[JMEvensky]

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.

[David_Tepper]

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

[Peter Pallotta]

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".
 

[Ira Fishman]

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

[JMEvensky]

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.

[John Kavanaugh]

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.

[Mike Schott]

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.

[Kalen Braley]

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.

[archie_struthers]

 


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

[John Kavanaugh]

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.

[John McCarthy]

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. 

[Alex Miller]

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]

[John McCarthy]

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? 

[JMEvensky]

Didn't TW always cite JN's major wins total as his motivation? So does TW think JN had the better career?

[Ira Fishman]

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

[Niall C]

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

[JESII]

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.

[JMEvensky]

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.

[Peter Pallotta]

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. 

[Tim Martin]

No game humbles a man like golf.

Amen!!!!

[John Kavanaugh]

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.

[JESII]

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?

[Kalen Braley]

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! 

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.

[JESII]

He's the best...

[Peter Pallotta]

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.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()