mangrum's stats/life again: won 36 times on tour, and that's with 4-5 years off for the War. When he joined the Army they offered him an assignment as the pro at Fort Meade, but he turned it down -- opting for combat duty instead. Years in Patton's Third Army, fought at Normandy and the Battle of the Bulge -- two Purple Hearts, two Silver and two Bronze stars, he comes back and wins the US Open in '46, leads the tour in earnings in '51 and wins the Vardon Trophy in 51 and 53. Shot a 64 in the opening round at Augusta in 1940 (record stood for 46 years), finished in the top 10 there for 10 straight years, loses to Hogan in the '50 US Open, had a record of 6-2 in Ryder Cup singles.
Swing speed, physical training, better diets, short games etc etc -- all of that is out the window. Does anyone think Lloyd Mangrum wouldn't find a way to win on today's tour?
-
Modern equipment has created the illusion of strength of field. Anyone can win because anyone can find the club face under pressure.
I will give you credit — when you’re right, you’re right.
-
Really, math proves Tiger was better? Very heavy sigh.
Math supports the idea that the strength and depth of field is much, much better now than in Jack's day. That Tiger had to beat significantly more and better players overall. That it was easier to win majors in the 60s and 70s than it has been in the 90s to 2010s.
The only number to which Jack people can cling is 18 > 15, but if you add in strength and depth of field, 15 >>> 18 in the minds of many, and 82 > 72. And Tiger was far, far more dominant to boot: if you sort their years in order from best to worst and play match play against them, you get to about year 12 or 13 before Jack notches a win.
If you honestly believe that Jack was the better player, IMO you're ignorant to the strength and depth of field, you think that Jack didn't really try that hard or something, or you're weighting the stuff outside of golf (personal life, family, wife, general like or dislike) into the equation.
Again, strength of field arguments don't add up to much that is supportive unless we can point to who won what. Saying there are more quality players now than 40 years ago does not equate to the best of today are better than the best of Jack's era. All the math in the world can't prove this point. Therefore it is supposition based on your belief of what are the most important factors in drawing your conclusion.
It is convenient that you attempt to use math to support a point, but conveniently dismiss the most important indicator of greatness...and that is major wins. If you are going to throw that statistic out the window then there is little point in continuing the conversation.
I guess it is easy for every generation to dismiss those who came along in earlier times. However, you won't find me underestimating the abilities of the ODGs.
JakaB
Do you think the best of today would have learned how to play old equipment and less groomed courses? I do, just as I think the best of yesterday would have learned how to make all the players have today pay.
Happy Hockey
-
I think many of the best of today would have given up the dream of professional golf if not for the money available for top 100 play. Jouneyman smourmeyman.
I simply do not believe that anyone on this site believes that modern equipment, more money and ease of travel has built a better golfer than in the past. The Champions Tour is dying because of the weakness of Tiger's competition.
-
I am not sure the best players would have given up, but it is easy to overlook the massive advantages players of today have. Few people even mention medicine. When would Tiger's career have ended if not for the superior med facilities etc of today VS 40 years ago. As I say, it's all too easy for folks these days to take all the advantages for granted as well as assuming the greats of yesteryear would somehow not know how to make these advantages pay.
Happy Hockey
-
I think JK does make a good point here, but there are other points to consider when evaluating this. Look at what was available to up and coming players in Jacks day vs now and last couple of decades?
1) First and foremost the primary feeder tour, which didn't start until 1990, (currently Korn Ferry Tour) - Instead of being isolated Teaching Pros, the set of "next best" golfers can hone thier skills, like the minor league system in Baseball.
2) PGA Asian Tour - Founded in 1995. Where most of these players once had little to no opportunities, the Asian market is currently blossoming with top notch talent.
3) Other Mini tours, many of which I'm guessing have only popped up after Jacks prime.
4) Mature college golf programs with generous resources at their disposal for practice and instruction and frequent country wide travel to play the best competition.
5) As JK points out, superior equipment with advanced instruction techniques, technology, and data analysis to fine tune swings, ball trajectory, etc. much earlier on. Think of all the players who perhaps stick with it now at early ages instead of getting frustrated learning the game and drop out before they have a chance to develop into who knows what.
5) Junior golf programs, where players learn to deal with competitive scenarios much earlier on and are that much better by the time they reach the college and top AM ranks.
6) A much wider international advertising and promotional reach among the top golf bodies that transformed low profile golfers into high profile celebs attracting more talent to the game.
7) Current Tour card structure vs predominance of Monday qualifying allowing players to set schedules and in general establish better stability.
8) The relative ease and increased frequency of international travel allowing the best players to congregate far more often.
etc, etc.
And its not just Golf. NBA and NFL teams would decimate those from 40-50 years ago....
-
Which life would you wish upon your son? Only a millennial would pick Tiger.
Wish only that my son were still alive.
-
I think a problem with comparing across eras is folks isolate ODGs in their times rather than envisioning how they might have been improved athletes by taking advantage of the same things which make later athletes more honed, but I will say not necessarily better champions.
Happy Hockey
-
Sean,
The issue of better physical and mental conditioning, both which include access to superior knowledge, medicines, surgeries, therapies, faster recoveries, practice, ease of travel, etc. has been brought up many times. I happen to believe that this is at least as important as the ball and equipment technology issues, which together have contributed to better, larger athletes playing at the highest levels. I do think that the top players in other eras would hold their own with the elite players today, but perhaps they would win less often because today's field is deeper.
Tiger is particularly impressive because without him, Els, Norman, Mickelson and others may have achieved the status of Player, Palmer, Watson, and Snead. I am in awe of what he has been able to accomplish given where he came from and the intense, increasingly unforgiving media scrutiny of the last 20 years.
-
I simply do not believe that anyone on this site believes that modern equipment, more money and ease of travel has built a better golfer than in the past. The Champions Tour is dying because of the weakness of Tiger's competition.
A more plausible reason the Champions Tour is dying is because most good players are financially independent by age 45, and there's little incentive to continue grinding over ten foot putts for money.
An even better explanation is that the Champions Tour is dull.
As for modern golfers, it's modernized training and diet, plus huge financial incentives for performance, that make them better. If Jack Nicklaus were transported into the modern age, he'd probably do quite well.
-
Golf is different.
Any GOAT discussion is always mere speculation, but more even more so when it comes to golf.
Rod Laver -- just as he was back then, in his prime, but with no new/additional training regimes or better fitness level or healthier diet -- wouldn't be able to compete against today's top tennis players.
Frank Gifford, transported here from the 1950s, wouldn't be the starting half-back for the current New York Giants.
Chris Mullin would have a hard time both running the offence and playing defence for & with his new Golden State teammates.
And Guy LaFleur and his two pack a day habit would gave a hard time keeping up with the rest of the Canadiens in 2020.
But take Jack in his prime, and transport him here unchanged in any way. What do you think:
he wouldn't be able to generate enough club head speed to hit the ball a really long way? Do you think someone who could hit 1 and 2 irons the size of bread knives wouldn't hit modern hybrids even better and more accurately?
Would he have forgotten how to strategize or manage his game? Would he be missing more putts on today's smooth pure surfaces, or likely instead making even more of them. And unlike in football or basketball or hockey, he wouldn't be competing directly or physically 'against' today's bigger and stronger and faster athletes, but against the course.
Which is to say: Tiger may well be the greatest of all time, but please spare me these definitive answers and undeniable statistical analysis and tired cliches about 'today's athletes' and 'deeper fields'.
Golf is different.
20 time major champions are too.
Since JN nowadays could hit the ball a mile and have a great iron game and make tons of putts when they mattered most, today's 'field' would do about as well (ie poorly) against him as it did against Tiger (give or take).
The very best, the best of the best, aren't like you and me.
-
Pietro
I tend to think more in terms of style of play for team sports. Different skill sets are emphasised in different eras. Which is why I am less than convinced a guy like Orr would be the success today that he was in the early 70s. Even so, he had hockey smarts like all the all time greats and that counts for a ton.
Happy Hockey
-
Of course I believe that McEnroe, Borg and God forbid even Conners could beat Federer time and time again.
-
Men’s Tennis is a very interesting comparison. Despite the advances in nutrition, technology, and training, exactly three Athletes have dominated for nearly 20 years. Are the challengers less motivated? Or less talented? Depth of the field might be a red herring. I would take Laver any day, just as I would take Hogan any day.
Ira
-
I’ve known far to many amateur golfers who have sacrificed relationships because of their golf habit and everything that comes with it. If we are going to look up to a man who we consider the greatest of all time we need to look past just the numbers of wins and such. I’m sure that jack has made mistakes as both a husband and father but Barbara is still there and Jack had his son on the bag for the greatest championship ever won. He is a goddamned stone cold family man of the first order. Maybe Tiger will find a good woman and have his son on the bag for that 19th Major. Maybe not.
Weds I took a lesson with an old school top 50 teacher in the country. After my lesson we sat in his office talking golf and I asked him who the GOAT was in his opinion. He stated without hesitation, Jack. Good enough for me.
-
Sean -
I still think Orr was the greatest hockey player I've ever seen; but I'm trying to make allowances for the reality that, playing today (just as he was then), he'd be trying to defend and check and skate past & around and score on a group of athletes that are bigger & faster and in better condition than in his day.
But of course, none of that applies to golf -- cause no one is trying to do anything against anyone. JN or Hogan or Snead or Jones could either hit the ball long and accurately with both their woods and their irons or they couldn't. And since they could, they could do it now just as well as they could do it then; and 'the field' would be of little importance.
Just trying to put words to the same heavy sigh you expressed a while ago, at the mention of math.
-
How many more teams are there now than in Orr’s day? He without doubt could find a place.
-
I simply do not believe that anyone on this site believes that modern equipment, more money and ease of travel has built a better golfer than in the past. The Champions Tour is dying because of the weakness of Tiger's competition.
A more plausible reason the Champions Tour is dying is because most good players are financially independent by age 45, and there's little incentive to continue grinding over ten foot putts for money.
An even better explanation is that the Champions Tour is dull.
As for modern golfers, it's modernized training and diet, plus huge financial incentives for performance, that make them better. If Jack Nicklaus were transported into the modern age, he'd probably do quite well.
Your theory will be tested as Els, Micklestix, Mickleson, Furyk, Choi and others become eligible.
-
Your theory will be tested as Els, Micklestix, Mickleson, Furyk, Choi and others become eligible.
My guess is these guys will play in two or three senior majors, and continue to play a few events with the young bucks. We'll see.
-
Sean -
I still think Orr was the greatest hockey player I've ever seen; but I'm trying to make allowances for the reality that, playing today (just as he was then), he'd be trying to defend and check and skate past & around and score on a group of athletes that are bigger & faster and in better condition than in his day.
But of course, none of that applies to golf -- cause no one is trying to do anything against anyone. JN or Hogan or Snead or Jones could either hit the ball long and accurately with both their woods and their irons or they couldn't. And since they could, they could do it now just as well as they could do it then; and 'the field' would be of little importance.
Just trying to put words to the same heavy sigh you expressed a while ago, at the mention of math.
Pietro
Nothing more to say about golf. Nothing the Jack haters have said convinced me that major wins is not the be all of measuring greatness.
I definitely think Orr would have a place in today's NHL. I am less convinced that he would be able to drive an offense from the back end by keeping the puck on his stick for so long in today's NHL. The emergence of two way players makes that style of play awfully difficult. To me Orr's style of play helped the emergence of two way hockey become the way to play as well as clogging the neutral zone. These days, what a player does off the puck can be just as valuable as when on the puck. I am still amazed at what Lidstrom achieved just by being smart with his situational position play. In a way he was like Jack, played the percentages knowing he was tough to beat that way.
I think the only position I really think players of old would struggle is in the net. It is very telling how much less athletic great goalies were back in the day compared to today. Mind you, having a mask, helmet and far better pads makes it a lot easier these days. No question imo, the biggest change in hockey is the goalie. Not just because of pads, but also because of size. These guys are huge. Which of course means players today have to have great shots like never before, but of course this is made possible by new technology for sticks. Like golf, this tech has made it harder to stand out from the pack with a quality shot, lots of players have one.
Happy Hockey
-
8) ::) 8)
Was in the Nicklaus camp for a long time but if Tiger wins any more tournaments this year or next its going to be enough to sway me. Quite sure Jack would hit it ridiculous distances with the new equipment but that is part of my reason for giving Tiger the nod as GOAT.
Today's technology brings everyone closer together not further apart. With the old equipment Jack's superior skills were magnified not minimized, just go try and hit one of the one irons of his era. The first time I hit the ping eye 2's it was eye popping ::) as the long irons were like trampolines and they went far and straight almost all the time. So be careful getting into any arguments that the equipment was to Tiger's advantage vis a vis the Bear! ;)
-
1. It isn't "Jack hating" to say that Tiger Woods was the better golfer. It also isn't either surprising or revealing that older guys tend to lean toward Nicklaus, though I AM an older guy and do NOT lean that way.
2. It is sort of pointless to compare guys of different eras in ANY sport. This is perhaps more true of golf than some others because of the explosive growth of the game, changes in equipment in a VERY short period of time, and changes in the way top pro golfers train and condition and are taught.
3. Finally, and most importantly, if you are EVER tempted to make the argument that Nicklaus was playing against comparable strength of fields, PLEASE take a minute, breathe deeply and do NOT say or type that; it is patently absurd. How many Euros were capable of winning a major during Jack's prime? What has happened to the level of competition in junior and college golf since Jack's prime? What has happened to "lesser" professional tours since then? Nicklaus had to beat great players, but he didn't have to beat a particularly large number of great players in a given week. Woods and everybody else on Tour right now are faced with fields of 144 guys who have ALL won at high levels of amateur and professional golf.
I don't think it's a bad comparison to equate the golf boom to integration in other professional sports to get an idea of this. The MLB pitchers of the "old days" were great, without question. But does anybody think that pitching to lineups that didn't include Jackie or Frank Robinson, or Hank Aaron, or Willie Mays, and on and on, is comparable to facing THOSE guys? And so it is with more golfers.
There are LOTS of valid arguments favoring Jones, or Hogan, or Nicklaus as the GOAT over Woods; it all depends on what standard you want to use. But strength of field is NOT one of those arguments; it is a mathematical and logical absurdity.
-
Which is to say: Tiger may well be the greatest of all time, but please spare me these definitive answers and undeniable statistical analysis and tired cliches about 'today's athletes' and 'deeper fields'.
Peter,
I don't understand what your point is with this statement. At least some of us are attempting to look at this issue from a qualitative perspective and use rational analysis. What have you brought to the table other than Jack was very good?...well yes we know that.
P.S. Go back and look at post 66, where I used and apples vs apples comparison to show that better players win more often against shallow fields in the Masters, vs The Players the deepest field year over year.
-
If Bobby Orr played today, I wonder if he might not be even better than he was in the 70s. Obviously, his greatest impact was how he revolutionized the role of defensemen. But Orr was widely considered to be the greatest skater the game had ever seen, yet by the time he was 29, he had already had 6 knee surgeries. At a time when knee surgery meant opening up the joint to take a look, rather than the minimally invasive arthroscopic surgery athletes undergo today. He first tore cartilage in his knee in 1967, in only his second season. He had knee pain every year after that. Yet was named the NHL's top defensemen for 8 consecutive seasons. He retired at 31 because he could barely walk.
If he played now, with modern medicine, I would wager he might be even better than he was.
Two Orr items most probably already know but what the hell ...
Before every home game, Larry Bird would look up in the rafters during the national anthem. Most assumed he was either looking at the American flag or at all the Celtics championships banners. At a dinner for Orr, Bird admitted that in fact what he always stared at was Orr's #4 hanging above the parquet. He couldn't explain why, but every time he looked at it, he got chills. Something about Orr's immense talent, the way he was beloved in Boston, and the truly good guy that he is.
Years ago, the Boston Globe published a story about all the things Orr does in retirement that he doesn't want anyone to know because he is one of the most humble, selfless athletes who's ever lived. If you haven't read it, it's worth your time:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/09/28/number-bobby-orr-still-number/2QgHMeTyFcjwgoIKj2mlJL/story.html (https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/09/28/number-bobby-orr-still-number/2QgHMeTyFcjwgoIKj2mlJL/story.html)
-
If Bobby Orr played today, I wonder if he might not be even better than he was in the 70s. Obviously, his greatest impact was how he revolutionized the role of defensemen. But Orr was widely considered to be the greatest skater the game had ever seen, yet by the time he was 29, he had already had 6 knee surgeries. At a time when knee surgery meant opening up the joint to take a look, rather than the minimally invasive arthroscopic surgery athletes undergo today. He first tore cartilage in his knee in 1967, in only his second season. He had knee pain every year after that. Yet was named the NHL's top defensemen for 8 consecutive seasons. He retired at 31 because he could barely walk.
If he played now, with modern medicine, I would wager he might be even better than he was.
Two Orr items most probably already know but what the hell ...
Before every home game, Larry Bird would look up in the rafters during the national anthem. Most assumed he was either looking at the American flag or at all the Celtics championships banners. At a dinner for Orr, Bird admitted that in fact what he always stared at was Orr's #4 hanging above the parquet. He couldn't explain why, but every time he looked at it, he got chills. Something about Orr's immense talent, the way he was beloved in Boston, and the truly good guy that he is.
Years ago, the Boston Globe published a story about all the things Orr does in retirement that he doesn't want anyone to know because he is one of the most humble, selfless athletes who's ever lived. If you haven't read it, it's worth your time:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/09/28/number-bobby-orr-still-number/2QgHMeTyFcjwgoIKj2mlJL/story.html (https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/09/28/number-bobby-orr-still-number/2QgHMeTyFcjwgoIKj2mlJL/story.html)
Dan,
An outstanding point about the advancements in surgeries. ACLs still are extremely serious, but the ability of players to recover and play at full strength and speed is remarkable. We (the NFLPA) are funding research for yet another what we hope will be a significant advancement in ACL repairs.
I grew up during Original Six days disliking the Bruins intensely, but it was/is impossible not to admire how great a player he was and what a contribution he made to the sport. I did not know about his post-career work so thank you for sharing.
Ira
-
Perhaps this also needs to be included in the convo of why Tiger isn't the GOAT....given all the other topics that have come up. ::) ::) ::)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/greg-norman-upset-tiger-woods-didnt-respond-to-his-handwritten-letter-maybe-tiger-just-dislikes-me/ar-AAJOMys?li=BBnbfcL (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/greg-norman-upset-tiger-woods-didnt-respond-to-his-handwritten-letter-maybe-tiger-just-dislikes-me/ar-AAJOMys?li=BBnbfcL)
-
In the context of field strength, how would you guys compare Tom Watson’s career to Phil Mickelson’s?
