[John Kavanaugh]

Peter,


You mentioned Funk as an athlete so I looked up Hale Irwin. RIP Forrest Fezler who finished second to Irwin in the 1974 US Open.


You simply can not offer up an opponent of Tiger who is not outclassed by an opponent of Jack.

[Peter Pallotta]

See, I'd probably agree with you -- but I think it's a mug's game either way. Golf is not a contact sport: who your competitor is and what he's doing has no bearing on the score you yourself can shoot, and certainly not on the quality of golf shots (and variety of shots) you can hit.   
So: you've played golf a long time, JK, and must've been very good at various points, and you've seen many of the greats play the game. What do *your* eyes tell you re the best ever?
Me, like I said earlier, to my very untrained eye, Tiger is better than Jack, Watson is a better golfer than Mickelson, and Trevino is better than Els -- and I'd say (though *none* of the stats will back me up) that Norman was a better all-round golfer than either Faldo or Seve. I've never seen anyone before or since take apart a golf course like he did Doral one year, shooting a 62 when it really was the Blue Monster. 

[John Kavanaugh]

Golf has gotten far too easy to even discuss the role that athleticism or skill plays in success. I doubt that you understand golf very well if you don't think that your competitor has a bearing on what you shoot. I started playing in a game a few months ago where I give between 7 and 23 shots every time I tee it up and it has forced me to shoot the best scores of my life. Shot a 7 under 64 just this week not because I'm suddenly a great golfer but more because I can't win if I don't.

[John Kavanaugh]

To answer your question I would say that Tiger is the better entertainer while Jack was the better golfer.

[Peter Pallotta]

No, I don't understand golf very well at all, and certainly not competitive/tournament golf. That's why I ask.
I'm still just trying to learn to hit draws and fades at will (with long irons) and to control my trajectory and distance with short irons -- both because that's what good golfers can do well and the best golfers can do best of all, and because I'd like to one day have a putt to shoot in the 60s.

[Rob Marshall]

No, I don't understand golf very well at all, and certainly not competitive/tournament golf. That's why I ask.
I'm still just trying to learn to hit draws and fades at will (with long irons) and to control my trajectory and distance with short irons -- both because that's what good golfers can do well and the best golfers can do best of all, and because I'd like to one day have a putt to shoot in the 60s.

Peter,
[size=78%]Controlling trajectory or working it both ways have nothing to do with it. It’s all short game. [/size]


Norman was great but let’s face it. He couldn’t close the deal. I was a huge fan. I still get sick thinking about him giving away the Masters to Faldo. He was a great player that couldn’t win the big ones most of the time. Jack never folded. Not in my memory anyway. IMHO GOAT is Jack. The greatest golf I have ever seen played and may have ever been played was Tiger in 2000. I told my late father that it was magical to have seen Tiger in that stretch.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Controlling trajectory or working it both ways have nothing to do with it. It’s all short game.

That's likely a worse take than "Jack's fields were stronger and deeper than Tiger's." I'm going to assume you were being sarcastic, Rob.

[Alex Miller]

Fuzzy And Bob Goalby both won the local tournament on the 9 hole course where I grew up. Sure the college kids shoot lower scores today winning the same tournament. Stronger field? I think not. When did more become better? I wouldn’t trade Trevino and Watson for the entire European Presidents Cup team. If I could name half of em.

Ok boomer 


More became better when the abilities of players who weren’t top 10 in the field were raised to the level of the best in the world, if they had a great week. Lucas Glover, Geoff Ogilvy, Jason Day, Louis Ousthuisen, Zach Johnson, Trevor Immelman, Jimmy Walker, Stewart Cink, Keegan Bradley, David Toms, Justin Rose, Graeme McDowell, Henrik Stenson, Lee Westwood, Adam Scott. And then of course there’s these guys: Rich Beem, Shaun Micheel, YE Yang, Ben Curtis, Todd Hamilton.

