He did say it, Tom, and did play that way - and everyone he played against knew that he always had extra power/distance in reserve.
I usually and naturally defer to Jeff W in all matters related to playing the game, but here he's talking total nonsense.
JN had to beat the same size field and the same kind of field that Justin Thomas had to beat today -- and just like in Jack's day, most of those in the field of a major championship beat themselves. (Q: in 30 years, how many of today's golfers will be remembered at all, let alone held in the same esteem as, say, Tom Watson, Lee Trevino, and Gary Player? I tell you how many - 3, just like we only remember those 3 names amongst Jack's competitors and then claim that he didn't play against strong fields.)
I don't know what major championships Jeff's been watching over the last 10-15 years, but 4 68s sure seem good enough to have won a whole lot of them. Oh, btw - ask Ben Crenshaw if he or anyone else on tour at the time could hit JN's 1 iron - and I don't mean hit it as well as Jack, I mean hit it at all!
Anyway - this whole line of debate (including my own post) is idiotic. Every generation has its rare and true greats - and the rarest and truest greats transcend their time. Bobby Orr and Wayne Gretzky did; Willie Mays and Ted Williams did; and Jack (and Tiger) certainly did. I'll wait to see who amongst today's best golfers might transcend their era. You'll excuse me if in the meantime I don't denigrate the guy who won 18 major championship and who was in the mix for dozens more, almost constantly and over almost 40 years!
And btw (2) - all this talk about Jack beating weaker fields in his era really is annoying. Doesn't anyone remember 1998? That wasn't Jack's era - that was a later (and presumably by Jeff's way of thinking) 'better' era for strengths of field. And what does JN do but finish T6 in the Masters, just 4 shots off the winning score -- at 58 years old! and playing on at least one if not two recently installed artificial hips! Oh yeah, he beat nobody -- except that among those finishing *behind* him were: Ernie Els, Phil Mickelson, Colin Montgomerie, Tiger Woods, JM Olazabal, D Love, and B Langer.
Peter
Peter,
I know we've all gone over this before..and of course it's just MHO-but I have seen both eras live and up close-especially at Augusta in 44 straight years of attending live-but also at various events and in my time spent working at Doral.
And to be honest, I would far rather watch Lee Trevino play shots then the talented current crop bomb and gouge. But that's what is rewarded on the goofy setups and architorture they play every week.
The fact that Jack finished 6th at Augusta in 1998 doesn't say anything except how great a player he was for a long time-especially on familiar ground, and that he had great experience and knowledge at Augusta. Snead and Hogan had similar runs and Bernhard as well. It happens to great players (especially if they are lifetime exempt)as Watson demonstrated in the Open Championship
First of all, Jack is the greatest ever-period.
That said, Jack had a very average wedge game-until later in his career.
None of these young players has an average wedge game.
It's often said that he had the most competition based on all the multiple major winners he had to beat.
They were all great players....but..if a smaller % of the field is capable of winning....more multiple major winners emerge.(and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy as people say Jack was winning in an era of multiple major winners)
half the fields were club pros in the 50's and 60's and even early 70's.
There are currently 200+ PGATour pros that could win and another 150 web,com that could win as well-to say nothing of the talent on the Euro and overseas Tours---Prior to Seve, how many Euro Pros could win a major besides Jacklin and Thompson?(not Euro but a winner there)---now many, many of their players could win a major.
Look at Chris Stroud-202nd in the world contending in a major.
We have a staff event with 12 pros every year. I've won it four times, but several others have multiple wins as well. Does that make us great? No it's a small field-with even less that can win-of course there will be multiple winners-look at your local club championship.
Can we at least admit that Tom Morris was beating weak fields with small amounts of players that could actually win.
It's evolved progressively since then.
Jack faced far greater depth than Hogan, who faced far greater depth than Jones, who faced far greater depth than the Great Triumvirate
The current crop of players is the best depth ever, and that's why the last 12 majors have been won by players who had none prior to 2015.
Golf is growing worldwide and the competition is greater than ever.
It will be quite difficult for anyone to amass as many as Jack or Tiger-ironically, in part because as this thread points out-players are flat out going for it almost all the time and know that playing safe might allow them to finish consistently high, but not win as often.
Being the smartest player may NOT be an advantage as it may curb the boldness needed to win.
Sadly, with modern equipment, the courses and setups required to get these players to manage their games ,are courses none of us would EVER enjoy playing.
Of course if we could rein in equipment hitting the fairway would be more important as play from the rough with something besides a wedge MIGHT convince the players to manage their tee play a bit.
But so far, Jack is still the best-with an incredible run by Tiger.
and you are 100% right that we will only remember 3 players from each era-(let's go with 4 because Casper was pretty dam%& good)
But if all 12 billion of the world's future population takes up the game, the depth will be even greater and even more better players will emerge.
Of course the counter arguement could be that with so many multiple major winners in Jack's era (from weaker fields) he faced players less likely to choke because they were more used to being in the hunt than the current grip it and rip it one time wonder crowd.
That's precisely why I hate the modern equipment race-especially lately as it seems every week anoth 61 is commonplace-it would be nice for scoring records to be not so suddenly eclipsed and some(slight) comparisons could be drawn.