-
In the context of field strength, how would you guys compare Tom Watson’s career to Phil Mickelson’s?
I'm a young guy but I'll throw some crap against the wall for a second.
Favorably, personally. 8 to 5 on the major count and while Jack was exiting his prime during most of those he still beat some all time greats and went toe to toe to do so.
Tom Watson denied Jack 4 (most likely) more majors! Phil did not really do that... Tiger didn't finish runner up in any of Phil's 5 and even though Phil came close more often he wasn't able to close the door.
Now, that may speak to the exact thing we're talking about in this thread - that depth of field changed and affects how modern greats perform compared to those of a previous area. I think it's a valid point. It depends on if you have a Ricky Bobby view of competition - if you ain't first you're last. That seems to be Tiger's mentality and his record shows it. It suited him well in the modern area and he has been able to convert when in contention at majors in an entirely different way than just about anyone.
Which is more impressive - getting that trophy or being in position to at an even higher clip? To me that's a question that won't be answered.
What can be shown is that there are FAR MORE one-off major winners in the Woods era than during the 60's-80's. The high level competition was there, but the best players were able to take advantage of a shallower field.
COMPLETELY HYPOTHETICAL BS OPINION: If pressed though I would bet Tiger would have, all things equal, converted more than 15 majors (even with injuries) if he played in Jack's era. 18 honestly sounds about right, but maybe a couple more :o [size=78%]. But he wouldn't have 38 top 3's in majors.[/size]
-
Mickelson has 6 US Open Runner up finishes and has had his share of bad luck en route to those 2nd place finishes. Give him 3 of those 6 and he is right there in the top 5 golfers major wise.
-
Mickelson has 6 US Open Runner up finishes and has had his share of bad luck en route to those 2nd place finishes. Give him 3 of those 6 and he is right there in the top 5 golfers major wise.
That’s a pretty big “give”.
-
Mickelson has 6 US Open Runner up finishes and has had his share of bad luck en route to those 2nd place finishes. Give him 3 of those 6 and he is right there in the top 5 golfers major wise.
That’s a pretty big “give”.
Yes, I was thinking I want to play golf with Jeff...no putting necessary 8)
Happy Hockey
-
In the context of field strength, how would you guys compare Tom Watson’s career to Phil Mickelson’s?
That's a really interesting comparison, given that they both played the majority of their prime years against one of the two guys that the GOAT debate centers on.
I don't think there is any question that Mickelson played the majority of his career against deeper fields, if only because of the growth of international golf. It isn't even close, and that matters.
But while depth of field is pertinent, there is a complicating factor in this comparison, which is that in 5 of Watson's 8 majors, Nicklaus was the runner-up, so it's sort of safe to assume that Watson beat Nicklaus head-to-head when Nicklaus was playing at, or at least near, his best. That isn't the case with Mickelson's majors vis a vis Woods, though I'd have to do a lot of research that I'm too lazy to do to figure out the state of Woods' health in Mickelson's majors wins.
Mickelson (and others) can correctly say that they might have won a lot more tournaments, majors included, but for Tiger Woods, as can the guys who played against Nicklaus. But it's also hard for me not to think about Mickelson at Winged Foot or Merion as having had "bad luck", and equally hard to imagine Tom Watson making the mistakes that Mickelson made down the stretch.
So I'll give Mickelson the nod for being more entertaining, if puzzling, against much deeper fields. But depth of field aside, prime vs. prime, it's Watson, hands down.
-
Jim -
an aside: so many people who know the game say that Greg Norman was the best driver of the golf ball they've ever seen, consistently very long and very straight with persimmon and steel. He dropped off the map just about the time 'the field' caught up with him: because with big headed titanium and graphite, almost everyone starting hitting it consistently longer & straighter.
Tom Watson must've had one hell of a complete game, to win on all manner of courses and conditions: 5 Opens, 2 Masters, a US Open. How does the field/the strength of field tell us anything about the completeness of that game? [Just like tour pros say that Greg Norman was a great driver: the 'strength of the field' then or now or 80 years ago is irrelevant, i.e. it literally has nothing to do with, and has nothing to say for/against, the question of who drove the golf ball best.]
'Fields' come and go, but since no one in that field was vying for the same ball (or tackling him, or battling him for a rebound, or skating past him, or asking him to return a 125 mph serve), I can only measure Watson's game (or Phil's) not relatively, i.e. against the fields, then and now, but 'objectively', i.e. against an enduring concept of what it means to play great golf.
In that context, I'd say Watson was the better golfer: one of the greats.
Peter
PS - the best golf I've ever seen played 'live' (ie not on repeats) was the display that Phil and Henrik put on at the Open. My goodness, what great golf. I wouldn't think to somehow disparage/lessen Mickelson's great golf that day by comparing the 'field' then vs the field in 1977, i.e. by noting that he lost to Stenson (1 major) while Watson beat Nicklaus (18 majors).
-
Mickelson has 6 US Open Runner up finishes and has had his share of bad luck en route to those 2nd place finishes. Give him 3 of those 6 and he is right there in the top 5 golfers major wise.
That’s a pretty big “give”.
Yes, I was thinking I want to play golf with Jeff...no putting necessary 8)
Happy Hockey
You mean you guys putt? :)
-
In the context of field strength, how would you guys compare Tom Watson’s career to Phil Mickelson’s?
Hoping Pat Burke sees this and chimes in.
-
Mickelson has 6 US Open Runner up finishes and has had his share of bad luck en route to those 2nd place finishes. Give him 3 of those 6 and he is right there in the top 5 golfers major wise.
That’s a pretty big “give”.
Yes, I was thinking I want to play golf with Jeff...no putting necessary 8)
Happy Hockey
You mean you guys putt? :)
I'm not proud of it.
Happy Hockey
-
He had 11 runner ups in Majors overall and 7 3rds, which I'm guessing is 2nd only to Jack.
I wonder if Tiger never existed or never become the player he did, if we wouldn't be talking about Lefty as the GOAT!
P.S. And before we dismiss Tiger as all or nothing, he did have 7 runner-ups and 4 3rds in Majors as well.
-
I wonder if Tiger never existed or never become the player he did, if we wouldn't be talking about Lefty as the GOAT!
No, Nicklaus still existed, along with Watson, Faldo, Trevino, Seve, and Ernie Els.
-
So i looked at top 3 finishes among the 20 players who have won at least 5 majors.
While Phil is tied for last at the bottom of the list for majors won, overall he is:
-- 3rd in top 3 finishes overall at 23, (behind Woods at 26, and Jack at 36).
-- 1st in runner up finishes with 11, (1 more than Palmer, and 2 more than Jack)
-- 3rd for 3rd place finishes with 7, (with Jack and Sarazen tied at 9 each)
-
I wonder if Tiger never existed or never become the player he did, if we wouldn't be talking about Lefty as the GOAT!
No, Nicklaus still existed, along with Watson, Faldo, Trevino, Seve, and Ernie Els.
Bhoov,
I get this, I was just curious what Phil's career might have looked like without the ripple effect that Tiger had on the game. Its plausible that Phil faced even tougher fields than he would have otherwise with everyone being motivated to step thier game up and chase Tiger. This is certainly more in the subjective camp yes, but interesting none-the-less.
-
Quite a thread. No Surprise, I'm Pro GOAT Tiger.
For pondering:
1: Tiger has won with persimmons, steel, carbon fiber through titanium, as did Phil and that peer group.
Maybe it got easier. if so, it also got harder to win since the equipment leveled the field.
2: He invented a new type of golf (Or perhaps he perfected the Gary Player golfer as an athlete premise)
3: The thing I find most impressive is that he is taking money from the very generation that grew up wanting to be and training like Tiger
"Wish I could play Tiger in his prime... Wish Granted
4: Very important, under no circumstances, discount his ability to focus and win 82 times knowing there are no fewer than 100 death threats against you everyday of every tournament. Jack, Arnie, Phil, Ernie, Hogan never had to contend with that.
One additional point, I might put Hogan above Jack for #2 because the number may be smaller but coming back after that accident, however bad it was, or was not, still impresses.
My 2cents
-
One additional point, I might put Hogan above Jack for #2 because the number may be smaller but coming back after that accident, however bad it was, or was not, still impresses.
My 2cents
Woah, woah, woah.... Vaughn you must be in Vegas. Please put down whatever you are drinking/smoking and step away from the keyboard before you hit the self destruct button.
Now Jack is #3???? Come on really? Not sure if you are trolling or not. ???
-
In the context of field strength, how would you guys compare Tom Watson’s career to Phil Mickelson’s?
What can be shown is that there are FAR MORE one-off major winners in the Woods era than during the 60's-80's. The high level competition was there, but the best players were able to take advantage of a shallower field.
Piggybacking off of Alex's comment here and how that relates to depth of field. I took a look at the list of one time major winners in both the Jack era and Tiger era. I used the years 1962-1986 for Jack (first to last major won, 96 total majors) and 1997-present (88 total majors)
Jack's era 21 one time major winners
Craig Stadler, Tommy Aaron, Charles Coody, George Archer, Bob Goalby, Gay Brewer, Ken Venturi, Orville, Moody, Lou Graham, Jerry Pate, Bill Rogers, Tony Lema, Bob Charles, Bobby Nichols, Dave Marr, Al Geiberger, Don January, Lanny Wadkins, John Mahaffey, Hal Sutton, Bob Tway
Tiger's era 37 one time major winners
Patrick Reed, Sergio Garcia, Danny Willett, Adam Scott, Charl Schwartzel, Trevor Immelman, Mike Weir, Jim Furyk, Michael Campbell, Geoff Ogilvy, Lucas Glover, Graeme McDowell, Webb Simpson, Justin Rose, Dustin Johnson, Gary Woodland, Francesco Molinari, Henrik Stenson, Darren Clarke, Louis Oosthuizen, Stewart Cink, Todd Hamilton, Ben Curtis, David Duval, Paul Lawrie, Justin Leonard, Davis Love III, David Toms, Rich Beem, Shaun Micheel, YE Yang, Keegan Bradley, Jason Dufner, Jason Day, Jimmy Walker, Justin Thomas, Shane Lowry
While I do think the number is at least a little inflated due to a few of these guys still having long careers ahead of them (Justin Thomas, Dustin Johnson, Patrick Reed, Justin Rose, Gary Woodland, etc.) I think the numbers show how many more players in Tiger's era could compete.
-
One additional point, I might put Hogan above Jack for #2 because the number may be smaller but coming back after that accident, however bad it was, or was not, still impresses.
My 2cents
Woah, woah, woah.... Vaughn you must be in Vegas. Please put down whatever you are drinking/smoking and step away from the keyboard before you hit the self destruct button.
Now Jack is #3? ??? Come on really? Not sure if you are trolling or not. ???
Tee hee. Not trolling and as Ben reminded me, Hogan's putting left him early. Jack can have #2 Back. Lol ;) Jack was impressive but, Man I would have loved to have seen Hogan Up Close in the day...
-
Tiger's era 37 one time major winners
Patrick Reed, Sergio Garcia, Danny Willett, Adam Scott, Charl Schwartzel, Trevor Immelman, Mike Weir, Jim Furyk, Michael Campbell, Geoff Ogilvy, Lucas Glover, Graeme McDowell, Webb Simpson, Justin Rose, Dustin Johnson, Gary Woodland, Francesco Molinari, Henrik Stenson, Darren Clarke, Louis Oosthuizen, Stewart Cink, Todd Hamilton, Ben Curtis, David Duval, Paul Lawrie, Justin Leonard, Davis Love III, David Toms, Rich Beem, Shaun Micheel, YE Yang, Keegan Bradley, Jason Dufner, Jason Day, Jimmy Walker, Justin Thomas, Shane Lowry
Wow is Rick Astey in there too as there are a lot of one hit wonders. Some of those guys never got past the first house trick or treating.
-
Jeff,
Is there not same in this list?? There will always be a few guys who get hot at just the right time to take one against a group of superior players. But i'll take the best of Tigers one timer list over Jacks any day and twice on Sunday...
Jack's era 21 one time major winnersCraig Stadler, Tommy Aaron, Charles Coody, George Archer, Bob Goalby, Gay Brewer, Ken Venturi, Orville, Moody, Lou Graham, Jerry Pate, Bill Rogers, Tony Lema, Bob Charles, Bobby Nichols, Dave Marr, Al Geiberger, Don January, Lanny Wadkins, John Mahaffey, Hal Sutton, Bob Tway
-
I'm 67, and grew up watching Arnie and Jack and the rest; I know how dominant Nicklaus was, and I know the quality of the guys he beat, and all of that stuff. So keep that in mind.
Many years ago, when he still published the Baseball Abstract every year, Bill James wrote at length about peak value vs. career value, using Mantle and Mays as the two examples. Boiled down, James showed that Mantle was better in 1956 than Mays ever was, but that the career that Mays had completely eclipsed Mantle's. The point is that there are two very different measures of athletic greatness.
The weird thing about the Nicklaus-Woods debate is that Woods comes out ahead either way; the ONLY way in which Nicklaus could be considered "better" is by majors alone, which is a made-up hybrid between peak and career. And that form of cherry picking, in turn, makes the depth of field discussion pertinent.
So you've got this guy who is the only guy in the modern era to hold all four Grand Slam trophies at the same time, and pretty clearly played better golf in and around 2000 than anybody has ever played by any measure that you can think of; winning percentage, money, stroke average, majors, anything. BUT, and this is the key point, the same guy is going to have won more tournaments in his career than anybody else, ever. Think about those two things for a minute; he's Mantle in 1956 AND Mays for a career!
And there's a debate because????
-
In the context of field strength, how would you guys compare Tom Watson’s career to Phil Mickelson’s?
What can be shown is that there are FAR MORE one-off major winners in the Woods era than during the 60's-80's. The high level competition was there, but the best players were able to take advantage of a shallower field.
Piggybacking off of Alex's comment here and how that relates to depth of field. I took a look at the list of one time major winners in both the Jack era and Tiger era. I used the years 1962-1986 for Jack (first to last major won, 96 total majors) and 1997-present (88 total majors)
Jack's era 21 one time major winners
Craig Stadler, Tommy Aaron, Charles Coody, George Archer, Bob Goalby, Gay Brewer, Ken Venturi, Orville, Moody, Lou Graham, Jerry Pate, Bill Rogers, Tony Lema, Bob Charles, Bobby Nichols, Dave Marr, Al Geiberger, Don January, Lanny Wadkins, John Mahaffey, Hal Sutton, Bob Tway
Tiger's era 37 one time major winners
Patrick Reed, Sergio Garcia, Danny Willett, Adam Scott, Charl Schwartzel, Trevor Immelman, Mike Weir, Jim Furyk, Michael Campbell, Geoff Ogilvy, Lucas Glover, Graeme McDowell, Webb Simpson, Justin Rose, Dustin Johnson, Gary Woodland, Francesco Molinari, Henrik Stenson, Darren Clarke, Louis Oosthuizen, Stewart Cink, Todd Hamilton, Ben Curtis, David Duval, Paul Lawrie, Justin Leonard, Davis Love III, David Toms, Rich Beem, Shaun Micheel, YE Yang, Keegan Bradley, Jason Dufner, Jason Day, Jimmy Walker, Justin Thomas, Shane Lowry
While I do think the number is at least a little inflated due to a few of these guys still having long careers ahead of them (Justin Thomas, Dustin Johnson, Patrick Reed, Justin Rose, Gary Woodland, etc.) I think the numbers show how many more players in Tiger's era could compete.
I don't think anyone is arguing that Tiger had more major competition from guys who were never going to challenge to be among the best of all time. The questions are
1. Does the above fact carry more weight than Jack's actual wins VS Tiger's presumed wins if not for the improved depth of fields?
2. Was Jack's top competition better than Tiger's and if so, does this carry more weight than #1?
3. Does it make a difference which majors were won? In other words, are all majors equal?
Happy Hockey
-
There is a debate because people believe that parity equals strength when in reality parity is the result of dilution.
-
There is a debate because people believe that parity equals strength when in reality parity is the result of dilution.
John,
Of course this is true in part, but a lot depends on where you draw the line. Imagine how many epic multiple major winners we would have if only the same top 10 players in the world were invited to Majors? Or perhaps the top 25? or 50? So the question is where do you draw the line on who is competitive?
I did an analysis on this a couple of years back and as I recall, a lot more 50-125 guys win now at PGA Tour events than just 30-40 years ago, which is the basic gist of the previous post on 1 time winners in Jacks era vs Tigers...
But in the aggregate, if parity is diluting the fields then why are more of them winning these days?
-
The great deal of money available for the one time winner is what has diluted the field. Imagine what David Duval may have been had he not been able to cash out. Perhaps he would have challenged Tiger as Watson did Nicklaus.
-
The great deal of money available for the one time winner is what has diluted the field. Imagine what David Duval may have been had he not been able to cash out. Perhaps he would have challenged Tiger as Watson did Nicklaus.
This--you typed it before I could.
-
So you've got this guy who is the only guy in the modern era to hold all four Grand Slam trophies at the same time, and pretty clearly played better golf in and around 2000 than anybody has ever played by any measure that you can think of; winning percentage, money, stroke average, majors, anything. BUT, and this is the key point, the same guy is going to have won more tournaments in his career than anybody else, ever. Think about those two things for a minute; he's Mantle in 1956 AND Mays for a career!
A.G. Crockett -
I agree totally. And Tiger's record of 142 consecutive cuts made (over a period of 7 1/2 years!) is the icing on the cake.
DT
-
I believe Tiger Woods is the GOAT because Pat Burke does.
A stat and a bit of hard-earned wisdom:
In 2000 (and again in 2007), TW finished the year with a scoring average in the 67s. From what I can tell, no one in the history of the game ever before finished the year with a scoring average under 68. [Equipment has gotten steadily better but courses steadily longer & tougher, so it's a wash IMO]. More significantly, not one of the top golfers who've come of age in the Tiger era has ever done it since.
That's the stat, here's the wisdom: Byron Nelson, when he was in his 80s, was asked how much better he would've scored in 1945 (18 wins, 11 in a row, scoring average of 68.3) if he'd been using today's modern equipment way back then. He said: "Oh, not much better, I don't think. The centre of the club-face was the same then as it is now".
-
I believe Tiger Woods is the GOAT because Pat Burke does.
A stat and a bit of hard-earned wisdom:
In 2000 (and again in 2007), TW finished the year with a scoring average in the 67s. From what I can tell, no one in the history of the game ever before finished the year with a scoring average under 68. [Equipment has gotten steadily better but courses steadily longer & tougher, so it's a wash IMO]. More significantly, not one of the top golfers who've come of age in the Tiger era has ever done it since.