[/size]I could go on. All the guys above have 1 or fewer majors and this isn’t touching the most formidable challengers: Brooks, DJ, Rory, Duval, Vijay, Els, Furyk and of course Phil. [size=78%]


[/size]It’s not that the best in the world couldn’t muster enough to beat these “random” winners. It’s that there are more guys in the field in the last 20 years who could win. The sport has grown, and it’s a testament to Jack and Tiger, but they’ve played against different levels of completion when considering the entire field. [size=78%]

[Jeff Schley]

OK great.. so it is decided Tiger is better than Jack.

[A.G._Crockett]

With all due respect: Zac Blair is 47th in FedEx points. The same year Tiger won his 82nd tournament.

John, it's barely possible that the FedEx standings will change a bit before the Tour Championship.  For instance, Justin Rose might finish higher than 159, assuming that he plays more than ONE event.  I can close my eyes and imagine Jason Day being higher than 115, Tommy Fleetwood higher than 91, and so on.  And while I don't know who will be leading next fall when the dust settles, I don't think it will be the current leader, Lanto Griffin.  I think we might need a larger sample size before we generalize what the FedEx standings mean...


I'll even give you odds on a small wager that Zac Blair will drop a bit, given that he's never won on Tour, and a T40 is his best finish in a major.  Of course, he's only played in four majors in his career, so who knows?


But you make the argument for tougher fields today quite nicely, I must admit.  Blair was an All-American college golfer who won multiple times in college, but has been unable to keep his Tour card regularly since.  He only has his card now because of a late win on the Korn Ferry Tour, his only professional win so far.  All of which tells ME that the PGA Tour is very, very deep, and very, very tough.

[Peter Pallotta]

AG -
I honestly don't understand the 'strength of field' argument. First, because *every* player on Tour, then and now, seems to my eyes like a terrific golfer. But second, because it seems to me that for 'strength of field' to be a factor (in any comparison between JN's accomplishments and Tiger's), the 10-12 best golfers from those two eras had to *all* have been playing badly/not at their best during the majors that JN and Tiger won.
In other words, why does it matter that JN only had to beat 30 guys capable of winning a major while Tiger had to beat 120 guys, when in both cases the only guys they *really* had to beat were the 10-15 *best* players in the given fields?
Or to put it yet another way: for strength of field to be relevant it would have to be true that, when JN was winning over Palmer, Player, Casper, Crampton, Floyd, Trevino, Miller, Weiskopf, Watson, Crenshaw, Kite, Price, Norman, and Seve etc, *all* of them had to have been having 'bad weeks' during those majors...all at the same time...4 times a year...year after year...for decades.
And if they *weren't* having bad weeks during the majors all at the same time, what does it matter whether there were another 20 or 120 guys who might've had the talent to win that week?
Tiger had to beat the best of his era, Jack had to beat the best of his.
My eyes tell me that TW is the better golfer; but 'strength of field' is not the reason why.
   

[Rob Marshall]

Controlling trajectory or working it both ways have nothing to do with it. It’s all short game.

That's likely a worse take than "Jack's fields were stronger and deeper than Tiger's." I'm going to assume you were being sarcastic, Rob.

Not being sarcastic at all. Other than my driver I don't try to work the ball unless I'm in trouble and have too. Shooting in the 60's is all about making putts and getting up and down for the better player IMO. First time  I shot 69 I hit 9 greens.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

In other words, why does it matter that JN only had to beat 30 guys capable of winning a major while Tiger had to beat 120 guys, when in both cases the only guys they *really* had to beat were the 10-15 *best* players in the given fields?

Because golf doesn't work that way.

If a major was one hole, I might beat Tiger occasionally. It's only 72 holes, so a few bad or good shots here or there, or a little luck, etc. can swing one player a few places up or down from where their true average ability lies.

No sport does. The Pirates beat the Yankees in the 1960 World Series despite being outscored 55-27. Sometimes the underdog can perform a little above their level and get a little luck, and vice versa.

Shooting in the 60's is all about making putts and getting up and down for the better player IMO. First time  I shot 69 I hit 9 greens.

