Disagree that tougher to win now.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Jeff's post was a good response.
I will concede that I have a high level of nostalgia for the athletes of my youth.
It's clouding your ability to perceive reality.
MJ, Ali, Pele, and Gretzky will always be the GOATs of their respective sports
Lemieux was a better hockey player than Gretzky.
But I am not dead yet, and I do appreciate the transcendent achievements of Tiger and Tom Brady.
Tiger > Jack, and 14 > 18 when weighted for strength/depth of field.
I also will concede that top to bottom, the fields are better now. However, if you look at the quality at the top of the fields, a good argument can be made that they were better then.
It really can't be.
I'm about a +1. If me and a few buddies from +2 to 2 handicaps play against a field of 100 8-18 handicappers, we're gonna win a lot of events. Doesn't mean we're better than Tiger Woods, playing against a field of full-on PGA Tour players.
Gary Player won a major - the 1959 British Open - at a time when American golf was absolutely dominant. The field featured only four Americans, two of whom were amateurs, and none of whom even made the cut.
As Jeff said, half of the fields in Jack's day were club pros. The PGA Tour hadn't even split from the PGA of America until 1968, and they still maintained a lot of control for a decade after that. The "top" of the fields had inflated win totals because they were passing the trophies around a limited number of people.
If I define my "youth" as the period from the first tournament I really remember--the 1971 US Open--until I graduated Law School and entered the real world in 1982, the following players won on Tour: Palmer, Nicklaus, Player, Littler, Trevino, Green, Seve, Casper, Irwin, Weiskopf, Stockton, Jacklin, Wadkins, Floyd, Watson, Lietzke, Haas, Elder, Nelson, Morgan, Zoeller, Peete, Bean, Strange, Stadler, Barber, the Grahams, Crenshaw, Sanders, Goalby, Charles, and Chi Chi.
You'd have never heard of some of those guys were they playing these days.
Now, I do not disagree that with thinner fields trading victories among them probably was easier, but it was far from easy to win when Miller won.
It was easier to win in the 70s than it is now, 40+ years later.
If you took the comparable period from Tiger's last Major until today, I do not think the list would be as impressive, and it would not be as impressive if you picked the period from Tiger's first Major until his last Major.
Because you're unable to see reality.
Nicklaus himself said - in 1996 or so, pre-Tiger - that the "good players" of that era would have been absolute stars in his day. And that was over 20 years ago.
What team is likely to have the best five basketball players: a team from a school of 100 students, or a team from a school of 500 students? It's a simple numbers game, Ira: the modern player faces multiple times the strength/depth of field as Miller faced.
To bring it back on topic, this is why I think Miller's true legacy is easily his broadcasting. Though I wasn't old enough to see him play, I can appreciate the stories about when Johnny Miller was "on."
But he.- BY FAR - influenced and reached many, many more people with his 29-year broadcasting career than his relatively brief playing career. He is a top five broadcaster in golf for his career while being nowhere near even the top five
American born players.
His broadcasting career is his legacy. Not only because he did it last, but because he did it longer, it reached more people, and he did it better.