That's the stat, here's the wisdom: Byron Nelson, when he was in his 80s, was asked how much better he would've scored in 1945 (18 wins, 11 in a row, scoring average of 68.3) if he'd been using today's modern equipment way back then. He said: "Oh, not much better, I don't think. The centre of the club-face was the same then as it is now".
It is more likely that someone will break Dimaggio's streak than Nelson's 11 in a row.
Ira
-
That's the stat, here's the wisdom: Byron Nelson, when he was in his 80s, was asked how much better he would've scored in 1945 (18 wins, 11 in a row, scoring average of 68.3) if he'd been using today's modern equipment way back then. He said: "Oh, not much better, I don't think. The centre of the club-face was the same then as it is now".
Except it really isn't the same now--a point JK made a few pages ago. Not sure how you'd quantify it, but modern equipment has probably made some nerves-induced mishits turn out a lot better than those same mishits 40 years ago.
-
I believe Tiger Woods is the GOAT because Pat Burke does.
A stat and a bit of hard-earned wisdom:
In 2000 (and again in 2007), TW finished the year with a scoring average in the 67s. From what I can tell, no one in the history of the game ever before finished the year with a scoring average under 68. [Equipment has gotten steadily better but courses steadily longer & tougher, so it's a wash IMO]. More significantly, not one of the top golfers who've come of age in the Tiger era has ever done it since.
That's the stat, here's the wisdom: Byron Nelson, when he was in his 80s, was asked how much better he would've scored in 1945 (18 wins, 11 in a row, scoring average of 68.3) if he'd been using today's modern equipment way back then. He said: "Oh, not much better, I don't think. The centre of the club-face was the same then as it is now".
It is more likely that someone will break Dimaggio's streak than Nelson's 11 in a row.
Ira
Not if we have WWIII.
-
The great deal of money available for the one time winner is what has diluted the field. Imagine what David Duval may have been had he not been able to cash out. Perhaps he would have challenged Tiger as Watson did Nicklaus.
Duval cashed out? That’s not how I remember it. He lost his game and tried numerous times to retool his swing without success. Not to mention his injuries. He had a few prime years where he was nearly Woods’ equal.
-
The great deal of money available for the one time winner is what has diluted the field. Imagine what David Duval may have been had he not been able to cash out. Perhaps he would have challenged Tiger as Watson did Nicklaus.
Duval cashed out? That’s not how I remember it. He lost his game and tried numerous times to retool his swing without success.
I agree Mike,
I think that argument is busted on several levels.
1- First and foremost the idea that guys are just mailing it in and not trying to win just isn't true, when the data shows we have far more 1st time winners than ever.
2 - By everyone being able to make a living on tour, instead of just the top guys, it allows guys to continue to work on their game and get better and continue their development arc, instead of just being a flash in the pan and the next set of inexperienced players step in for the top pros to beat down.
3 - With more money to be spread around it encourages even more talented players to stick with it and actually choose golf over other sports, especially given how long you can play the game.
-
:o 8)
All I can tell you is that when Watson hit the ball it just sounded different. Saw him play at close range more than a few times and his ball striking was scary good. Had he putted better as he aged who knows how many times he would have won.
The British Open almost was arguably one of the best efforts ever at age 58 or 59
-
Trevino won four of his six majors where Nicklaus finished second. Can you really believe that Lee would have had the same drive if he had immediately became filthy rich and accepted into the golf community like a modern Jason Day after only one major?
Win once, get rich, get hurt, tour the world and retire so a new kid can win once, get rich, get hurt, tour the world and retire. A cycle of mediocrity that is played out from celebrity chefs to modern CEO's. Or maybe not, maybe huge piles of money at every turn doesn't change people. Never mind.
-
I'm 67, and grew up watching Arnie and Jack and the rest; I know how dominant Nicklaus was, and I know the quality of the guys he beat, and all of that stuff. So keep that in mind.
Many years ago, when he still published the Baseball Abstract every year, Bill James wrote at length about peak value vs. career value, using Mantle and Mays as the two examples. Boiled down, James showed that Mantle was better in 1956 than Mays ever was, but that the career that Mays had completely eclipsed Mantle's. The point is that there are two very different measures of athletic greatness.
The weird thing about the Nicklaus-Woods debate is that Woods comes out ahead either way; the ONLY way in which Nicklaus could be considered "better" is by majors alone, which is a made-up hybrid between peak and career. And that form of cherry picking, in turn, makes the depth of field discussion pertinent.
So you've got this guy who is the only guy in the modern era to hold all four Grand Slam trophies at the same time, and pretty clearly played better golf in and around 2000 than anybody has ever played by any measure that you can think of; winning percentage, money, stroke average, majors, anything. BUT, and this is the key point, the same guy is going to have won more tournaments in his career than anybody else, ever. Think about those two things for a minute; he's Mantle in 1956 AND Mays for a career!
And there's a debate because? ???
I'm too young for most of Nicklaus' career but iIrc he had dialed his touring way back by age 40 or so. He was making money building golf courses and at least in the early 1980s he could make 100k or so on a Monday corporate outings. There were the majors, the Crosby, a few big ones like the Western and LA Open. So Bill James wise, his lack of winning later in his career may be an artifact of lack of incentive.
-
I'm 67, and grew up watching Arnie and Jack and the rest; I know how dominant Nicklaus was, and I know the quality of the guys he beat, and all of that stuff. So keep that in mind.
Many years ago, when he still published the Baseball Abstract every year, Bill James wrote at length about peak value vs. career value, using Mantle and Mays as the two examples. Boiled down, James showed that Mantle was better in 1956 than Mays ever was, but that the career that Mays had completely eclipsed Mantle's. The point is that there are two very different measures of athletic greatness.
The weird thing about the Nicklaus-Woods debate is that Woods comes out ahead either way; the ONLY way in which Nicklaus could be considered "better" is by majors alone, which is a made-up hybrid between peak and career. And that form of cherry picking, in turn, makes the depth of field discussion pertinent.
So you've got this guy who is the only guy in the modern era to hold all four Grand Slam trophies at the same time, and pretty clearly played better golf in and around 2000 than anybody has ever played by any measure that you can think of; winning percentage, money, stroke average, majors, anything. BUT, and this is the key point, the same guy is going to have won more tournaments in his career than anybody else, ever. Think about those two things for a minute; he's Mantle in 1956 AND Mays for a career!
And there's a debate because? ???
I'm too young for most of Nicklaus' career but iIrc he had dialed his touring way back by age 40 or so. He was making money building golf courses and at least in the early 1980s he could make 100k or so on a Monday corporate outings. There were the majors, the Crosby, a few big ones like the Western and LA Open. So Bill James wise, his lack of winning later in his career may be an artifact of lack of incentive.
And yet it may have worked out for him....
Nicklaus played[/size] 154 [/color][/size]consecutive majors[/color][/size] for which he was eligible, from the 1957 U.S. Open through the 1998 U.S. Open.[/color]
-
Golfers in different eras have a difficulty in comparisons: balls and equipment plus training.
Boxers have less of this problem. Training differs but I don't think Ray Robinson and any modern middle weight differ in fitness, and the equipment does not change.
So Ray Robinson, Marvin Hagler or Roy Jones Jr?
-
Didn't TW always cite JN's major wins total as his motivation? So does TW think JN had the better career?
-
Golfers in different eras have a difficulty in comparisons: balls and equipment plus training.
Boxers have less of this problem. Training differs but I don't think Ray Robinson and any modern middle weight differ in fitness, and the equipment does not change.
So Ray Robinson, Marvin Hagler or Roy Jones Jr?
Carlos Monzon
-
Didn't TW always cite JN's major wins total as his motivation? So does TW think JN had the better career?
At last !!! Someone has pointed out the flaw in the "Tiger is the greatest" argument. Ever since the inception of the Open in 1860, major victories have been the benchmark for how a golfer is judged. Jack's majors record was Tiger's benchmark and he hasn't beaten it yet. If and when he does he'll be the greatest. In the meantime give Jack his due.
Niall
-
Yes and No...
Tiger certainly set that as his goal, for sure...but other variables must be considered.
I'm not sure I'd pick Tiger, but it won't rely 100% on his reaching 18 or 19 professional majors.
-
Yes and No...
Tiger certainly set that as his goal, for sure...but other variables must be considered.
I'm not sure I'd pick Tiger, but it won't rely 100% on his reaching 18 or 19 professional majors.
Yes, but unless TW says different, major wins was the standard he was using.
-
No game humbles a man like golf.
If he doesn't reach 18 professional majors, I don't think you'll hear TW making any excuses, or trying to change the 'metrics'.
But that's not to say his people (or more likely Golf Digest) won't soon start making the case for adding in the (3 vs 2) US Am wins.
-
No game humbles a man like golf.
Amen!!!!
-
With Veterans Day approaching it’s not unreasonable to consider how many of the greats in Jack’s era served their country. The difference in eras is a men against boys argument.
-
In that context, I'm guessing Jack's era wouldn't hold up to the those preceding his...so how about we deal with what did happen on the golf course?
Does Ernie Els' resume match Lee Trevino? 6 majors to 4, I am aware...how about the rest?
-
Cmon Jim,
Give JK a break, he's the king of non-sequiturs. I believe he's contractually obligated to get in at least 2-3 every week on GCA.com! ;D
P.S. I'm curious if anyone knows if there is a list that shows PGA Card holders prior to 1990. If I had to guess there is probably less turnover now than there was in Jacks era.
-
He's the best...
-
Jim
like with the Watson-Mickelson question, who do *you* think was the better golfer, Trevino or Els?
That's what this (eg Tiger at 82 and JN) comes down to for me, ie what really good golfers see in the greats, the very best.
My untrained eye thinks Watson the better golfer than Mickelson, Trevino the better golfer than Els, and Tiger the better golfer than Nicklaus.
But what do you think?
And please, for friendship's sake: no stats (or short pithy sentences that end with ...), just your gut instinct/opinion as someone who plays the game very well.
-
I'd give Trevino the nod over Els...not by a mile, but decisive. 4 of his 6 majors had Nicklaus as runner up...while I think Els had all the talent in the world, the Tiger effect hit him harder than anyone else in my view.
I think I might take Mickelson over Watson now that he's won, and come close in two late career Open Championships...and I'm a Watson guy and never loved Mickelson.
One amazing stat I heard (although did not confirm) is that Mickelson never once won the money list, nor did he ever reach #1 in the World Rankings. If true, those stats amaze me considering he's won 50 times and is just now dropping outside the top 50 in the world and going to miss his first Team in 25 years.
All in, I'd put Tiger a very slim notch behind Jack right now but if he wins another major or a handful of significant events, I'd put him on top. The Mantle-Mays analysis hits home. Tiger was hands down the best player in 1997 and 2013 so that's a pretty long range. Was Jack hands down the best player across a 16 year window? Not each and every year, but that broad. 1962 - 1980? Tiger certainly owns the best best golf with his run from late 1999 to late 2002 I'd say.
-
Jim,
Thats some very interesting stuff on Phil, i didn't know Phil was never #1. Found this on another site:
"In addition to Lefty’s 270 weeks at No. 2, Mickelson spent 567 weeks in the top five, 786 weeks in the top 10 and 1,085 weeks – an astonishing 20 years and 10 months – in the top 20. That’s more than 2½ years longer than Woods spent in the top 20."
-
If golf hadn’t been so sick of trashing Trevino they would have never welcomed Tiger with open arms. “Merry Mex”?!? Seriously. What a load of xenophobic crap.
-
Who is golf?
I'm sure he had a rough go, and yes the world was different in 1996 versus 1966...but Trevino was loved pretty early in his career, no?
-
Hmmm... "Merry Mex" or "Fat Jack"?
I'd take the former....
P.S. After Tiger won six straight national USGA titles, "golf" didn't have a choice, it was a case of ready or not here I come.
-
Short responses (please don't take them as curt, I'm just trying to be brief as I've had this conversation many, many times before).
Modern equipment has created the illusion of strength of field. Anyone can win because anyone can find the club face under pressure.
No. Try again. Equipment has hurt Tiger's ability to win. He'd have won more with poorer equipment for all.
It is convenient that you attempt to use math to support a point, but conveniently dismiss the most important indicator of greatness...and that is major wins. If you are going to throw that statistic out the window then there is little point in continuing the conversation.
It's not convenient. I have said 15 >> 18. 15 wins against these fields is a greater accomplishment than 18 wins back when Jack was competing.
15 vs. 18 is almost the ONLY stat that favors Jack, and you have to ignore strength/depth to get there. Tiger was more dominant. Won more awards. Etc.
Nothing more to say about golf. Nothing the Jack haters have said convinced me that major wins is not the be all of measuring greatness.
Yeah, because the 1959 British Open was SUCH a tough victory. Gary Player, +1 major championships for winning that one.
Today's technology brings everyone closer together not further apart. With the old equipment Jack's superior skills were magnified not minimized, just go try and hit one of the one irons of his era. The first time I hit the ping eye 2's it was eye popping ::) as the long irons were like trampolines and they went far and straight almost all the time. So be careful getting into any arguments that the equipment was to Tiger's advantage vis a vis the Bear! ;)
Yep. Equipment hurt Tiger's chances. It shrunk his advantage.
3. Finally, and most importantly, if you are EVER tempted to make the argument that Nicklaus was playing against comparable strength of fields, PLEASE take a minute, breathe deeply and do NOT say or type that; it is patently absurd. How many Euros were capable of winning a major during Jack's prime? What has happened to the level of competition in junior and college golf since Jack's prime? What has happened to "lesser" professional tours since then? Nicklaus had to beat great players, but he didn't have to beat a particularly large number of great players in a given week.
QFT.
I'm 67, and grew up watching Arnie and Jack and the rest; I know how dominant Nicklaus was, and I know the quality of the guys he beat, and all of that stuff. So keep that in mind.
Many years ago, when he still published the Baseball Abstract every year, Bill James wrote at length about peak value vs. career value, using Mantle and Mays as the two examples. Boiled down, James showed that Mantle was better in 1956 than Mays ever was, but that the career that Mays had completely eclipsed Mantle's. The point is that there are two very different measures of athletic greatness.
The weird thing about the Nicklaus-Woods debate is that Woods comes out ahead either way; the ONLY way in which Nicklaus could be considered "better" is by majors alone, which is a made-up hybrid between peak and career. And that form of cherry picking, in turn, makes the depth of field discussion pertinent.
So you've got this guy who is the only guy in the modern era to hold all four Grand Slam trophies at the same time, and pretty clearly played better golf in and around 2000 than anybody has ever played by any measure that you can think of; winning percentage, money, stroke average, majors, anything. BUT, and this is the key point, the same guy is going to have won more tournaments in his career than anybody else, ever. Think about those two things for a minute; he's Mantle in 1956 AND Mays for a career!
And there's a debate because? ???
Great post.
Which town is likely to film the best football team: the town of 500 or the town of 50,000? There's no doubt that the strength and depth of field are orders of magnitude greater now than in Jack's day.
At last !!! Someone has pointed out the flaw in the "Tiger is the greatest" argument. Ever since the inception of the Open in 1860, major victories have been the benchmark for how a golfer is judged. Jack's majors record was Tiger's benchmark and he hasn't beaten it yet. If and when he does he'll be the greatest. In the meantime give Jack his due.
That's wrong.
Jack himself changed what he thought determined the "best golfer" several times, and the media followed along. For awhile, it was Snead's mark of total tour wins.
Furthermore, just because you or someone else chooses to judge majors above all else doesn't mean I have to, or that everyone has to. And, even if we only consider majors, 18x << 15y, where x and y are the adjustments for strength and depth of field.
-
Short responses (please don't take them as curt, I'm just trying to be brief as I've had this conversation many, many times before).
Curt would be an appropriate moniker.
-
Adjusted? Again, this concept is based on guesswork. It is not math which proves anything which is actually quantifiable. What's that saying, a bird in the hand...
I will take major wins in pocket all week long over majors not won because of tougher fields. Just as I would Jack's top competition over Tiger's. Its fairly close mind you, but decisive. I don't mind if you prefer ifs and maybes over trophies, it's the modern way of thinking when it comes to sports.
My take is the disadvantages of travel, medicine, course conditions, equipment etc in Jack's time are a wash with today's overall improved fields.
Happy Hockey
-
??? 8) ???
The more I read this the more Sam Snead seems to be the least appreciated great player !
-
Adjusted? Again, this concept is based on guesswork. It is not math which proves anything which is actually quantifiable. What's that saying, a bird in the hand...
Yes, adjusted for the strength and depth of field. People make these adjustments all the time. Hell, you're doing it when you count majors only. Tiger has more regular tour wins, so you're "adjusting" for the fact that 18 of the 72 and 15 of the 82 are majors by counting only those.
This despite of the fact that, for a time, Jack had declared his belief that equaling or surpassing Snead's all-time wins record would make him the GOAT. Until he realized how tough that would be, so he changed it to something else…
I will take major wins in pocket all week long over majors not won because of tougher fields.
Almost all (and we could probably drop the "almost") of Tiger's wins were against tougher, stiffer, deeper, stronger fields than Gary Player faced in the 1959 British Open. Jack himself publicly advocated on a few occasions against the number of club pros and part-time players that were playing in majors, especially the PGA Championship. Until the 70s, Jack played against a huge number of part-time tour players week after week. The British Open had weak fields, with top players skipping into the 80s and early 90s.
The game has gotten significantly larger, and the additional players are better trained and learning to compete and win from an earlier age.
Jack faced nowhere near the strength and depth of field as Tiger. And, despite facing stronger fields, Tiger has had more dominant years and more dominant wins than Jack. About the only number that favors Jack? 18 over 15. Citing things like "Tiger hasn't faced the likes of Arnie, Tom, Lee, etc." while ignoring that they too faced the same weaker fields, is just folly.
Here's a kicker: Jack is no idiot, and he understands that the strength and depth of field is much better now. He has on numerous occasions said that the average player today is much stronger, that it's much tougher to win these days, that Tiger's faced a higher challenge than he did. Jack even said in his biography - before Tiger had won a single professional major - this:
“Whether for the above reasons or any others, the fact is that, to be able to hold onto their cards, and earn a decent living, the golfers in the middle of the pack today have had to become as good as the players at the top were when I started out thirty and more years ago, while those in the top have become the equals of superstars of my generation.”
Tiger's opponents are not only stronger themselves, but they get to play equipment that narrows the gap between Tiger and them, they get to fly instead of driving like only the absolute top few players could do in Jack's day, their schedule is such that they can pick and choose their events instead of having to play 40 weeks a year to earn a living, etc. The list goes on and on.
