[Matt_Cohn]

How is it that 12 years ago, there were supposedly too many talented players for anyone to ever dominate the game again, but now that somebody is dominating, apparently there just aren't enough talented players? The logic of that is way off.

[tlavin]

I think Jack is right. Back pre 80 probably only 20% of the field were capable of winning a tournament, now they all can. If you look at today's greats only Tiger is racking up major's... his nearest rivals PM, VS, EE, RG have not got enough (yet) to go down as 'greats' like Nicklaus, Palmer and Player. What denotes a great? maybe all 4 majors, or collectively 6?

I would only beg to differ slightly.  I think Phil Mickelson, despite his gagging at some majors and his inability to consistently challenge Tiger is indisputably a GREAT player.  He frustrates his fans because of his inability to win more, but he's won 33 tournaments and two majors and has come in second 21 times (Top Ten in one-third of events) so that would qualify as great for me.  The same is  true for Vijay Singh, whose stats are roughly equivalent to Phil's. 

(These are great numbers, but they are absolutely dwarfed by Tiger's numbers.  He has played in 234 events.  He has won 65 times, finished in the Top Ten 148 times and in the Top 25 a total of 194 times, not to mention the fact that he's only missed 14 cuts out of that 234 total.)

[Paul Stephenson]

Some quick scoring average numbers from 1997-2007.  These are real numbers and not that adjusted thing the tour does:

Woods 69.22
Furyk 69.98
Singh 70.02
Duval (97-02) 70.04
Mickelson 70.08
Els 70.29
Love III 70.33

It's harder to find scoring averages for the 1960's, but I did find Player's career average was 70.3 (best year 68.9).  I'm willing to bet that if I did find those numbers from the 60's (I bet they're with Wilson's boat ticket), that the numbers would be similar to those above.

It's not Tiger's fault that he's more successful against a talent pool as good as Jack's than Jack was.

[Phil Benedict]

There were some tough guys - notably Trevino and Watson - who were able to stand toe-to-toe with Jack and come out ahead on more than one occasion.  Nobody has done that with Tiger.  Is that because Tiger's contemporary aren't great like Trevino and Watson or is it because Tiger is soooooo good?  I inclined to think it's the latter, although some economist has noted that statistically the entire field performs worse when Tiger competes, and that's adjusted for factors like course difficulty.

I have a certain measure of sympathy for Jack - most of your adult life you've been considered the best at something and now this kid comes around and blows your doors in.  But there's just no way to conclude anything other than Tiger is the best ever and by a large margin.

[Garland Bayley]

I think Phil Mickelson, despite his gagging at some majors and his inability to consistently challenge Tiger is indisputably a GREAT player. ...

You've captured it all right there. I believe Jack takes gagging into consideration in his definition of great, whereas you don't.

[Sean_A]

Looking at scoring is imo a meaningless stat.  Far too much has changed over the years and weather always plays it part.  When I think of a great player I reckon he was one of the top few of his prime, had some degree of longevity - that is winning majors over a period of time (for instance, I would consider Tiger to already be have a degree of longevity under his belt) and one who I reckon would be a winner in any era.  This last point it was I think is critically not observed by many.  I think a great champion of any era could be a great champion of any other era, but this is quite a select list of maybe 12-15 guys - that is how small I think the pool of great players is.  I say a guy like Hagen could be a great champion today because he knew what it took to win and often stole tournies - just like any other great player could do.  Additionally, he would have taken advantage of all the same things that are on offer today

The plain matter of the fact is that a group of

Jones, Hagen, Sarazen & Vardon could compete extremely well with

Jack, Trevino, Watson & Player

and

the current crop of would be superstars of which I can only say that Tiger is truly great - the time is running out on his side kicks. 

Its a small pool folks and you ain't never gonna convince me that the likes of Vardon, Jones Hagen, Watson and Nicklaus couldn't win their fair share of matches against Tiger. 

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

The whole fields lying down theory is someone not wanting to give Tiger credit.  ...

Actually, you got that wrong. It was someone trying to prove the field lying down was a myth, and surprisingly found the opposite.

[Jerry Kluger]

I think that an argument can be made today that based upon the structure of the Tour that players can easily become complacent and avoid confronting Tiger.  Once a player wins an event or has a few top finishes he can stay near the top for quite a while without having to challenge Tiger, and by that I mean winning an event where Tiger is also entered.  A player who wins a lesser event and does well in a couple of others and he gets ranked up there in the world rankings and then gets into the invitationals and the majors.  He gets automatic money in many of them and if he does well in a couple of others he's okay for the next year.  So he can play safe rather than taking a risk and maybe having to challenge Tiger for the top spot but still maintain his position.  He can still play in some of the lesser tournaments and perhaps win or get some big dough. 

