where's Ben Crenshaw when I need him? Ben, if you're out there in the GCA site orbit, come on in!
First of all, so it doesn't have to be cited or defended by anyone I AGREE that Tiger had the better decade - by a head. Some of you have leaked in this insinuation that I am denying Tiger Woods greatness in comparison to Jack. No, no, no, no, my mind is completely unresolved and am still researching previous eras to come up with that final opinion. Right now, I'm still giving it to Bobby Jones. I am merely focusing on one aspect of that debate, the era and relative merits of competition. And I am denying your collective assertion that
fellows
I went pound for pound, player for player, peer champion to peer champion over the factual record of both decades (which are both over now) and still these wild generalizations come off your keyboard:
"half the field knew they had no chance to win".... "Jack's era: few could win, Tiger's era: 20-30x that #" ..."a full field of players who could potentially win any given weekend vs. just a handful that Jack had to battle it out with." Why do you guys insist on and revert back to an eye-test when there is factual data that says the opposite:
In the order I cited and compared them:
Why are...
Trevino, Watson, Player, Irwin, Floyd, Miller, Stockton, Jacklin, Tommy Aaron, Charles Coody, Lou Graham, John Mahaffey, Bill Rogers, Lanny Wadkins, ,Tom Weiskopf, Seve Ballesteros, Fuzzy Zoeller, Jerry Pate, Hubert Green, Andy North, Littler, Casper, Geiberger, January, Ben Crenshaw, Curtis Strange, Tom Kite, Larry Nelson, Craig Stadler, Bruce Crampton, Gil Morgan, Bill Kratzert, Tom Purtzer, Bruce Devlin, Andy Bean, Keith Fergus ...representative of a lesser contending field than...
Mickelson, Harrington, Cabrera, Els, Singh, Goosen, O' Meara, Justin Leonard, Shaun Micheel, Michael Campbell, David Toms, Paul Lawrie, Ben Curtis, Todd Hamilton, Yang, Furyk, Oglivy, Weir, Immelman, Cink, Rich Beem, Zack Johnson, Glover, Stricker, Villegas, O' Hair, Gay, McIroy, Garcia, Ch. Campbell, Slocum, Couples, Love III, Sutton, Watney, C DiMarco, N Green
Who am I missing from either era?...I've given credence to both sides regarding former multiple champions, one-time champions, nobody major champions, guys who did (or in the case of Tiger's peers "likely to) go on to win and guys who were thought close but did not (in the case of Tiger's team "may not")
If you want to comapre the depth of Eur-Asian fields - don't get crazy about Poulter, Westwood, Choi, Katayama, Sabbatini Adam Scott et al because the end of the 70s was the dawn of the first Eur-Asian fields to play regualrly here as well - Faldo, Langher, Lyle, Aoki, Price, Norman - guys that, like tiger's Eur-Asian horizon, had done very little in the measured decade, but would factor in Nicklaus' eventual numbers, as I expect Tiger's to do to him .
Where's all this superior depth and quality of today's field versus Jacks? Where is it, that can't be countered with a similar, if not superior dynamic from Nicklaus' era?
To JW specifically on your quote:
Palmer won his last major in 1964, Jack's sophomore year-nuff said (please don't mention him in a debate about the player of the 70's)
Can you please tell me why Weiskopf would be a more worthy adversary than Michelson, Couples, Lehman, Singh, Goosen, Leonard?
Green? (any better than the above mentioned?)
I'm with you on Player (great) Watson (great)Palmer had seven Top 10s out of 16 Majors between 1970-73 including a runner-up and two T-3s. He was done winning, but he was not done competing. Still I barely cited him in my original argument(s).
Why must I have Tom Weiskopf and Hubert Green take on the whole cream of Tiger's competition, why can't I have Trevino, Irwin, Floyd, Stockton, Casper and David Graham join in the fun? Those guys' major hardware blows away Tiger's group and you already acknowledge that Player and Watson are above this fray - at least in the measured decade.
The field scoring records, relationship to 72 and cut numbers (no one's yet produced them but cited them as fact) are not and would not be compelling due to the impossibility of measuring the precise difference in Tiger's technology versus Jack's era. When one of those modern guys does his -8 in a 6700 yard, soft greens major with balata and persimmon, we can start to speak of the relevancy of scoring records and cut numbers. I would never retroactively force you to make the postulation, so don't make me postulate proactively and guess at what could be done by the 70s elite championship fields with modern equipment.
Until you demonstrate otherwise that the depth is noticeably better, than we must revert to the top contenders: there, Jack MUST have it. The decades are over and the results are in...MORE major championships than Tiger's opponents. The future doesn't matter because we're tabulating decades that are complete. If you are going to shift and extend beyond a measured decade and go into the future battles that Woods may have, then I get to count items from either before or after Nicklaus' era too. There, we STILL have Trevino, Player, Palmer (whom I don't even count in the main 70s debate) Casper, Devicenzo, Boros, Venturi, and if we go later with Jack, we get Norman, Faldo, Price, Lyle, Langher
Many of you use Jack's runner-ups (his closeness to a contending field) and Tiger's winning records (his distance from the field) to pad your contention that the players of today offer a far greater challenge, but if we agree that there is but a whisper between these legends couldn't the reverse be true, because this speaks of the difference of the player to his competition, not the quality of that competition?
How come it's Tiger's greatness that he has won majors by enormous margins, and not the shame of a field to fall behind so far? When did Tiger ever set a record performance by besting an opponent who was setting the record himself? Or making three birdies in three holes himself? Jack faced these hurdles in assembling his own record and provoked much better play, and a slightly better record for those who did battle with him.
Do you recall or will you research where Watson, Player, Trevino, Irwin, and Floyd are seen throwing away tournaments like Tiger's top competition has done, with or without the principal (Woods or Nicklaus) involved? Mickelson may be the biggest choker who ever lived over the last four holes of a major (at least Norman had some guys perform magic against him) Els has faded and choked, Goosen and Singh completely dissappear, Garcia can't putt, Harrington won 66% of his majors without tiger in the field, WF 06, Shinney 04, Carnoustie 99 and 07, ohhhhhhhh...what's the point in going on.
Cheers
vk