Field strength/depth explains not only why Jack's top competitors also benefited with more major wins, it also explains why Jack was able to finish second or third or in the top ten as often as he did.
The simple truth is that Jack had to beat 10-20 guys any given week. Tiger has to beat 40-80+ capable of winning. And he's beat them 15 and 82 times.
I never said that math can absolutely 100% prove any of this. I have said or meant that it can give us some pretty strong probabilities. The likelihood that 17 or 18 or so of the top 20 players to ever play all played against Jack Nicklaus are exceedingly slim. The math strongly supports the idea that Tiger's fields have been substantially stronger than Jack's.
Just as I would Jack's top competition over Tiger's. Its fairly close mind you, but decisive. I don't mind if you prefer ifs and maybes over trophies, it's the modern way of thinking when it comes to sports.
Decisive, because you say so? Not all majors are as difficult to win as the others. See again: 1959 British Open. At a time when Americans were dominating golf, a grand total of FOUR Americans - none of any name or reputation at all - played. Two were amateurs. None made the cut. Yet there's Gary with another "major" title to his name, a major that was probably easier to win than the Met PGA Section Championship is today.
You know, the Montreal Canadiens have won 24 Stanley Cups. Never mind that many of them came back when there were six whole teams competing… 24 is 24, and that's all that matters, right? :P
Edit: fixed a few typos.
-
??? 8) ???
The more I read this the more Sam Snead seems to be the least appreciated great player !
Billy Casper says hi.
-
Erik
So now its strong possibilities? I guess we can couch our opinions in any way we wish, but I am not buying the math angle when you you reject the strongest math angle there is.
PS...trash the Habs all you like 8)
Happy Hockey
-
Trevino won four of his six majors where Nicklaus finished second. Can you really believe that Lee would have had the same drive if he had immediately became filthy rich and accepted into the golf community like a modern Jason Day after only one major?
Win once, get rich, get hurt, tour the world and retire so a new kid can win once, get rich, get hurt, tour the world and retire. A cycle of mediocrity that is played out from celebrity chefs to modern CEO's. Or maybe not, maybe huge piles of money at every turn doesn't change people. Never mind.
Well Tiger has had more money than he could spend since the day he turned pro. The fact that didn't deter him should count on his behalf no?
Counterpoint: [size=78%]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_White_(golfer) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_White_(golfer))[/size]
I wonder how many other contenders didn't play professionally because there was no money in it. Nowadays, everyone with even a modicum of talent gives it a run.
Other thoughts. I think Tiger has won at least 35 tournaments in which the best in the world were all there (or virtually all there). 15 majors, 18 WGCs and 2 Players. There may well be more. I wonder how many tournaments JN won against a similar number of the world's best players. I was chatting with the captain of my club back home about 15 years ago. He played in the Walker Cup in the late 50s and early 60s and won the Amateur Championship in the early 60s too. I asked him if he ever played in the Masters. He said no. He was invited to play on a few occasions, but didn't know what it was so never did. Then one year one of his fellow Walker Cuppers went and played and came back and told them all they had to do it. The next time he played in the Walker Cup they changed the criteria so he didn't get another invite. I'm not suggesting that if he played it would have made the field stronger. But it's hard to imagine that the best players outside the US would have been playing in that.
142 consecutive cuts, 12 stroke win at the Masters, 15 stroke win at the US Open, 8 stroke win at the Open, 4 majors in a row, 7 out of 11, 89 consecutive rounds beating the field (this one blows my mind), 82 wins, 15 majors, 18 WGCs, 7 consecutive wins, another run of 6 consecutive wins and yet another of 5 consecutive wins (these in the context of no one else since 1953 has won more than 3 in a row). Tiger's been off the boil so long that it's easy to forget just how good he was. There is no doubt in my mind he's the best who ever played. Greatest is a more subjective word, so if you want to consider JN as the GOAT, have at it. I don't care. I don't agree either, but that's okay.
-
So now its strong possibilities? I guess we can couch our opinions in any way we wish, but I am not buying the math angle when you you reject the strongest math angle there is.
No, I didn't use the word "possibility."
Jack's competition was quite a bit weaker than Tiger's. If you want to keep your head in the sand, go right ahead.
-
Erik,
How do you address the fact that Tiger used 18 majors as THE benchmark?
-
How do you address the fact that Tiger used 18 majors as THE benchmark?
In two ways.
First, and let me be perfectly clear, this is the far, far less important one. The list Tiger had on his wall as a kid was an age-related list of the things Jack did, and they were goals for Tiger to beat at a younger age. Only after he was a professional did he kinda get talked into "18" by the media, etc. But Tiger, as a kid, wanted to accomplish what Jack did at a younger age. It was never (until the 00s?) about "18." Source (there are several, but here's one I could find quickly): https://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/12/tiger-woods-jack-nicklaus-majors-had-on-wall-never-did-goals-accomplishments-by-age (https://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/12/tiger-woods-jack-nicklaus-majors-had-on-wall-never-did-goals-accomplishments-by-age) .
And second, and FAR more importantly… Everyone is free to assign their own values. Jack Nicklaus changed his mind several times about what would define the GOAT… at one time thinking that he should hold all four majors in one year, and at another time winning the most PGA Tour events… etc.
I don't have to agree with anyone, including Tiger or Jack, on how I define GOAT. Neither do you. Hell, I think Mario Lemieux is a greater hockey player than Gretzky for similar reasons. They also played in slightly different eras.
-
Is it just me or do I remember Tiger’s competition running scared?
-
John K.
It's just you!
Back in Nicklaus' day they said "He knew he was going to beat you. You knew that he was going to beat you. And he knew that you knew that he was going to beat you."
DT
-
Jack was second to Trevino four times and Watson never seemed to shy away. I’m not arguing who is the GOAT I’m just saying that Tiger’s competition was week like Ukraine.
-
If you are making the argument that the competition/depth of field that Nicklaus faced was the same or tougher than Woods, or anybody else playing currently, look at all the other levels of golf. Better yet, find anybody who makes the case that ANY lower level of golf isn't vastly deeper and more competitive than in days gone by. I don't think there is any debate about this, really.
Is junior golf deeper or not? Is high school golf deeper or not? College golf? The "lesser" pro tours? I think we could all reasonably agree that there are far, far more good, competitive golfers capable of winning tournaments at EACH of those levels than was the case before the golf boom. On top of that, the competitiveness of those lower levels spurs young players to be more fit, get better coaching, play more tournaments, and so on.
So how could the PGA Tour, which is the place where those who excel the most at those lower levels then end up competing for championships and dollars, NOT be deeper and better? It simply isn't possible, and it's silly to argue otherwise. If you want to argue that THE measure of who is the GOAT is major championships and ONLY major championships, that's fine, though myopic. But strength of field and depth of competition as an argument FOR Nicklaus? Please.
-
This reminds me of the 'best player never to win a major' debate.
A lot of folks will say Monty, given his almost 40 wins on the Euro tour and exemplary play in the Ryder Cup. I understand that, and I'm a fan of Monty's on several fronts, and I can see why he'd be so designated.
But: what does it mean to be the 'best player'? Is it simply (Euro) tour wins?
What about the fact that be played (almost) exclusively a fade -- might this be considered a 'limitation' of sorts for a great player? Might it have hurt Monty's chances at Augusta and various US Open venues?
Is he in fact the 'best *golfer*' never to have won a major?
A better golfer than, say, Steve Stricker -- with some dozen wins on the PGA Tour? [For you strength of field types, you'd agree that for the bulk of Monty's and Steve's career, the PGA tour fields were much deeper, so # of wins shouldn't be determinative]. A better golfer than, say, Lee Westwood, with some 20+ Euro wins, and I'd say the best better ball striker of the lot, but hampered by only average putting. Heck, people poke fun at Scott Hoch, but he won about a dozen times on Tour too and was a heck of a golfer, and was one (easily miss-able) missed putt away from winning the Masters.
All of which is to say:
If you're gonna talk about the 'greatest golfer' of all time, look to the individual skill set and not to a myriad of (sometimes speculative) outside factors. IMO.
Who played the game the best? Giving my opinion on *that* question is why, even being a Jack guy, I'd pick Tiger as the GOAT (oh, and also because Pat Burke, a tour player, says so).
-
Fuzzy And Bob Goalby both won the local tournament on the 9 hole course where I grew up. Sure the college kids shoot lower scores today winning the same tournament. Stronger field? I think not. When did more become better? I wouldn’t trade Trevino and Watson for the entire European Presidents Cup team. If I could name half of em.
-
With all due respect: Zac Blair is 47th in FedEx points. The same year Tiger won his 82nd tournament.
-
With all due respect: Zac Blair is 47th in FedEx points. The same year Tiger won his 82nd tournament.
On the other hand, Fred Funk was really coming into his own right at the height the Tiger era. And at a fairly stocky 5 foot 8, he essentially embodied the 'modern athlete', so much better than those in the 60s.
-
Did Fred Funk sow?
-
Peter,
You mentioned Funk as an athlete so I looked up Hale Irwin. RIP Forrest Fezler who finished second to Irwin in the 1974 US Open.
You simply can not offer up an opponent of Tiger who is not outclassed by an opponent of Jack.
-
See, I'd probably agree with you -- but I think it's a mug's game either way. Golf is not a contact sport: who your competitor is and what he's doing has no bearing on the score you yourself can shoot, and certainly not on the quality of golf shots (and variety of shots) you can hit.
So: you've played golf a long time, JK, and must've been very good at various points, and you've seen many of the greats play the game. What do *your* eyes tell you re the best ever?
Me, like I said earlier, to my very untrained eye, Tiger is better than Jack, Watson is a better golfer than Mickelson, and Trevino is better than Els -- and I'd say (though *none* of the stats will back me up) that Norman was a better all-round golfer than either Faldo or Seve. I've never seen anyone before or since take apart a golf course like he did Doral one year, shooting a 62 when it really was the Blue Monster.
-
Golf has gotten far too easy to even discuss the role that athleticism or skill plays in success. I doubt that you understand golf very well if you don't think that your competitor has a bearing on what you shoot. I started playing in a game a few months ago where I give between 7 and 23 shots every time I tee it up and it has forced me to shoot the best scores of my life. Shot a 7 under 64 just this week not because I'm suddenly a great golfer but more because I can't win if I don't.
-
To answer your question I would say that Tiger is the better entertainer while Jack was the better golfer.
-
No, I don't understand golf very well at all, and certainly not competitive/tournament golf. That's why I ask.
I'm still just trying to learn to hit draws and fades at will (with long irons) and to control my trajectory and distance with short irons -- both because that's what good golfers can do well and the best golfers can do best of all, and because I'd like to one day have a putt to shoot in the 60s.
-
No, I don't understand golf very well at all, and certainly not competitive/tournament golf. That's why I ask.
I'm still just trying to learn to hit draws and fades at will (with long irons) and to control my trajectory and distance with short irons -- both because that's what good golfers can do well and the best golfers can do best of all, and because I'd like to one day have a putt to shoot in the 60s.
Peter,
[size=78%]Controlling trajectory or working it both ways have nothing to do with it. It’s all short game. [/size]
Norman was great but let’s face it. He couldn’t close the deal. I was a huge fan. I still get sick thinking about him giving away the Masters to Faldo. He was a great player that couldn’t win the big ones most of the time. Jack never folded. Not in my memory anyway. IMHO GOAT is Jack. The greatest golf I have ever seen played and may have ever been played was Tiger in 2000. I told my late father that it was magical to have seen Tiger in that stretch.
-
Controlling trajectory or working it both ways have nothing to do with it. It’s all short game.
That's likely a worse take than "Jack's fields were stronger and deeper than Tiger's." I'm going to assume you were being sarcastic, Rob. :)
-
Fuzzy And Bob Goalby both won the local tournament on the 9 hole course where I grew up. Sure the college kids shoot lower scores today winning the same tournament. Stronger field? I think not. When did more become better? I wouldn’t trade Trevino and Watson for the entire European Presidents Cup team. If I could name half of em.
Ok boomer ;D
More became better when the abilities of players who weren’t top 10 in the field were raised to the level of the best in the world, if they had a great week. Lucas Glover, Geoff Ogilvy, Jason Day, Louis Ousthuisen, Zach Johnson, Trevor Immelman, Jimmy Walker, Stewart Cink, Keegan Bradley, David Toms, Justin Rose, Graeme McDowell, Henrik Stenson, Lee Westwood, Adam Scott. And then of course there’s these guys: Rich Beem, Shaun Micheel, YE Yang, Ben Curtis, Todd Hamilton.
[/size]I could go on. All the guys above have 1 or fewer majors and this isn’t touching the most formidable challengers: Brooks, DJ, Rory, Duval, Vijay, Els, Furyk and of course Phil. [size=78%]
[/size]It’s not that the best in the world couldn’t muster enough to beat these “random” winners. It’s that there are more guys in the field in the last 20 years who could win. The sport has grown, and it’s a testament to Jack and Tiger, but they’ve played against different levels of completion when considering the entire field. [size=78%]
-
OK great.. so it is decided Tiger is better than Jack.
-
With all due respect: Zac Blair is 47th in FedEx points. The same year Tiger won his 82nd tournament.
John, it's barely possible that the FedEx standings will change a bit before the Tour Championship. For instance, Justin Rose might finish higher than 159, assuming that he plays more than ONE event. I can close my eyes and imagine Jason Day being higher than 115, Tommy Fleetwood higher than 91, and so on. And while I don't know who will be leading next fall when the dust settles, I don't think it will be the current leader, Lanto Griffin. I think we might need a larger sample size before we generalize what the FedEx standings mean...
I'll even give you odds on a small wager that Zac Blair will drop a bit, given that he's never won on Tour, and a T40 is his best finish in a major. Of course, he's only played in four majors in his career, so who knows?
But you make the argument for tougher fields today quite nicely, I must admit. Blair was an All-American college golfer who won multiple times in college, but has been unable to keep his Tour card regularly since. He only has his card now because of a late win on the Korn Ferry Tour, his only professional win so far. All of which tells ME that the PGA Tour is very, very deep, and very, very tough.
-
AG -
I honestly don't understand the 'strength of field' argument. First, because *every* player on Tour, then and now, seems to my eyes like a terrific golfer. But second, because it seems to me that for 'strength of field' to be a factor (in any comparison between JN's accomplishments and Tiger's), the 10-12 best golfers from those two eras had to *all* have been playing badly/not at their best during the majors that JN and Tiger won.
In other words, why does it matter that JN only had to beat 30 guys capable of winning a major while Tiger had to beat 120 guys, when in both cases the only guys they *really* had to beat were the 10-15 *best* players in the given fields?
Or to put it yet another way: for strength of field to be relevant it would have to be true that, when JN was winning over Palmer, Player, Casper, Crampton, Floyd, Trevino, Miller, Weiskopf, Watson, Crenshaw, Kite, Price, Norman, and Seve etc, *all* of them had to have been having 'bad weeks' during those majors...all at the same time...4 times a year...year after year...for decades.
And if they *weren't* having bad weeks during the majors all at the same time, what does it matter whether there were another 20 or 120 guys who might've had the talent to win that week?
Tiger had to beat the best of his era, Jack had to beat the best of his.
My eyes tell me that TW is the better golfer; but 'strength of field' is not the reason why.
-
Controlling trajectory or working it both ways have nothing to do with it. It’s all short game.
That's likely a worse take than "Jack's fields were stronger and deeper than Tiger's." I'm going to assume you were being sarcastic, Rob. :)
Not being sarcastic at all. Other than my driver I don't try to work the ball unless I'm in trouble and have too. Shooting in the 60's is all about making putts and getting up and down for the better player IMO. First time I shot 69 I hit 9 greens.
-
In other words, why does it matter that JN only had to beat 30 guys capable of winning a major while Tiger had to beat 120 guys, when in both cases the only guys they *really* had to beat were the 10-15 *best* players in the given fields?
Because golf doesn't work that way.
If a major was one hole, I might beat Tiger occasionally. It's only 72 holes, so a few bad or good shots here or there, or a little luck, etc. can swing one player a few places up or down from where their true average ability lies.
No sport does. The Pirates beat the Yankees in the 1960 World Series despite being outscored 55-27. Sometimes the underdog can perform a little above their level and get a little luck, and vice versa.
Shooting in the 60's is all about making putts and getting up and down for the better player IMO. First time I shot 69 I hit 9 greens.
It's really not. Ballstriking matters the most. By far. Read my book or Every Shot Counts by Mark Broadie. Putting matters the LEAST of the four skills (driving, approach shots, short game, putting). Driving means about twice as much, overall, than putting, and approach shots almost 3x as much.
-
In other words, why does it matter that JN only had to beat 30 guys capable of winning a major while Tiger had to beat 120 guys, when in both cases the only guys they *really* had to beat were the 10-15 *best* players in the given fields?
Because golf doesn't work that way.
If a major was one hole, I might beat Tiger occasionally. It's only 72 holes, so a few bad or good shots here or there, or a little luck, etc. can swing one player a few places up or down from where their true average ability lies.
No sport does. The Pirates beat the Yankees in the 1960 World Series despite being outscored 55-27. Sometimes the underdog can perform a little above their level and get a little luck, and vice versa.
Shooting in the 60's is all about making putts and getting up and down for the better player IMO. First time I shot 69 I hit 9 greens.
It's really not. Ballstriking matters the most. By far. Read my book or Every Shot Counts by Mark Broadie. Putting matters the LEAST of the four skills (driving, approach shots, short game, putting). Driving means about twice as much, overall, than putting, and approach shots almost 3x as much.
Obviously to have a chance to shoot in the 60’s you have to be a decent ball striker. However the short game is what gets you there. I’ve read Bob Rotella and I know what works for me and it’s not hitting draws and fades or changing my trag. Most of your shots are from 100 yards and in.
-
Obviously to have a chance to shoot in the 60’s you have to be a decent ball striker. However the short game is what gets you there. I’ve read Bob Rotella and I know what works for me and it’s not hitting draws and fades or changing my trag. Most of your shots are from 100 yards and in.
Rob it is off topic so I’ll be brief: no, you’re wrong about the importance of putting. And I’m not talking about draws and fades, just general ballstriking.
PM me if you’re open to learning. It’s OT here.
-
Obviously to have a chance to shoot in the 60’s you have to be a decent ball striker. However the short game is what gets you there. I’ve read Bob Rotella and I know what works for me and it’s not hitting draws and fades or changing my trag. Most of your shots are from 100 yards and in.
Rob it is off topic so I’ll be brief: no, you’re wrong about the importance of putting. And I’m not talking about draws and fades, just general ballstriking.