In Jack's era you always got the impression that the guys like Player, Trevino, Miller, Watson, Floyd, etc. were out for the win and looked forward to the chance to challenge Jack.  I was just wondering if Jack had so many seconds because he often came from behind and almost got the win as opposesd to leading and falling back.  Tiger is great when he's in the lead but his strength is not from coming from behind.   

[Paul Stephenson]

Sean,

The scoring averages are for PGA tour events and not the majors only.  In all the cases but one (Els in 04 or 05) each player had over 50 rounds in their computed average.  This would negate any weather factors.  If you want to look at scoring in the majors then I agree that weather may play a factor.

Here is the link to the Vardon and Nelson awards:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vardon_Trophy

The winner, and their scoring averages stay pretty much in the same range until 1988, when someone had the bright idea that scoring average be adjusted.  The unadjusted scoring averages from 1988 stay pretty close to those from 1945, perhaps trending down slightly.

I think the fact that scoring average hasn't changed drastically over the years allows for a baseline to be drawn for comparison.  To me it looks like golf course set up has somewhat kept pace with technology.

[tlavin]

I think Phil Mickelson, despite his gagging at some majors and his inability to consistently challenge Tiger is indisputably a GREAT player. ...

You've captured it all right there. I believe Jack takes gagging into consideration in his definition of great, whereas you don't.

I think you can gag and still be great.  I'll venture to say that Jack gagged a time or three and finished second instead of first.  As for Phil, his record is such that he can overcome the occasional spit-up.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Despite their being an 'Objective' way to measure greatness ie.. the number of majors, the quality of the field at other times in some respect buggers the objective theory...it's a bit like being a world champion boxer and defending it lots of times, if your opponents are weaker than in other years how do you measure greatness.... I suppose greatness is really subjective after all and whilst Jack may be the great for some and Tiger for others my tick goes to the man that won the US amateur, British Amateur, US Open and the Open all in the same year. That was a proper stroke of genius.

[Jim Franklin]

And I thought he was going to be talking about golf courses being good now, but great way back when.

[Garland Bayley]

... I'll venture to say that Jack gagged a time or three and finished second instead of first. ...

LOL

[Tim Gavrich]

Jack finished second 19 times.
Tiger wouldn't let that happen

In that case, I'll wait to dub Tiger "best ever" when he wins his 38th major, rather than his 19th.

I think the astonishing nature of the fact that Jack finished second all those times is highly overlooked and understated.  I don't know the answer to this, but how many of those 2nd place finishes happened because Jack was a few too many shots behind to make it all the way, and how many were from him giving a lead away?

[David Kelly]

Here is Herbert Warren Wind writing about the 1971 US Open at Merion:
"Though Nicklaus has won more major championships than any other golfer since Jones, he has never quite attained the same stature as Hogan, largely because of his strange susceptibility to giant-size, irremediable errors in critical passages."

[tlavin]

Jack finished second 19 times.
Tiger wouldn't let that happen

Tiger:

64 wins
23 second place
17 third place

[Garland Bayley]

Jack finished second 19 times.
Tiger wouldn't let that happen

Tiger:

65 wins
23 second place
17 third place

Apples?  Oranges? How about a durian or two?

[JESII]

Jack finished second 19 times.
Tiger wouldn't let that happen

In that case, I'll wait to dub Tiger "best ever" when he wins his 38th major, rather than his 19th.

I think the astonishing nature of the fact that Jack finished second all those times is highly overlooked and understated.  I don't know the answer to this, but how many of those 2nd place finishes happened because Jack was a few too many shots behind to make it all the way, and how many were from him giving a lead away?

Tim,

How many of those second place finishes do you think Jack would sell for just one more first place?

[Paul Stephenson]

I'm not sure what this proves, if anything, but it's interesting none the less.  What would be the impact on the majors if neither Tiger or Jack existed? 

If you take their combined 31 wins away, who stands the most to gain?  Would there be more "one hit wonders" or would the "greats" divide it up amongst themselves?

I've got the answer, I just want some guesses before I post it.

[Matt_Ward]

Tim G:

Hold the phone buckeroo.

When you knock Jack for the amount of seconds how bout adding a bit of memory to your flawed statement.

Take the time Nicklaus finished second to Watson at Turnberry -- the epic "Duel in the Sun" when the Golden Bear finished 65-66 and still lost by one. Need to remind you on Watson's historic win at PB in '82. Shall I go on.