PM me if you’re open to learning. It’s OT here.
Maybe your both right!!! You need to be a decent ball striker but then all tour players are. You also need to be a decent putter (though this also means decent ball striker). You need to be a decent wedge player but then all tour pros are and this also needs you to be a decent ball striker. In the end to win a major you need to use fewer shots than the others which means being overall better but probably never the master of anyone part.
-
Obviously to have a chance to shoot in the 60’s you have to be a decent ball striker. However the short game is what gets you there. I’ve read Bob Rotella and I know what works for me and it’s not hitting draws and fades or changing my trag. Most of your shots are from 100 yards and in.
Rob it is off topic so I’ll be brief: no, you’re wrong about the importance of putting. And I’m not talking about draws and fades, just general ballstriking.
PM me if you’re open to learning. It’s OT here.
I’ll just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
-
Every great golfer stops making putts first on the road to mediocrity.
-
I’ll just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
That might work if this was opinion we're talking about.
Putting matters least, with the short game close behind. Shots inside of 100 yards account for about 33% of what separates one player from another, on the PGA Tour right on up to guys who shoot 100.
Amateurs:
http://widgets.penguin.com/features/everyshotcounts/table-6-7.png (http://widgets.penguin.com/features/everyshotcounts/table-6-7.png)
Pros:
http://widgets.penguin.com/features/everyshotcounts/table-5-6.png (http://widgets.penguin.com/features/everyshotcounts/table-5-6.png)
They're large, so I won't embed them here. And the pros table shows 57%, but combines approach and short game. If you expand those out, you arrive at about 38% approach shots and 19% short game (short game being everything inside 100 yards that isn't a putt - if it was truly just short chips and pitches, it'd be single digit percentages), just like the first chart.
Week to week, putting matters the least. Driving matters about 2x as much, approach shots almost 3x as much.
To bring it back to the topic…
http://widgets.penguin.com/features/everyshotcounts/table-6-5.png (http://widgets.penguin.com/features/everyshotcounts/table-6-5.png)
That shows that Tiger's true advantage… was his approach shots. From 2003 to 2012, he finished outside of the top four in SG:Approach only once: in 2004 when he finished way, way down in… fifth. Over that same time frame, he finished outside the top 20 in short game six times and outside the top 15 in putting five times. Tiger was never first in putting, but was first or second in total strokes gained all but two years.
Tiger isn't the most awesome driver of the golf ball, but his averages still greatly favor approach shots. His putting, though better than average, accounted for only about 1/5 of his scoring advantage.
(https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/X6u2vq0m/Image+2019-11-10+at+5.15.29+PM.png?v=2813dca4eb95f97e07e35bfe4263bdd5)
-
The most amazing thing about tiger's record is how he beat the field by 3 shots year after year. Other top modern players might do it one year but never consistently. The best are more like 2 shots better than the field.
It would be interesting to see what Jack's average shots gained was. It would not be a perfect comparison assuming overall fields were in fact weaker back in the day.
-
It would be interesting to see what Jack's average shots gained was. It would not be a perfect comparison assuming overall fields were in fact weaker back in the day.
A friend of mine will tell you that Tiger had 10 or 11 years when he was clearly the most dominant player, and Jack had only about five.
-
Which could support either side of this debate...
-
Which could support either side of this debate...
Not really. Tiger was more dominant over better fields.
Here's another example:
"There were only 56 touring pros in the starting field of 168 players at [the 1968 PGA Championship in] San Antonio. One day a writer asked me about this ratio, and I said, "It's absurd and unfortunate." Only a third of the players at the PGA were regular tour competitors—or, in other words, the best players in the world. The PGA's antiquated qualifying system prevented top players such as Bob Murphy, Lee Elder and Deane Beman from playing at San Antonio. As a member of the Tournament Committee, I spoke out against the system. I had nothing to gain for myself; I was exempt from qualifying for the PGA tournament. I wanted a proper tour representation at the pros' own championship. The PGA should be the No. 1 tournament in golf because it is our own championship. It cannot be No. 1, though, when many top players—the tour players—cannot tee the ball up. "
--- Jack Nicklaus
https://www.si.com/vault/1968/09/16/614249/rebuttal-to-a-searing-attack (https://www.si.com/vault/1968/09/16/614249/rebuttal-to-a-searing-attack)
It wasn't just the PGA that had incredibly shallow, soft fields, either. PGA Tour events weren't even separate events until 1969 at the earliest - the PGA still controlled them, and most of the regular Tour events were filled with local club pros and some rabbits. The British Open was horribly weak, even through the 80s and early 90s, with top players opting to skip it. The U.S. Open was bad. The Masters, always a small field, was weaker then as well - there simply weren't many actual touring professionals.
-
I agree that overall depth is greater. I’m not sure I agree that their respective top competition is better today.
Winning begets winning...
If Jack could ONLY clearly dominate in 5 of 25 years, but Tiger could dominate in 10 of his 15 or 18, that implies Jacks elite level competition was better relative to both Jack, and the rest of the field.
-
I agree that overall depth is greater. I’m not sure I agree that their respective top competition is better today.
Of course they are. The best of the best are better because the rest are better, too. Jack, FWIW, disagrees with you. See the earlier quote(s) from Jack Nicklaus circa 1995 or 1996.
If Jack could ONLY clearly dominate in 5 of 25 years, but Tiger could dominate in 10 of his 15 or 18, that implies Jacks elite level competition was better relative to both Jack, and the rest of the field.
I get what you're saying, but no, it doesn't imply that. It says what it says: that Jack was unable to dominate weaker competitors as well as Tiger has been able to dominate stronger competitors. Top to bottom.
-
Erik,
Do you believe that Bernhard Langer is a better golfer now than he was 30 years ago?
-
Indeed, the question is also raised are there more top class players now or is it the advance in equipment, training and playing conditions that have allowed many players who are less able to compete better with those who are better? In the end most people judge greatness in sport on the results in major competitions which points to Jack as the GOAT. Trying to judge different players of different eras is in my opinion a fools errand but what can be said is Tiger is certainly the Greatest Of His Era of which there have also been few. Woods, Nicklaus, Hogan, Jones, Vardon, Morris.
Erik,
some really interesting links. Thanks
-
Jon
At the end of the day of course you are right. It is the constant probing to judge who is better which has led to the rise of analytics. Of course, for a club manager having the best available analytics can be of great help when it comes to trade or contract time, even if the science is still very wanting in many ways. However, I am far more skeptical about applying analytics retrospectively and across eras. It is easy to draw conclusions based on modern interpretations because this is often the overwhelming PoV available in the media.
Lets put it this way, who was better is not a hill I am going to die on.
Happy Hockey
-
Lets put it this way, who was better is not a hill I am going to die on.
Happy Hockey
;D
-
Tyrrell Hatton's strokes gained for the Turkish Airlines thing this week:
Driving -0.96
Approach +10.48
Short game +4.36
Putting -2.04
Granted that's somewhat unusual. The way I think of it is generally speaking, your long game dictates the range that your scores will fall in, while your short game dictates where in that range it falls on a given day. There are no 100 shooters who are going to suddenly start shooting 70 because they get a tour pro short game. There are 100 shooters who would start to shoot 70 if they got a tour pro long game.
Tiger has won 82 tournaments in large part because of his long game. Now, it's also true to say that to be as good as he has been, you have to be good at all of it. Tiger's putting, short game, approach and driving have all been pretty darn good. The approach is where the biggest impact has come from though. People think it's his putting because it's the last thing they see. Truth is he holes a lot of birdie putts because he gives himself a lot of opportunities to do so. He does that with his approach play.
-
As Jon suggested earlier, Erik and Rob are both right:
Rob's original statement/advice was to me, an average golfer. Sure, he said, work on your driving and iron play, but if you want to score meaningfully better, practice much more your short game and putting and shots from 100 yards in. And he's right. I'd love to strike the ball better, but if I add up my scores the bulk of the shots lost come with the 'short game'. Meanwhile, yes, okay: I'll defer to the latest 'analytics' when it comes to the best golfers in the world; except for the outliers, i.e. great ball strikers but notoriously bad putters or vice-versa, across the board the short games are stellar so I can see iron play/longer approach shots being a key to scoring best in the pro world. Of course, that only makes the JN-TW debate more complicated: JN was particularly strong, it seems to me, with his long and mid irons -- he could hit the green all day long and two putt to his heart's content, especially in majors.
-
In the end most people judge greatness in sport on the results in major competitions which points to Jack as the GOAT.
I don't agree with that. In my long-running poll, it's 3:1 in favor of Tiger Woods, and the poll (and over 90% of the votes) pre-date his 15th major win by eight years.
Michael, good post on the side topic.
Rob's original statement/advice was to me, an average golfer. Sure, he said, work on your driving and iron play, but if you want to score meaningfully better, practice much more your short game and putting and shots from 100 yards in. And he's right. I'd love to strike the ball better, but if I add up my scores the bulk of the shots lost come with the 'short game'.
That may be true for YOU — specifically, one person — but it is not true at all for the general class of golfers like you. It's just not. See the "amateurs" link above. And I've got my own studies and things on this, and access to data sets with millions of holes played.
The average golfer - right on up to the average PGA Tour pro - loses shots compared to those better than him primarily through the "long game" (stuff outside of 100 yards, NOT "distance").
-
Each time these analytics come up, I commit to reading the book(s) and being better prepared to discuss...
Those stats on Hatton crystallized it for me, I guess...he clearly had a tremendous week hitting the ball near the hole.
My question continues to be...are these stats designed to help us figure out who is the best at a certain aspect? Or are they designed to help us figure out what to do to improve?
-
My question continues to be...are these stats designed to help us figure out who is the best at a certain aspect? Or are they designed to help us figure out what to do to improve?
Can’t it be both?
-
Did anyone watch the seniors this week? It was won with clutch pitches, wedge shots and putts. It was lost by a missed 4 footer after a great pitch. Maggert made some great pressure putts in regulation. Made a great up and down from up against the collar.
The OT discussion I started was how can "Peter" have a better chance to break 70. He was concentrating on hitting draws and fades. You don't need to do that to break 70. It certainly won't hurt either.
Your average Am can shave strokes off his game the fastest working on his short game. Again IMO from my own game and experience. I really don't care about the pro's stats. We weren't talking about the pros.
I'm a fairly proficient ball striker. I know where I lose shots. You can work on your long game all day long but it's much easier IMO to get better at the short game. It also takes a lot less time and physical ability
I'll trust Bob Rotella
-
Erik
I think for 95+% of established (non-beginner) players, no...
I delineate between established and beginners because you need to teach all aspects of the game to beginners.
I'm 45 and a scratch handicap...have 4 active kids and little time or interest in practice. When I do think about improving my golf, it's primarily through low impact exercise and stretching AND wedges/pitching/putting because the rhythm of those shots carries over to longer shots. If you wanted to measurably improve my ball striking, you'd lose me as a customer (and I wouldn't improve) in short order because the work involved is beyond my bandwidth...
If you showed me a few short game shots to work on and maybe discussed strategy around the golf course, I can see and feel the improvement. Once I've cut those few shots off my game and you and I took another look at how I can improve...I'm still too old and challenged to decide a couple thousand hours on the driving range are needed.
If you're talking about helping a 90 shooter get to 80 consistently, it will have to be some of both...your stats (or maybe those links are Broadie's?) indicate 2/3 long game and 1/3 short game (100 yards and in). I disagree with this entirely, primarily because in real life, the effort to go from a 90 ball striker to an 80 ball striker is exponentially more difficult than the same route in short game and strategy improvement
-
An aside:
I'm suspicious. I trust no one these days.
I used to trust the 'experts' too easily; it's been my downfall.
When I first took up the game, the experts told me that good players can hit every shot in the bag, and work the ball both ways. So instead of just trying to develop some kind of basic & repeatable swing, I set off instead on the arduous (and, for a fellow in his 30s, ultimately depressing) task of being 'a good player' -- only to realize later that Monty won dozens of times using nothing but a fade except in the most extreme cases, and Calc won a whole boatload of money hitting nothing but a draw.
Luckily (ha ha) just then the former NASA engineer Dave Pelz came to prominence loaded with an armful of stats and told me that I should buy 6 wedges and put a metronome on my putter so I could time and measure my backstroke - you know, one-two for a 6 foot putt, one-two-three for my 10 foot putt, etc: and the result was that I got so inside my own head that whatever natural, intuitive skills and abilities I had went out the window.
(Not a word of a lie: a friend and good golfer I first started playing with nick-named me "Chips" after our first few rounds together -- because, while I sprayed the ball all over the course, back then I could get up and down from just about everywhere, and with nothing but instinct and feel. He still calls me "Chips" to this day, but now it feels like a cruel joke!).
And in music: the 'experts told me at every turn to remember that Charlie Parker could play in every key, and so again I set off not to get some good basic technique and start making music but instead on a futile quest (for someone who started playing in his 30s) to gain mastery in all keys -- only to just recently discover that, while of course Bird could play in every key, at least 70% of the tunes he ever wrote and played were basic blues, and in the 3 *easiest* keys for the clarinet & sax, Bflat, F, and C!
So now the experts tell me: no no, you don't suck because you can't make a putt outside of 5 feet -- we were wrong about that, but now we're *right* about this. Really; we're sure we are. Trust us. (Ha ha.) Just replace your 10 degree driver with a (brand new) 12 degree driver, swap your 3 wood for a 4 wood; and take your 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 irons out of the bag and put in modern 18, 20, 23, 25, and 27 degree hybrids (oh, and you'll hit them much further), and then get out on the range and spend 3 hours hitting balls -- without turning your hips (no, turn your hips but don't dip your shoulder; no, dip your shoulder a lot but create torque with a big turn....oh, and don't lift your left heel off the ground, unless you *do* lift your left heel off the ground, and then you should finish up on your toes).
No. Thank you. I trust no one, and no stat -- at least none from the last 40 years.
I've got on my desk right now two books: Play Golf the Wright Way, by Mickey Wright; and Swing Easy-Hit Hard, by Julius Boros.
That's it. Come spring, I'm just going to go "play golf'.
(Wow, that rolled out in barely the time it took to type, with no thought whatsoever. Man, it must've been pent up inside me for years. Thank you for listening. I feel better now)
-
Rob, my last attempt, but if you're going to stick your head in the sand, by all means, I'm done trying to pull it out after this.
Did anyone watch the seniors this week? It was won with clutch pitches, wedge shots and putts. It was lost by a missed 4 footer after a great pitch. Maggert made some great pressure putts in regulation. Made a great up and down from up against the collar.
You're seeing what you want to see, and you're also weighting a winner against everything else.
To put it another way, generally speaking, a great week of ball striking gets you into the top fifteen to top five. The hot putter out of those 5 to 15 guys often wins. Getting a "hot" putter is not a reproducible skill, and putting performance (because it's so binary) fluctuates the most round to round while still remaining the smallest contributor overall to strokes gained (or lost).
On the PGA Tour, on the Champions Tour, and on the local course during league night.
BTW, the tournament was finally "won" with a hole-out from the fairway for an eagle on a par four. No short game or putting involved. Also, Maggert was T6 in GIR and T9 in putting.
If you want to over-weight putting because it's the last thing you do on a hole, be my guest. Or if you want to over-weight the short game because someone missed a chip, also, be my guest. But those are incredibly, incredibly small sample sizes, and you're not doing the slightest bit to pull your own head out of the sand.
The OT discussion I started was how can "Peter" have a better chance to break 70. He was concentrating on hitting draws and fades. You don't need to do that to break 70. It certainly won't hurt either.
Nobody's really talked about that. No, you don't need to do that. We recommend actually that people get great with one shot shape rather than "okay" with two or three.
Your average Am can shave strokes off his game the fastest working on his short game.
That's a very, very different statement. I've never said otherwise, too. But, those strokes you can shave "quickly" will be limited to only a few strokes. The average 90s golfer is not going to shoot in the 70s working on the short game and putting. Odds are he'll shave only a few strokes: if he shoots 95 and wants to shoot 75, about 6 or 7 shots at most will come from improving the short game and putting.
Again IMO from my own game and experience. I really don't care about the pro's stats. We weren't talking about the pros.
Uhm…
Did anyone watch the seniors this week?
We aren't?
And if you look above, Tyrell Hatton won on the European Tour in spite of his poor putting performance. Thing is, I'm not going to hold that up as much more than an example, because ultimately even four rounds is a very, very small sample size. His performance was an outlier. Though we see more wins from players who lose putting strokes than from wins from people who lose strokes with their approach shots, the truth is we occasionally (rarely) see them. Because outliers can happen.
Did you look at the amateur stats I gave you earlier?
http://widgets.penguin.com/features/everyshotcounts/table-6-7.png (http://widgets.penguin.com/features/everyshotcounts/table-6-7.png)
33% of the strokes differences between the three levels of amateur golfers there were from the short game and putting (combined). The other 67%? Full swing stuff. The numbers are really quite consistent from PGA Tour players right on up to 110 shooters. The average 110 golfer loses 40 shots to an average 70s shooter… so about 33% of those come from the short game and putting. The rest - the full swing.
I'm a fairly proficient ball striker. I know where I lose shots.
Maybe you do. We can't talk about one specific person here, unless you've been routinely logging your rounds with a GAME Golf or something over time.
Individuals can vary — it's not like literally every golfer compares at these 67%/33% numbers across the board — but the masses have given us tremendous data.
You can work on your long game all day long but it's much easier IMO to get better at the short game. It also takes a lot less time and physical ability
Which is why it has a lower "Separation Value®".
I'll trust Bob Rotella
He's a sports psychologist. Mark Broadie has a PhD (from Stanford) as well, you know.
I think for 95+% of established (non-beginner) players, no...
I don't know what that means. I am saying that we can use data to both tell us what has happened and how best someone should spend their time and effort to improve.
I delineate between established and beginners because you need to teach all aspects of the game to beginners.
Of course.
I'm 45 and a scratch handicap...have 4 active kids and little time or interest in practice. When I do think about improving my golf, it's primarily through low impact exercise and stretching AND wedges/pitching/putting because the rhythm of those shots carries over to longer shots. If you wanted to measurably improve my ball striking, you'd lose me as a customer (and I wouldn't improve) in short order because the work involved is beyond my bandwidth...
That's you, and that's adding restraints. You're pre-determining the outcome by saying "I won't do A or B, only X and Y."
If you wanted to get to a +3, odds are you're not going to get there by working on your short game and putting (you could if you were scratch and short game/putting was a glaring weakness. For example, my daughter is a 1.4 index as a junior in high school… and she regularly takes 35, 36, 37 putts… and not because she's hitting greens but leaving herself 45 feet all the time. She can shave a few strokes, and will, by improving her putting. But she's an outlier, too.).
If you showed me a few short game shots to work on and maybe discussed strategy around the golf course, I can see and feel the improvement. Once I've cut those few shots off my game and you and I took another look at how I can improve...I'm still too old and challenged to decide a couple thousand hours on the driving range are needed.
Again, restraints that force the answer you seem to want to hear.
And that's fine - if you have no reason to need to get to a +3 and you're content to be about what you are, or don't have the time, or "bandwidth," carry on. This isn't about making everyone do something. It's just there as a tool for those who want to use it intelligently - which means with adaptations to be applied to the individual. If gaining 20 yards off the tee will lead to the most improvement in your scores but you're 73 and you're simply not gonna get 20 yards, then it's beyond pointless to keep saying that and trying to get those yards.
If you're talking about helping a 90 shooter get to 80 consistently, it will have to be some of both...your stats (or maybe those links are Broadie's?) indicate 2/3 long game and 1/3 short game (100 yards and in). I disagree with this entirely, primarily because in real life, the effort to go from a 90 ball striker to an 80 ball striker is exponentially more difficult than the same route in short game and strategy improvement
This is the stuff I don't get.
Of course it's more difficult. That's why the full swing has a higher Separation Value® than putting and the short game. The 90s shooter is NOT gonna get there just by working on his short game and putting. If 10 shots separate them, they'll gain about 3.3 working on those things. They'll get the other 6.7 from the full swing.
You can't really "disagree" with stats. They just are what they are. You can disagree with how they're interpreted, but if you think the average 90s golfer is going to shave 10 shots from their short game and putting, the stats say they'd have to have the short game and putting of a guy who averages 60s, because those 30 shots * 0.33 is about the ten shots you're looking to shave.
-
I'm suspicious. I trust no one these days.
Science advances. Knowledge advances. We know more, can measure more, and have a better understanding as time goes by. With better tools.
Hogan played primarily a fade. Snead primarily a draw. Better to be a king of one thing than a jack of all.
-
Each time these analytics come up, I commit to reading the book(s) and being better prepared to discuss...
Those stats on Hatton crystallized it for me, I guess...he clearly had a tremendous week hitting the ball near the hole.
My question continues to be...are these stats designed to help us figure out who is the best at a certain aspect? Or are they designed to help us figure out what to do to improve?
I think it's two completely different questions. Why is Dustin Johnson so much better than me for example. He's so much better than me because his long game is much better than mine. His short game is better and his putting is better too, but most of it is from his long game. You and I by the way are pretty similar to each other. I'm a couple of years younger than you, about the same handicap and I have two small kids and very little time to practice.
For me to improve by a shot or two, I think I need to understand where my shortcomings are. For me (specifically me), my shortcomings lean more towards my short game and putting relative to my peer group. Other scratch golfers are on average a bit worse than me long game, but better than me short game and putting. So there is some likelihood that working on my short game and putting will have the most "bang for my buck". Improving my long game significantly from where I am would take a lot of hard work, dedication and no small amount of making sure I'm working on the right things.
To put that another way, the majority of the difference between me and DJ might well be long game, but there is no amount of work I can put in that will have me hitting my driver as well as he does. There is nothing (apart from my back, but that's another story) that's stopping me from putting as well as he does. So the why am I so much worse than him question is long game, but the what should I work on question is short game/putting.
-
Maggert holed the shot with a wedge........after making clutch putts he had to have and some great pitches to keep his chances alive.
Dr. Bob Rotella is indeed a sports psychologist who has worked with top pro and am's. He also happens to be a PhD. I'll stick with his advice even though he didn't go to Stanford.
Jim, Great post. I'm 57, float around scratch and have been exactly where you are. However I do love to practice.
-
In the end most people judge greatness in sport on the results in major competitions which points to Jack as the GOAT.
I don't agree with that. In my long-running poll, it's 3:1 in favor of Tiger Woods, and the poll (and over 90% of the votes) pre-date his 15th major win by eight years.
I recall a few years back a BBC arts programme ran a poll to determine the best album of all time, and they had Bob Geldof on as a guest to review the results. It was very funny seeing how apoplectic he got when they unveiled the Stone Roses first album beating the Beatles White Album into second place. Personally I much prefer the Stone Roses but I don't doubt they won because the were relatively current.
Niall
-
Niall,
that is because regardless of the question popularity will play a big part and in the case of the golf discussion it is difficult for anyone born after 1980 to really appreciate how good Jack was where as Tiger has been hyped constantly by the press. It is certainly a close call but what I don't buy is there are more better players now than before.
-
Jon,
Does the mathematics part of that statement ring true? If there are multiples of the number of players actually pursuing the career via different wordwide tours, as well as the creation and growth of the developmental game via college and high school...doesn't it stand to reason that the top players emerging out of those levels would be better?
-
Erik,
How much of that 67% long game potential improvement do you allocate to strategy and shot selection?
-
I really appreciate the analytics Erik has posted on this thread.
As a side note, i've been doing my own analysis on what correlates best to winners on the PGA Tour for the 2018-2019 season. I was thinking about starting a different thread but perhaps I can put the results here.
I looked at 5 different categories: Driving Distance, Driving Accuracy, GIR, Scrambling, and Total Putting. I then looked at winners to see how they ranked against everyone else on tour for last season. I came up with the following:
The following is the % of winners on tour last year that were in the top 50%
- Driving Distance - 76.2%
- GIR's - 64.3%
- Total Putting - 59.5%
- Scrambling - 57.1%
- Driving Accuracy - 50%
Driving Distance was by far and away the best correlation of the 5 categories I looked at. And as a subcategory breakdown, over half of last years winners on tour, (52.4%), were in the top 25% in Driving Distance. Meanwhile only 19% of winners were in the top 25% in Driving Accuracy...
-
Jon,
Does the mathematics part of that statement ring true? If there are multiples of the number of players actually pursuing the career via different wordwide tours, as well as the creation and growth of the developmental game via college and high school...doesn't it stand to reason that the top players emerging out of those levels would be better?
As a society, in North America (but even globally) we are wealthier than ever -- and many more young people can 'afford' to chase a dream, especially a dream that pays-off exponentially more handsomely than it once did. But that doesn't necessarily mean they *should* be pursuing that dream (Maybe they should, maybe they are *all* in fact that good -- I simply don't know.) But maybe back in the 50s and 60s (and certainly the 30s and 40s), would-be pros understood/realized this better, understood the odds against real success and realized the true quality of their games better than they do today -- because they *had* to.
Who is to say that a (relatively) large number of very good players back then didn't decide not to even try to make a go for it, and instead went straight into teaching and club pro jobs (like Harvey Penick said he did right after the first time he heard the sound that a Sam Snead iron shot made). Even JN himself was set to continue making a better living selling insurance until he realized he could indeed make more playing golf (but only if he was the best of the best). All of which is to say: 'math' is useful, but I wouldn't want it swinging my golf club for me with money on the line.
-
But could you use it in the context of survival of the fittest?
Remember, I was responding to Jon wondering if the players are actually better today...not the question of Jack versus Tiger...or even if a 22 year old kid should try to make a living playing.
-
Jon,
Does the mathematics part of that statement ring true? If there are multiples of the number of players actually pursuing the career via different wordwide tours, as well as the creation and growth of the developmental game via college and high school...doesn't it stand to reason that the top players emerging out of those levels would be better?
Jim,
It certainly does not ring true. Introducing more people to the game is always going to strengthen fields not weaken them. Look at Basketball as an example. Just a few decades ago, there were few international players in the NBA, and in international competitions top college kids regularly and easily beat the best from other countries.
Now with massive amounts of exposure that kicked off with the Dream Team in 92, the NBA and NCAA is chock full with top notch International talent, and there are far less US based players getting in the league. Wider selection, more players, better competition.
-
I honestly don't think so, Jim.
It seems to me that 'survival of the fittest' applies in the context of scarcity. And we have today via the many pro & developmental tours the very opposite of scarcity.
If there were only 125 professional spots available in the entire world, and yet ever more millions of young golfers fighting for those few spots, then I think 'survival of the fittest' would apply, i.e. the 'math' would make sense to me.
But the opposite is the case: yes, there are more golfers/would-be pros coming out of American colleges now than ever, and more than ever from Europe and Asia too. But on the other hand, there are 'spots' available now (on the various tours and feeder tours and sub-feeder tours etc) that were never available in JN'd day (ie not too distant past).
In short: yes, many more golfers are 'surviving', but that doesn't necessarily tell me that they are the fittest, or even that they are fit.
-
Jon,
Does the mathematics part of that statement ring true? If there are multiples of the number of players actually pursuing the career via different wordwide tours, as well as the creation and growth of the developmental game via college and high school...doesn't it stand to reason that the top players emerging out of those levels would be better?
As a society, in North America (but even globally) we are wealthier than ever -- and many more young people can 'afford' to chase a dream, especially a dream that pays-off exponentially more handsomely than it once did. But that doesn't necessarily mean they *should* be pursuing that dream (Maybe they should, maybe they are *all* in fact that good -- I simply don't know.) But maybe back in the 50s and 60s (and certainly the 30s and 40s), would-be pros understood/realized this better, understood the odds against real success and realized the true quality of their games better than they do today -- because they *had* to.
Who is to say that a (relatively) large number of very good players back then didn't decide not to even try to make a go for it, and instead went straight into teaching and club pro jobs (like Harvey Penick said he did right after the first time he heard the sound that a Sam Snead iron shot made). Even JN himself was set to continue making a better living selling insurance until he realized he could indeed make more playing golf (but only if he was the best of the best). All of which is to say: 'math' is useful, but I wouldn't want it swinging my golf club for me with money on the line.
Peter - I think the issue is that the relative levels of money have changed. In the 50s and 60s, you could make a comfortable living working in the business world. In the 2000s and 2010s that remains true. In the 50s and 60s, you would struggle to get by as even a decent level PGA Tour player. As you note, Jack figured he had to be the very best to make more money playing golf. In the 2000s and 2010s if you're a decent level PGA Tour player, you're making a heck of a lot more money than most insurance salesmen make.
Granted it's a whole lot harder to be a decent level tour player in 2000s and 2010s than it was in the 50s and 60s...
Incidentally, the players on those developmental tours do not make much money. Most of them rely on sponsors to even be able to survive while they play.
-
Kalen,
I think we are agreeing that the more players trying today indicates the best would be better...
Peter,
Ask someone on the #2 US Tour if he can eat at night and he'll tell you yes...ask him if he's saving any money and I bet it's a different answer. He's desperately fighting to reach the next level where he can actually make some money and he'll emphatically tell you yes.
The #200 guy in 1960 didn't stick around for the second year...now there are thousands of guys working their asses off to get there so that when they do.
There may be 200 - 250 spots to secure a good living through playing professional golf...and if you have one of them it's a tremendous living. A blind guess is that there are 10 times the number of people actively looking for those spots as there were 50 years ago...maybe 20 times.
-
Dr. Bob Rotella is indeed a sports psychologist who has worked with top pro and am's. He also happens to be a PhD. I'll stick with his advice even though he didn't go to Stanford.
Head in the sand, man. I tried.
Ultimately, of course, I'm glad you enjoy playing golf, and you're of course free to do as you wish. So I'll just wish you well in whatever that is.
How much of that 67% long game potential improvement do you allocate to strategy and shot selection?
Can't really answer a broad topic like that. Even on the PGA Tour you have guys who play a little riskier game versus, say, a Charles Howell III type who tends to play toward the fatter sides of greens, etc.
The point in that 67% is that they simply hit the shots better - they hit them farther without giving up much accuracy off the tee, and they hit more greens and when they do, they hit them slightly closer to the hole, too. Across all levels of golf.
Kalen, yeah, every sport is getting better. If a sport is growing, the best players are getting better. Good luck proving the opposite.
The best football team from a town of 500 will almost always lose to the best football team from a town of 50,000.
It seems to me that 'survival of the fittest' applies in the context of scarcity. And we have today via the many pro & developmental tours the very opposite of scarcity.
You have that backward, in my opinion. Those 125 spots are more scarce because there are far, far more people competing for them. A farm might be large enough to feed 200 people, but if there are 20,000, food becomes "scarce" even though the farm is the same size.
-
Peter - I think the issue is that the relative levels of money have changed. In the 50s and 60s, you could make a comfortable living working in the business world. In the 2000s and 2010s that remains true. In the 50s and 60s, you would struggle to get by as even a decent level PGA Tour player. As you note, Jack figured he had to be the very best to make more money playing golf. In the 2000s and 2010s if you're a decent level PGA Tour player, you're making a heck of a lot more money than most insurance salesmen make.
Granted it's a whole lot harder to be a decent level tour player in 2000s and 2010s than it was in the 50s and 60s...
Incidentally, the players on those developmental tours do not make much money. Most of them rely on sponsors to even be able to survive while they play.
I believe this is the point John Kavanaugh was trying to make several pages ago. The money they now play for has changed the career choice for a lot of amateurs.
Granted this is just an anecdotal data point, but a now deceased friend made it to the quarterfinals of the Amateur 3 straight times in the late 50's/early 60's. He never even considered turning pro--he had a good job in the food industry and said it wasn't worth the risk to try.
Nowadays, every kid who enters an AJGA event thinks the PGAT is going to be his golden ticket.
-
Erik,
I don't think it's a broad question.
If you want to help a 90 shooter improve by 10 shots, how much of that improvement do expect to come from shot selection and strategy advice versus actual technique?
-
I don't know guys, Erik Jim, Kalen, Michael
you have the math but something doesn't sit right, intuitively
The # of people playing golf doesn't seem to really tell me anything -- necessarily -- about how good they are as a class or how great the best of the best are.
Rory and Brooks and Tiger etc can swing remarkably fast, drive the ball miles and miles, hit magnificent approaches with every iron, and have short games to die for
Say there were even 5 billion people playing golf today, competing for 125 spots -- would all of them, some of them, a few of them, or very few of them *necessarily* swing faster, drive it longer, be even more magnificent with the irons, and have short games to die & kill for?
I don't know, and I simply don't see how any of the math/stats proves it one way or another.
P
-
Jim,
We are certainly agreeing on this point.
And to go along further with Eriks point of competing school sizes, its why every state sports program in the US has different brackets isions based mostly on school size. Sure every now and then you get a Hoosiers type deal, but 99% of the time the big schools are gonna beat down on the small schools at the championship levels...
-
"Head in the sand, man. I tried.Ultimately, of course, I'm glad you enjoy playing golf, and you're of course free to do as you wish. So I'll just wish you well in whatever that is."
Thank you for the kind offer but I don't need your help. I can play a little and I'm very fortunate to have known some great PGA members who have been a tremendous help to me over the last 30 years.
-
I don't know guys, Erik Jim, Kalen, Michael
you have the math but something doesn't sit right, intuitively
The # of people playing golf doesn't seem to really tell me anything -- necessarily -- about how good they are as a class or how great the best of the best are.
Rory and Brooks and Tiger etc can swing remarkably fast, drive the ball miles and miles, hit magnificent approaches with every iron, and have short games to die for
Say there were even 5 billion people playing golf today, competing for 125 spots -- would all of them, some of them, a few of them, or very few of them *necessarily* swing faster, drive it longer, be even more magnificent with the irons, and have short games to die & kill for?
I don't know, and I simply don't see how any of the math/stats proves it one way or another.
P
Peter,
How about the Korean women golf phenomenon in just our lifetimes? Hell, in just our adulthood...
Is that not a result of pure numbers and incentive and organization?
-
Jim, I don't have the language, or maybe even the ideas, necessary to raise my doubts, but again: that there are more Korean women golfers (for the reasons you mention) there is no doubt, and that they are excellent players is true too. But I don't know how that tells me anything about the 'relative quality' of their games. Would Annika S have fared worse/better/far worse against these newer golfers than she did against her main rivals then? How about the owner of the best golf swing of all time, Mickey Wright, or the leading winner of all time, Kathy Whitworth: as golfers were they less talented than today's Korean greats? I just don't understand -- and I mean just that, I can't see how -- any of the 'numbers' help us to answer that question. And if the numbers can't answer *that* question, what are they actually telling us? That there are a lot (and a lot more) really good golfers around today? Okay: sure, yes, there are. But are the very best better than the very best of the past? I just don't see it, ie how one proves the other.
But I'll grant that my mind isn't very good with numbers/statistical analysis, so the problem is likely mine.
P
-
Scarcity
There are only so many tournaments to win.
-
If you want to help a 90 shooter improve by 10 shots, how much of that improvement do expect to come from shot selection and strategy advice versus actual technique?
Tough to say, because it's not quantifiable, nor do we have good data on "how good" of a strategy people have currently.
Say there were even 5 billion people playing golf today, competing for 125 spots -- would all of them, some of them, a few of them, or very few of them *necessarily* swing faster, drive it longer, be even more magnificent with the irons, and have short games to die & kill for
If 500 people play golf, the top 100 represent the top 20% of golfers. If 5,000,000 people play golf, the top 100 represent the top 0.002%.
Assuming the same roughly bell curve distribution of players… is it easier to win a city championship in a city with 5,000 or a city of 5,000,000?
Thank you for the kind offer but I don't need your help. I can play a little and I'm very fortunate to have known some great PGA members who have been a tremendous help to me over the last 30 years.
Rob, I gave up. Your head is firmly buried in the sand.
-
https://www.golfmagic.com/interviews/dave-pelz-interview-putting-not-most-important-part-golf (https://www.golfmagic.com/interviews/dave-pelz-interview-putting-not-most-important-part-golf)
-
I don't know guys, Erik Jim, Kalen, Michael
you have the math but something doesn't sit right, intuitively
The # of people playing golf doesn't seem to really tell me anything -- necessarily -- about how good they are as a class or how great the best of the best are.
Rory and Brooks and Tiger etc can swing remarkably fast, drive the ball miles and miles, hit magnificent approaches with every iron, and have short games to die for
Say there were even 5 billion people playing golf today, competing for 125 spots -- would all of them, some of them, a few of them, or very few of them *necessarily* swing faster, drive it longer, be even more magnificent with the irons, and have short games to die & kill for?
I don't know, and I simply don't see how any of the math/stats proves it one way or another.
P
Peter,
It's not possible to prove this one way or the other purely with the statistics. What you can do is show the likelihood that it lies one way over the other is substantially weighted one way.
Let's take a for instance. Suppose you have two pools of golfers. One has 1,000 in it and the other has 10,000 in it. Beyond that we know nothing about it. The chances that the best player falls in the first group is 1/11. The chances the best player falls in the second group is 10/11. So, the chances that the best player in the first group is better than the best player in the second group is also 1/11 or 9.1%.