The idea that Jack had so many seconds is not a testament to some sort of limitation on his part but more of a salute to people who rose to the occasion when it mattered most.

If there's any thing against Tiger's peers it's that minus the Bob Mays of this world you have not seen any of them -- Phil, Ernie, Retief, Vijay, Sergio, et al, really demonstrate some back bone when coming down the stretch and when having to slay Tiger in the process.

[Garland Bayley]

Tim G:

Hold the phone buckeroo.

When you knock Jack for the amount of seconds how bout adding a bit of memory to your flawed statement.

Take the time Nicklaus finished second to Watson at Turnberry -- the epic "Duel in the Sun" when the Golden Bear finished 65-66 and still lost by one. Need to remind you on Watson's historic win at PB in '82. Shall I go on.

The idea that Jack had so many seconds is not a testament to some sort of limitation on his part but more of a salute to people who rose to the occasion when it mattered most.

If there's any thing against Tiger's peers it's that minus the Bob Mays of this world you have not seen any of them -- Phil, Ernie, Retief, Vijay, Sergio, et al, really demonstrate some back bone when coming down the stretch and when having to slay Tiger in the process.

Hold it there buckeroo!

You best take time to understand a post before you reply to it.

[George Pazin]

The whole fields lying down theory is someone not wanting to give Tiger credit.  ...

Actually, you got that wrong. It was someone trying to prove the field lying down was a myth, and surprisingly found the opposite.

I personally won't believe the paper that the economist wrote, regardless of how solid his logic appears, because there are simply too many things that can't be measured when it comes to golf, and sports in general (though I would appreciate a link to the article, if anyone has it ).

The one thing that is indisputable is that Tiger is far more dominant over his competition than Jack ever was over his. Arguing that the competition is weaker goes against everything I've observed in sports over the years - regardless of how much (older) folks like to romanticize things, no growing sport, particularly one with big money involved, ever gets less deep in terms of talent and quality of competition.

Would Jack, Hogan, Jones, Vardon have been able to succeed in today's game? Maybe. Probably. Almost certainly.

Did they show a similar dominance to Tiger over similarly deep fields? Nope, no one will ever convince me of that.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

You're right Doug Sanders didn't "lie down" to give Jack the British Open; Greg Norman, Tom Kite and Seve Ballesteros didn't "lie down" to give Jack his last Masters....I just think it is unfair to categorize todays golfers as lying down.  These are vastly different circumstances than what the players in the past played under.  You can't say whether it would have had the same impact on the so-called greats of the past...If anything it is even more of a tribute to Tiger that he is able to excel under these circumstances.

IMO the reason the scores have not trended down is because of course set up.  What do you think Tiger would have averaged in the last several Masters without the course changes.

I have no idea what points you are trying to make, nor do I know how this relates to me telling you your assuption was wrong in your earlier post.

[Matt_Ward]

George --

It's time to hit the alarm button on your radio because you've been sleep walking on your last comments - with all due respect.

The Tiger "gap" is about the failure of his peers to step up and do something when it counts when Tiger is in the hunt. If Phil, Ernie, Vijay, et al, hear even remote footsteps from Woods you see them do the proverbial fold like an envelope trick.

Jack's comment is spot on.

You have plenty of people who play well today -- let's not forget the advantage modern equipment has provided those who are nothing more than bomb and gouge type players today versus the shotmakers of yesteryear.

You threw into the picture the word "talent." My question is a simple one. What "talent" are we speaking about? The "talent" to make a check and a high quality living or the "talent" to really compete even ever so infrequently against The Man.

Jack's dominance was tougher achieve because of the sheer depth of the people he had to compete against. I don't see any of Jack's fiercest rivals barfing over themselves when they had an opportunity to grab a victory against the Bear. For sheer mental toughness the names of Trevino, Player, Watson and Palmer can more than hold their own against any modern four you care to name. Keep in mind I'm not throwing into the mix the likes of Floyd, Miller, Jacklin, Casper, etc, etc.

I salute Tiger but he's been blessed that his cast of challengers (thus far) has been more smoke than fire.



 

[Garland Bayley]

In refreshing my memory on this, I find that perhaps I misinterpreted, or misremembered to arrive at my conception that the goal was to disprove the myth that Tiger causes players to play worse. It seems one goal was to disprove that players play worse, because they take more risks.

http://are.berkeley.edu/~brown/Brown%20-%20Competing%20with%20Superstars.pdf

... I would appreciate a link to the article, if anyone has it .
...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()