Now let's look at the 2nd best player in each pool. The probability that the 2nd best player in pool 1 is better than the 2nd best player in pool 2 is quite a bit smaller than 1/11. It requires that the best 2 players in pool 1 also lie in the best 3 players in the entire population. I'm getting hazy on my probability, but I think that probability is 1000C2x10000C1/11000C3+1000C3/11000C3 which is about 2.3%.
The chances that the 10th best player in pool 1 is better than the 10th best player in pool 2 is correspondingly smaller again. I think it's about 0.00016%. Take that down to the 50th best player in pool 1 being better than the 50th best player in pool 2 and you're getting into the vanishingly small likelihood. I think there are 23 zeroes after the decimal point before you hit a digit in percentages.
I think that can be extrapolated to imply that the field is markedly stronger in a larger pool than in the smaller pool. If the best player in pool 2 can differentiate himself by a similar margin to the best player in pool 1 amongst his peers then we can say with quite a lot of confidence that the best player in pool 2 is better than the best player in pool 1. It also stands to reason that the top guys in pool 1 will win more events than the top guys in pool 2 because the fields are that much shallower. It's quite plausible that the top 10 in pool 1 will share a good number of tournament wins. Also the best player would have to have a dreadful week to fall outside the top 10. Compare that with pool 2 and the wins will be more spread out and shallower totals. Much like what we see in reality.
None of this counts as proof of anything, but the likelihood that Tiger is better than Jack ever was is pretty high.
-
https://www.golfmagic.com/interviews/dave-pelz-interview-putting-not-most-important-part-golf (https://www.golfmagic.com/interviews/dave-pelz-interview-putting-not-most-important-part-golf)
In quite shocking news, short game and putting coach names short game and putting as the most important parts of the game...
-
And I thought no one would notice that.......... ;D
-
Well, thanks very much for that Michael -- that at least makes the concept a lot clearer.
See, the problem wasn't me after all, it was all those other guys using crappy stats and/or explaining them badly
They probably live in smaller cities with only, like, 100 statisticians... :)
Also, good quip on the Pelz thing. Yes.
-
https://www.golfmagic.com/interviews/dave-pelz-interview-putting-not-most-important-part-golf (https://www.golfmagic.com/interviews/dave-pelz-interview-putting-not-most-important-part-golf)
The fact that you can be about as good as a PGA Tour player at putting and the short game makes my case: those areas are not the areas where there's much Separation Value®.
-
Nowadays, every kid who enters an AJGA event thinks the PGAT is going to be his golden ticket.
And at probably a 25:1 ratio, these kids are country club...no caddies, clothes-folders or cashiers at Stop n Shop among them...if they go for it and fail, there will be no consequences.
-
Ha...what kind of consequences would make you feel good about it VK?
-
https://www.golfmagic.com/interviews/dave-pelz-interview-putting-not-most-important-part-golf (https://www.golfmagic.com/interviews/dave-pelz-interview-putting-not-most-important-part-golf)
The fact that you can be about as good as a PGA Tour player at putting and the short game makes my case: those areas are not the areas where there's much Separation Value®.
Um, no .. sorry. If you're going to tell people their heads are buried in the sand, the you're going to have to look in the mirror on this one. You will never be able to get stats on this .. period. Whatever rounds you're using from amateurs will never stack up. It's all about what happens "when the lights come on." I get what you're selling, but I ain't buyin.
-
Um, no .. sorry. If you're going to tell people their heads are buried in the sand, the you're going to have to look in the mirror on this one. You will never be able to get stats on this .. period. Whatever rounds you're using from amateurs will never stack up. It's all about what happens "when the lights come on." I get what you're selling, but I ain't buyin.
You're likely over-rating how good PGA Tour players are at putting, and over-rating the whole "when the lights come on" bit, too. Plenty of people can deal with pressure, can meet the moment, etc.
PGA Tour players are good, but… again, if a Tour player is 20 shots better than someone, just under three strokes over 18 holes come from their putting. Hence, "about as good as a PGA Tour player at putting."
And hey, there are many non-PGA Tour players who are actually better at putting than the average PGA Tour player.
Mark Broadie once again:
(https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/p9uz2vrw/Image+2019-11-11+at+9.34.23+PM.png?v=786fabf02c7fb3693aa718aa3396d2a5)
-
Um, no .. sorry. If you're going to tell people their heads are buried in the sand, the you're going to have to look in the mirror on this one. You will never be able to get stats on this .. period. Whatever rounds you're using from amateurs will never stack up. It's all about what happens "when the lights come on." I get what you're selling, but I ain't buyin.
You're likely over-rating how good PGA Tour players are at putting, and over-rating the whole "when the lights come on" bit, too. Plenty of people can deal with pressure, can meet the moment, etc.
PGA Tour players are good, but… again, if a Tour player is 20 shots better than someone, just under three strokes over 18 holes come from their putting. Hence, "about as good as a PGA Tour player at putting."
And hey, there are many non-PGA Tour players who are actually better at putting than the average PGA Tour player.
Mark Broadie once again:
(https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/p9uz2vrw/Image+2019-11-11+at+9.34.23+PM.png?v=786fabf02c7fb3693aa718aa3396d2a5)
+1 Erik you've proven your point. It's up to them if they want to accept it for themselves.
-
I’d say he’s repeated his point...
-
I’d say he’s repeated his point...
The point remains the same. I'd say I've backed up the point with several different ways. I'm not repeating the same information.
But, the topic IS still "82" which is Tiger (and Jack), and I'm happy to get back to that topic, too. :) This feels pretty far off topic.
-
I’m assuming you can prove 15 > 18...
-
Ah, an ideal pivot back to the topic:
So, based on the Broadie material & related insights and statistics that Erik has been providing, what is leading/most important "Separation Value" in Jack's game vs Tiger's?
-
Ah, an ideal pivot back to the topic:
So, based on the Broadie material & related insights and statistics that Erik has been providing, what is leading/most important "Separation Value®" in Jack's game vs Tiger's?
Hey now, sorry, that's our registered trademark. :)
Tiger was better with his irons than Jack, had a better short game, and was probably about even as a putter. Jack was a better driver of the ball than Tiger.
Educated estimates, though, given the lack of ShotLink data from Jack's era.
-
Ha...what kind of consequences would make you feel good about it VK?
Feel good about it? That has no place in what I said or what was discussed.
I was addressing the point being made regarding the relative depth/quality/volume of players that are turned out/have been turned out/were turned out...
In this sub-sub tangent of the original question, JME playfully intoned the Tour is thought of as a golden ticket by AJGA players, and I'm following up that point in that the "ticket" is not in question for the bulk (I've seen) associated with the top ranks of AJGA fields.
I'd have to think about it, but I also think I'm agreeing with an earlier JK comment that mentioned how money (and the security, absence of anxiety, facility it brings) doesn't/does change the competitive mien of the top golfers in Woods' and the current day as opposed to the Nicklaus salad days and before.
Someone just mentioned that a player of Nicklaus' great era goes back to middle-class humility if they aren't successful... I'm suggesting that as far as what I've seen of the AJGA fields to date, the kids of this AJGA generation aren't going to humility if this particular golden ticket isn't cashed; there'll be others to soften the disappointment.
-
Um, no .. sorry. If you're going to tell people their heads are buried in the sand, the you're going to have to look in the mirror on this one. You will never be able to get stats on this .. period. Whatever rounds you're using from amateurs will never stack up. It's all about what happens "when the lights come on." I get what you're selling, but I ain't buyin.
You're likely over-rating how good PGA Tour players are at putting, and over-rating the whole "when the lights come on" bit, too. Plenty of people can deal with pressure, can meet the moment, etc.
PGA Tour players are good, but… again, if a Tour player is 20 shots better than someone, just under three strokes over 18 holes come from their putting. Hence, "about as good as a PGA Tour player at putting."
And hey, there are many non-PGA Tour players who are actually better at putting than the average PGA Tour player.
Mark Broadie once again:
(https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/p9uz2vrw/Image+2019-11-11+at+9.34.23+PM.png?v=786fabf02c7fb3693aa718aa3396d2a5)
No, I'm not. There are so many variables in how statistics are calculated that you are most likely UNDERrating tour players. Again, it's ALL about when the lights come on. You say "plenty" of people can make putts under pressure. You'd have to define "plenty". I'll concede many good amateurs are really good putters .. a very small percentage. Of course it's the part of the game that can be similar at times for everyone .. I mean, it's putting. You also said "short game AND putting." I think you're seriously underestimating just how good the best are at chipping AND putting. The better statistic would be how far misses are missed by .. on a consistent basis.. and when it counts. I'm guessing if you had to lay money on a putting contest over numerous holes, there may be a handful of amateurs you'd take against the worst of the top 125.
-
Mike, as this has now devolved into speculation about how someone else is rating something, and as the specific topic of putting performance is even further off the Tiger (and Jack) topic, I'll simply stand by what I've said and leave it at that.
-
Erik -
Do you think that by leaving the flagstick in on putts that are rolling four feet past the hole and are 3/4 inch off-center (an advantage that Jack of course never had) that Tiger can win four more majors? Would there be asterisks?
-
Do you think that by leaving the flagstick in on putts that are rolling four feet past the hole and are 3/4 inch off-center (an advantage that Jack of course never had) that Tiger can win four more majors? Would there be asterisks?
I don't think Tiger will win another major, I really don't think he'll win four, nor does he need to do anything more in order to be the GOAT, IMO.
And even though you're not being serious: at higher stimp speeds, a putt going 4' by 3/4" off-center will go in whether the flag is in or out. And as the Rules are the same for all competitors, no asterisk required. Plenty of rules have changed during Jack's era, Tiger's era, and the era in between. Players still all play by whatever rules are in place at the time.
-
I don't understand many of the reactions to Eriks comments.
All he's saying is, top notch players gain the vast majority of thier stroke advantage from tee to arriving at or near the green. From that point on they get relatively few. This certainly matches what i've seen in my 20 years or so of playing with excellent players as they make far fewer mistakes with the long sticks/full shots, but putts per round between us is always close...
-
I’m assuming you can prove 15 > 18...
15 can be bigger than 18. 15 hundred dollar bills is much more than 18 twenty dollar bills.
Wherever we land on this, I think it's reasonable to say that Tiger's 82 tour wins is mind boggling. It's more than DJ (20), Rory (18), Day (12), Spieth (11), Thomas (11) and Koepka (7) combined.
Looking at the all-time tournament wins list, Tiger and Phil are the only guys in the top ten who are younger than Jack (who will be 80 in a couple of months I think). Among players born since 1950, there are 2 in the top 10, 3 in the top 29 and you have to get down to 34th to find someone younger than Tiger (DJ with 20). The top 50 has 12 people born since 1950. Those are:
Tiger, Phil, Vijay, Davis Love III, DJ, Greg Norman, Crenshaw, Ernie, Rory, Nick Price, Jim Furyk and Curtis Strange.
Sliding back to 1940, you can add Jack, Tom Watson, Johnny Miller, Ray Floyd, Lanny Wadkins, Hale Irwin, Hubert Green and Tom Kite.
So 20 of the top 50 were born in 1940 or later. The remaining 30 were all born before that. Seems to me like winning lots of tournaments was easier back in the past. Counts by decade of birth in the same list (top 50)
1980s - 2
1970s - 3
1960s - 3
1950s - 4
1940s - 8
1930s - 5
1920s - 4
1910s - 8
1900s - 8
1890s - 7
1880s - 1
There are 53 here because 4 people are tied for 50th on the list (17 wins apiece). The 1880s and before didn't really have much to play for and the 1980s are potentially not yet done getting onto this list (Adam Scott has the most of those in the 1980s, but not in the top 50 with 13 wins, so he needs 4 more to break into the top 50). 1970s are potentially not done too. Zach Johnson and Bubba Watson have 12 wins apiece, so 5 more to break into the top 50. From the 1990s, Jordan Spieth and Justin Thomas are highest with 11 each.
Allowing for all this, there certainly does appear to be a pretty solid trend. Tournament wins have been getting harder and harder to come by as time has gone by and the game has grown in popularity and global reach. Where else have we seen this? Oh right yes - with majors too.
-
Seems to me like winning lots of tournaments was easier back in the past.
Solid post, Michael.
One might be able to make a strong case that Phil is the third best golfer ever. (I don't care to, and I don't know that I'd go with that. But you don't win nearly 50 events without being top… ten?)
-
Erik,
I wonder same. And I think majors results would support that in addition to his 50 wins.
Rankings of Most top 3 finishes in a major:
Nicklaus - 36
Tiger - 26
Phil - 23
Snead - 22
Sarazen - 20
Palmer - 19
Hagen - 18
Player -18
Watson -18
P.S. Just like Jack played against weaker fields than Tiger...Sarazen, Snead, Hagen, etc played against even weaker overall fields. All the more reason Phil's numbers stand up even more...
-
I view strength and depth of field somewhat like this (a graphic I made a few years ago):
(https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/WnuAWDLq/Image+2019-11-12+at+1.47.24+PM.png?v=693adbf9067ee8bcf3bd43003d9dadaa)
The graph isn't to scale or anything - I just believe it illustrates my point. Eventually we approach a limit. If we consider that the PGA Tour is the top 125, say, out of x, where x is the number of 18-50 year old males playing golf at scratch or better worldwide, then the chart will make sense: as x increases, the percentage that makes up the top 125 drops until it approaches the limit.
So yeah, if Rory or Brooks or someone get 13 majors… and 65 PGA Tour wins perhaps… I'd have to give them serious consideration as GOAT.
-
I am looking at comparative strength of field. Nicklaus played at TOSU . Woods at Stanford.
How does the college golf experience compare between the 50s/60s/70s and the last two decades? Not just for the superstars and college powerhouses (Palmer/Wake Forest, Miller/BYU, Couples/Houston. Watson/Stanford) but the 2,3,4 players? How much competition was there each year? Fall and Spring? How much travel? Did golf hoover up all the time not in class or studying? Outside of the head coach, how much staff was there to assist in what capacities?
-
I am looking at comparative strength of field. Nicklaus played at TOSU . Woods at Stanford.
How does the college golf experience compare between the 50s/60s/70s and the last two decades? Not just for the superstars and college powerhouses (Palmer/Wake Forest, Miller/BYU, Couples/Houston. Watson/Stanford) but the 2,3,4 players? How much competition was there each year? Fall and Spring? How much travel? Did golf hoover up all the time not in class or studying? Outside of the head coach, how much staff was there to assist in what capacities?
Pete, the answer, of course, is that the 2, 3, and 4 players in college golf are vastly better than they were in days gone by, and there are more schools that are competitive as well. There is simply no question about it, and the same thing is true in high school golf, mainly because it is true in junior golf.
And so either the PGA Tour is the same, ie, much deeper now, with talented players capable of winning tournaments, including majors, than ever before, OR for some reason the PGA Tour is exempt from what has happened at EVERY other level of golf, and the fields today are no stronger than in days gone by. I don't think this is a hard question to answer.
Interestingly, nobody ever seems argues that the competition that Bobby Jones faced in the infancy of professional golf was as deep as the competition that Nicklaus faced. Likewise, nobody struggles with understanding that, at least to some extent, Nelson's 11 consecutive wins in 1945 might not have been possible without many of the top golfers in the military at the time.
And I'll say this one more time: There are two ways to view athletic performance; one is peak performance, and the other is career value. The odd thing about the Nicklaus-Woods debate is that Woods wins either way, UNLESS you restrict the debate to majors won and ONLY majors won. That's interesting logic.
-
And I'll say this one more time: There are two ways to view athletic performance; one is peak performance, and the other is career value. The odd thing about the Nicklaus-Woods debate is that Woods wins either way, UNLESS you restrict the debate to majors won and ONLY majors won. That's interesting logic.
There are so many other things that come into play when evaluating an athletes career which affects their longevity. Injuries, off the playing field issues, contracts, etc. I think we can comfortably say that sports medicine is and always will never be as good today as it is tomorrow. This has tremendously aided Tiger which in the old days he would certainly have been sidelined with his knee back issues.
Give Gayle Sayers today's sports medicine and he challenges Sweetness as the greatest of all time, and in my dad's opinion was the greatest TB in history despite his injury shortened career.
-
And I'll say this one more time: There are two ways to view athletic performance; one is peak performance, and the other is career value. The odd thing about the Nicklaus-Woods debate is that Woods wins either way, UNLESS you restrict the debate to majors won and ONLY majors won. That's interesting logic.
There are so many other things that come into play when evaluating an athletes career which affects their longevity. Injuries, off the playing field issues, contracts, etc. I think we can comfortably say that sports medicine is and always will never be as good today as it is tomorrow. This has tremendously aided Tiger which in the old days he would certainly have been sidelined with his knee back issues.
Give Gayle Sayers today's sports medicine and he challenges Sweetness as the greatest of all time, and in my dad's opinion was the greatest TB in history despite his injury shortened career.
Sayers vs. Payton is a GREAT example of peak value (Mantle) vs. career value (Mays). I must be your dad's age, because I would agree 100% about Sayers when he was healthy, which, of course, wasn't for very long. Another good example would be Koufax vs. a guy like Warren Spahn or a lot of others.
But again, my point is that if you don't look ONLY at the hybrid of majors, Woods is the GOAT either way; there's no way to argue otherwise except majors. I know that's a big "except", and I understand that championships are a tie breaker between two guys who are otherwise more or less equal. But Woods are Nicklaus aren't Jordan vs. James, or Montana vs. Marino, or any other similar comparison that I can come up with.
-
AG,
Jordan vs James? Surely you jest
Montana vs Marion? Surely you're off your rocker...
Unless you're tryna' say Tiger is the Jordan and Montana in these scenarios! ;)
-
AG,
Jordan vs James? Surely you jest
Montana vs Marion? Surely you're off your rocker...
Unless you're tryna' say Tiger is the Jordan and Montana in these scenarios! ;)
Surely you realize that LeBron James is considered the superior player using some statistical analyses. Here is the basketball-reference.com list of greatest players, in terms of lifetime VORP (value over replacement player):
https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/vorp_career.html (https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/vorp_career.html)
It's not even all that close. James is 30% ahead of Jordan (2nd best) with at least 2-3 good years remaining.
-
AG,
Jordan vs James? Surely you jest
Montana vs Marion? Surely you're off your rocker...
Unless you're tryna' say Tiger is the Jordan and Montana in these scenarios! ;)
Surely you realize that LeBron James is considered the superior player using some statistical analyses. Here is the basketball-reference.com list of greatest players, in terms of lifetime VORP (value over replacement player):
https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/vorp_career.html (https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/vorp_career.html)
It's not even all that close. James is 30% ahead of Jordan (2nd best) with at least 2-3 good years remaining.
John,
I have heard of that ranking and quite frankly, i'm not a fan. Karl Malone 3rd on that list and guys like Kobe, Kevin Durant much further down? Hard to take it seriously. I mean Chris Paul over Magic and Olajuwan as well as Kobe and KD?
P.S. Does the algorithm take into account that Lebron played in a very very weak Eastern Conference up until basically a year ago? And if playing in the West, do you think he makes 8 straight finals? Would have been lucky to make half that...
-
Hi Kalen,
I have no idea how they calculate the VORP number. I can see Chris Paul head of Magic Johnson on a career basis, since Magic retired young. Similarly, Karl Malone had a very long career, the second leading all-time scorer.
FYI, the other relevant measure of overall lifetime achievement is the career "Win Shares" number. The list looks a bit different, with James ranked 4th, but Malone is still ranked 3rd.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_career.html
Chris Paul and Karl Malone are both given high marks as defensive players.
As a casual observer, I have never seen a better all-around basketball player than LeBron James. I think an argument can be made that he is the greatest athlete in American sports history. Size, speed, finesse, attention to conditioning, etc. The only other players I consider as "greatest basketball player" are Michael Jordan and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, with Bill Russell remaining a mysterious, dark horse choice.
-
8)
As to basketball its the Dipper , Wilt Chamberlain
-
8)
As to basketball its the Dipper , Wilt Chamberlain
He is the goat if he is anywhere close to the 20,000 women he claims to have gotten familiar with. How many kids would he actually have with that kind of activity? Unless he was impotent or fixed which would ensure he wasn't paying child support to hundreds of mothers.
-
8)
As to basketball its the Dipper , Wilt Chamberlain
He is the goat if he is anywhere close to the 20,000 women he claims to have gotten familiar with. How many kids would he actually have with that kind of activity? Unless he was impotent or fixed which would ensure he wasn't paying child support to hundreds of mothers.
Probably a reflection you should have kept to yourself. ::)
-
8)
As to basketball its the Dipper , Wilt Chamberlain
If only you could type it the way Dave Zinkoff said it.
-
Hey John,
Some good points for sure and I had forgotten Magic's career was a bit short.
There are several ratings systems out there. https://prosportsanalytics.com/2017/05/03/basketball-statistics-whats-out-there/ (https://prosportsanalytics.com/2017/05/03/basketball-statistics-whats-out-there/) , and they can all be effective tools in measuring players both individually and in the aggregate.
But when it comes to the best of the best, the elite of the elite, I would think that championships must be used as well. And this is especially true for Basketball where one player has the best opportunity to take over a game both offensively and defensively, as opposed to other team sports like Football or Baseball. So while players like Malone, Barkely, and Paul have/had terrific and long careers, their inability to win championships must surely be factored in. These guys may score high in several quantity categories, but what about quality and the ability to win on the biggest stage? Its similar to why no one is making a case for Greg Norman in these discussions because while he has 88 wins world wide, and was world #1 for a long time, he faltered in the majors.
P.S. If you were GM for a day and had the chance to draft anyone, would you really take those three guys over a Kobe or Kevin Durant? I know what my answer is.. ;D
-
AG,
Jordan vs James? Surely you jest
Montana vs Marion? Surely you're off your rocker...
Unless you're tryna' say Tiger is the Jordan and Montana in these scenarios! ;)
Kalen,
You COULD try reading what I wrote. I didn't say, and don't think James compares to Jordan, even though he is going to surpass many, if not most of MJ's career records. And I didn't say and don't think Marino compares to Montana, even though Marino threw for more yards and threw more TD passes and won more games as a starter than Montana did. The obvious differences in those two comparisons is championships, and I do think those are a big deal. Jordan was 6 for 6 in NBA finals, and Montana, along with Brady, has to be considered the greatest winner as a QB in NFL history.
Given the differences in the depth of competition, I don't think the difference between Woods and Nicklaus in majors won is particularly compelling, even if Woods doesn't win any more before he finally hangs it up. So, to return to the idea of peak value (Mantle) vs. career value, IF you put aside majors, or at the very most make it one third of the picture, with peak value and career value as the other two, Woods is the GOAT, hands down.
And I'm an old guy who watched and marveled at Nicklaus for pretty much his whole career. But I don't typically fall victim to "good old days" thinking, and that's the ONLY way Nicklaus comes out ahead in this comparison, with the myopic use of majors as the only "evidence" available.
-
A.G.,
How much weight do you put on Championships in Baseball? Does Kershaw's relatively poor performance in the playoffs knock him down the list despite unreal regular season performance over many years? Can Trout not be considered in the GOAT conversation if the Angels do not even make it to the playoffs? I go back and forth on these all of the time. Maybe because I am a Cubs fan and I want to keep Banks, Williams, Jenkins, and Santo higher up on the list than they might really deserve.
Ira
-
A.G.,
How much weight do you put on Championships in Baseball? Does Kershaw's relatively poor performance in the playoffs knock him down the list despite unreal regular season performance over many years? Can Trout not be considered in the GOAT conversation if the Angels do not even make it to the playoffs? I go back and forth on these all of the time. Maybe because I am a Cubs fan and I want to keep Banks, Williams, Jenkins, and Santo higher up on the list than they might really deserve.
Ira
If it wasn't for the damn '69 collapse they would be higher up.
Also I want to go on record to point out that performing in the playoffs, 4th quarter, Sunday of a major, etc. takes tremendous concentration, confidence and mental toughness. It doesn't just happen and those that have performed under those stressful situations have that championship gene that others simply don't. Difference between shooting 63 in a practice round and 63 on Sunday, or leading the league in passing, but throw a couple interceptions in the playoff game. The line is so fine at the professional sports level that there isn't room for many at the top.
-
Jeff,
I agree that performance in clutch situations is a fair metric. But in team sports, getting to the Championship is seldom he function of a single person although obviously more likely in Basketball than other team sports. Trout might really test the notion of whether a player never to make it to the championship can be in consideration as the GOAT (or at least in the post-Babe Ruth era).
And why do people have to keep reminding me of 1969? I was 11 at the time and still have not gotten completely over it.
Ira
-
A.G.
I'm happy to hear i incorrectly interpreted what you wrote. It sounded like you were trying to equate them, which seemed a bit absurd.
P.S. Ira does make a good point. It seems like individual sports vs teams sports where one player can take over a game vs larger team sports where the star depends on external help from teammates should be evaluated differently in at least some of the criteria items. That being said, I still don't think you can ignore rings, as difficult as that can be to process in sports like Football and Baseball.
P.P.S I've also read Marino was partially to blame for not having better RBs in his career because he demanded to throw the ball so much.
-
A.G.,
How much weight do you put on Championships in Baseball? Does Kershaw's relatively poor performance in the playoffs knock him down the list despite unreal regular season performance over many years? Can Trout not be considered in the GOAT conversation if the Angels do not even make it to the playoffs? I go back and forth on these all of the time. Maybe because I am a Cubs fan and I want to keep Banks, Williams, Jenkins, and Santo higher up on the list than they might really deserve.
Ira
Ira,
These are great questions. I'll say first that I think baseball is different from pro basketball and football in that the baseball playoffs are much more of a crapshoot. Most of the time, the best teams during the season are the best teams in the playoffs in football and basketball; that is often NOT the case in baseball. Billy Bean has said, "My s**t doesn't work in the playoffs.", by which he meant that he builds "macro" teams for a 162 game schedule; the playoffs are "micro".
As to Kershaw: His playoff record is mixed, and puzzling. He has the highest number of quality starts in playoff baseball since 2013, but he also has the largest number of bad starts of any pitcher in baseball history. The performance of the bullpen in games where Kershaw has pitched well has just been brutal, but his ERA is much higher in the playoffs than during the regular season. And the Dodgers have used him on short rest and out of the bullpen several times, with pretty consistently terrible results. He's been the best pitcher of his generation by a LOT, and so expectations have been high, of course. But even if you factor out the short rest and bullpen games, and even if the relievers for him had performed better, his record is still mixed. I don't know what value that subtracts from his career, but I think playoff performances in baseball are generally assigned less value than they are in pro football and basketball.
As to Trout: That the Angels aren't a perennial playoff team doesn't detract in the least from his greatness, at least for me; I see a clear difference here between him and Kershaw. Ty Cobb never won a World Series. Ted Williams never won a WS. Ernie Banks never won a WS. Yaz never won a WS. Ichiro never won a WS. Tony Gwynn never won a WS. I could go on, but you get the idea; I just don't think you can hold a guy who puts up epic, historic numbers responsible if the guys around him aren't good enough to get him to the playoffs or World Series in the first place.
-
A.G.
I think your post is spot on. In baseball, performance in the playoffs is a factor in evaluating a career, but less of one than in other team sports, particularly the QB or Number 1 regardless of position in Basketball. I was quite glad when Oscar Robertson finally won a championship. He is a legit part of discussion for GOAT in Basketball even though MJ is clear choice for me.
I am curious how our Posters from around the globe think about regular season versus major competitions in evaluating players in team sports.
Ira
-
There are so many other things that come into play when evaluating an athletes career which affects their longevity. Injuries, off the playing field issues, contracts, etc. I think we can comfortably say that sports medicine is and always will never be as good today as it is tomorrow. This has tremendously aided Tiger which in the old days he would certainly have been sidelined with his knee back issues.
Give Gayle Sayers today's sports medicine and he challenges Sweetness as the greatest of all time, and in my dad's opinion was the greatest TB in history despite his injury shortened career.
It aids Tiger's competitors, too. And what hurt Jack, hurt his competitors as well.
They can only play the people that are in the same tournaments as them.
Also… Jack was wealthy enough to fly everywhere, while most of his competitors were driving. Tiger played in an age when everyone could fly.
-
Most of Jacks competition was driving in the 70’s and 80’s? While Jack was flying?
-
There are so many other things that come into play when evaluating an athletes career which affects their longevity. Injuries, off the playing field issues, contracts, etc. I think we can comfortably say that sports medicine is and always will never be as good today as it is tomorrow. This has tremendously aided Tiger which in the old days he would certainly have been sidelined with his knee back issues.
Give Gayle Sayers today's sports medicine and he challenges Sweetness as the greatest of all time, and in my dad's opinion was the greatest TB in history despite his injury shortened career.
It aids Tiger's competitors, too. And what hurt Jack, hurt his competitors as well.
They can only play the people that are in the same tournaments as them.
Also… Jack was wealthy enough to fly everywhere, while most of his competitors were driving. Tiger played in an age when everyone could fly.
Yes, but that is like saying you are racing a Ferrari against a Prius and you both run out of gas. If there is more gas for both, will that help the Prius overcome the Ferrari? Didn't think so. It gave the Ferrari more time to distance itself.
Tiger has had more runway in his career due to sports medicine, if he played in Jack's era he would have already been arthritic and probably played as often as an aging Doug Ford at Augusta. Thus, the brilliance that is Tiger has benefited from the era, otherwise he could have been the Gale Sayers of golf.
-
Tiger has had more runway in his career due to sports medicine, if he played in Jack's era he would have already been arthritic and probably played as often as an aging Doug Ford at Augusta. Thus, the brilliance that is Tiger has benefited from the era, otherwise he could have been the Gale Sayers of golf.
No, because Tiger isn't the only player to benefit from modern medicine. His competitors have as well.
Just like Jack wasn't the only one he played against to not benefit from modern (by current standards) medicine: his competitors also failed to get it.
-
Tiger has had more runway in his career due to sports medicine, if he played in Jack's era he would have already been arthritic and probably played as often as an aging Doug Ford at Augusta. Thus, the brilliance that is Tiger has benefited from the era, otherwise he could have been the Gale Sayers of golf.
No, because Tiger isn't the only player to benefit from modern medicine. His competitors have as well.
Just like Jack wasn't the only one he played against to not benefit from modern (by current standards) medicine: his competitors also failed to get it.
Erik
I fall very much on your side on this discussion, but I think it’s somewhat shortsighted to ignore this. Tiger has worked much harder than almost anyone else in the history of the game. His practice regimen in his pomp was the stuff of legend. That and his propensity for over the top exercising meant he wore out somewhat faster than his competitors. One just has to look at his injury history to see that. He owes a lot to modern medicine that he is able to compete now. Many of his contemporaries (Phil?) didn’t rely on that as much as he did. Jack played at the top of the game for a very long time without much medical assistance. Tiger IMO burned much brighter and now we can say for just about as long but he undoubtedly benefited from medical improvements in that. Without those he would have been done a long time ago.
-
The difference was Jack flying to all the tournaments while Trevino, Palmer, Watson, Player, Jacklin, Seve, Miller, Watkins, Faldo, Floyd, and everyone else was driving.
-
I fall very much on your side on this discussion, but I think it’s somewhat shortsighted to ignore this. Tiger has worked much harder than almost anyone else in the history of the game. His practice regimen in his pomp was the stuff of legend. That and his propensity for over the top exercising meant he wore out somewhat faster than his competitors. One just has to look at his injury history to see that. He owes a lot to modern medicine that he is able to compete now. Many of his contemporaries (Phil?) didn’t rely on that as much as he did. Jack played at the top of the game for a very long time without much medical assistance. Tiger IMO burned much brighter and now we can say for just about as long but he undoubtedly benefited from medical improvements in that. Without those he would have been done a long time ago.
I'm not denying that, but… so? Are we giving credit to him or taking it away? Because one could easily see that if he was a bit more fortunate, he might have already surpassed Jack's 18.
Was Tiger "lucky" to have modern medicine to help him get back, or was he unlucky in just how many injuries, etc. he had over time?
I generally prefer not to weight people on "what ifs." Only on what actually happened. Tiger's 15 are more impressive than Jack's 18, to me. 82 >> 72. Etc.
The difference was Jack flying to all the tournaments while Trevino, Palmer, Watson, Player, Jacklin, Seve, Miller, Watkins, Faldo, Floyd, and everyone else was driving.
Those guys were flying, too. I'm talking about the "others" on the Tour, the "fillers" who were living tournament to tournament. I didn't say ALL of Jack's competitors, nor did I say his "top" competitors.
Jack being able to afford to fly gave him an advantage over a lot of other players. That's it.
-
Tiger also has a lot of money. Enough to build that practice area in his backyard. Could he have conquered the chipping yips if he had to work them out in front of everyone at Isleworth?
-
I fall very much on your side on this discussion, but I think it’s somewhat shortsighted to ignore this. Tiger has worked much harder than almost anyone else in the history of the game. His practice regimen in his pomp was the stuff of legend. That and his propensity for over the top exercising meant he wore out somewhat faster than his competitors. One just has to look at his injury history to see that. He owes a lot to modern medicine that he is able to compete now. Many of his contemporaries (Phil?) didn’t rely on that as much as he did. Jack played at the top of the game for a very long time without much medical assistance. Tiger IMO burned much brighter and now we can say for just about as long but he undoubtedly benefited from medical improvements in that. Without those he would have been done a long time ago.
I'm not denying that, but… so? Are we giving credit to him or taking it away? Because one could easily see that if he was a bit more fortunate, he might have already surpassed Jack's 18.
Was Tiger "lucky" to have modern medicine to help him get back, or was he unlucky in just how many injuries, etc. he had over time?
I generally prefer not to weight people on "what ifs." Only on what actually happened. Tiger's 15 are more impressive than Jack's 18, to me. 82 >> 72. Etc.
The difference was Jack flying to all the tournaments while Trevino, Palmer, Watson, Player, Jacklin, Seve, Miller, Watkins, Faldo, Floyd, and everyone else was driving.
Those guys were flying, too. I'm talking about the "others" on the Tour, the "fillers" who were living tournament to tournament. I didn't say ALL of Jack's competitors, nor did I say his "top" competitors.
Jack being able to afford to fly gave him an advantage over a lot of other players. That's it.
I don't see where you say "others or fillers" You said most of his competitors.
"Jack was wealthy enough to fly everywhere, while most of his competitors were driving. Tiger played in an age when everyone could fly."
-
Tiger also has a lot of money. Enough to build that practice area in his backyard. Could he have conquered the chipping yips if he had to work them out in front of everyone at Isleworth?
He never had the chipping yips. :)
I don't see where you say "others or fillers" You said most of his competitors.
And your list had about ten players listed, many of whom didn't even overlap very much. PGA Tour fields had more than eleven people in them, no?
Or, to put it another way, if you looked at the field of a random 1976 PGA Tour event, how many of the players flew versus drove to the tournament? I would wager that "most" drove.
-
Which one wasn't playing when Jack was winning majors?
If you were talking about "fillers" and "others" what difference did it make if they drove or road a bike. "fillers and others" don't win a lot of majors and weren't a factor in Jack winning or losing majors, right? They were just "fillers"...........
-
The difference was Jack flying to all the tournaments while Trevino, Palmer, Watson, Player, Jacklin, Seve, Miller, Watkins, Faldo, Floyd, and everyone else was driving.
I thought Palmer led the charge to personal jets.
-
The difference was Jack flying to all the tournaments while Trevino, Palmer, Watson, Player, Jacklin, Seve, Miller, Watkins, Faldo, Floyd, and everyone else was driving.
I thought Palmer led the charge to personal jets.
I thought so too......
-
The difference was Jack flying to all the tournaments while Trevino, Palmer, Watson, Player, Jacklin, Seve, Miller, Watkins, Faldo, Floyd, and everyone else was driving.
I thought Palmer led the charge to personal jets.
I thought so too......
I agree and am pretty sure Palmer was flying his own plane when Jack was still in high school.
-
Tiger also has a lot of money. Enough to build that practice area in his backyard. Could he have conquered the chipping yips if he had to work them out in front of everyone at Isleworth?
He never had the chipping yips. :)
LoL ok https://youtu.be/ucWp-Nz4IVY
-
LoL ok https://youtu.be/ucWp-Nz4IVY (https://youtu.be/ucWp-Nz4IVY)
That’s bad technique. Not “yips.”
And y’all can say what you want: Jack’s ability to fly while others had to drive was an advantage to him.
I also didn’t say he was the first. Arnie used to fly the two of them places.
-
LoL ok https://youtu.be/ucWp-Nz4IVY (https://youtu.be/ucWp-Nz4IVY)
That’s bad technique. Not “yips.”
And y’all can say what you want: Jack’s ability to fly while others had to drive was an advantage to him.
I also didn’t say he was the first. Arnie used to fly the two of them places.
Yes, it was an advantage over “fillers and others”.......