It's really not. Ballstriking matters the most. By far. Read my book or Every Shot Counts by Mark Broadie. Putting matters the LEAST of the four skills (driving, approach shots, short game, putting). Driving means about twice as much, overall, than putting, and approach shots almost 3x as much.

[Rob Marshall]

In other words, why does it matter that JN only had to beat 30 guys capable of winning a major while Tiger had to beat 120 guys, when in both cases the only guys they *really* had to beat were the 10-15 *best* players in the given fields?

Because golf doesn't work that way.

If a major was one hole, I might beat Tiger occasionally. It's only 72 holes, so a few bad or good shots here or there, or a little luck, etc. can swing one player a few places up or down from where their true average ability lies.

No sport does. The Pirates beat the Yankees in the 1960 World Series despite being outscored 55-27. Sometimes the underdog can perform a little above their level and get a little luck, and vice versa.

Shooting in the 60's is all about making putts and getting up and down for the better player IMO. First time  I shot 69 I hit 9 greens.

It's really not. Ballstriking matters the most. By far. Read my book or Every Shot Counts by Mark Broadie. Putting matters the LEAST of the four skills (driving, approach shots, short game, putting). Driving means about twice as much, overall, than putting, and approach shots almost 3x as much.

Obviously to have a chance to shoot in the 60’s you have to be a decent ball striker. However the short game is what gets you there. I’ve read Bob Rotella and I know what works for me and it’s not hitting draws and fades or changing my trag. Most of your shots are from 100 yards and in.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Obviously to have a chance to shoot in the 60’s you have to be a decent ball striker. However the short game is what gets you there. I’ve read Bob Rotella and I know what works for me and it’s not hitting draws and fades or changing my trag. Most of your shots are from 100 yards and in.

Rob it is off topic so I’ll be brief: no, you’re wrong about the importance of putting. And I’m not talking about draws and fades, just general ballstriking.

PM me if you’re open to learning. It’s OT here.

[Jon Wiggett]

Obviously to have a chance to shoot in the 60’s you have to be a decent ball striker. However the short game is what gets you there. I’ve read Bob Rotella and I know what works for me and it’s not hitting draws and fades or changing my trag. Most of your shots are from 100 yards and in.

Rob it is off topic so I’ll be brief: no, you’re wrong about the importance of putting. And I’m not talking about draws and fades, just general ballstriking.

PM me if you’re open to learning. It’s OT here.

Maybe your both right!!! You need to be a decent ball striker but then all tour players are. You also need to be a decent putter (though this also means decent ball striker). You need to be a decent wedge player but then all tour pros are and this also needs you to be a decent ball striker. In the end to win a major you need to use fewer shots than the others which means being overall better but probably never the master of anyone part.

[Rob Marshall]

Obviously to have a chance to shoot in the 60’s you have to be a decent ball striker. However the short game is what gets you there. I’ve read Bob Rotella and I know what works for me and it’s not hitting draws and fades or changing my trag. Most of your shots are from 100 yards and in.

Rob it is off topic so I’ll be brief: no, you’re wrong about the importance of putting. And I’m not talking about draws and fades, just general ballstriking.

PM me if you’re open to learning. It’s OT here.

I’ll just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

[John Kavanaugh]

Every great golfer stops making putts first on the road to mediocrity.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I’ll just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

That might work if this was opinion we're talking about.

Putting matters least, with the short game close behind. Shots inside of 100 yards account for about 33% of what separates one player from another, on the PGA Tour right on up to guys who shoot 100.

Amateurs:
http://widgets.penguin.com/features/everyshotcounts/table-6-7.png

Pros:
http://widgets.penguin.com/features/everyshotcounts/table-5-6.png

They're large, so I won't embed them here. And the pros table shows 57%, but combines approach and short game. If you expand those out, you arrive at about 38% approach shots and 19% short game (short game being everything inside 100 yards that isn't a putt - if it was truly just short chips and pitches, it'd be single digit percentages), just like the first chart.

Week to week, putting matters the least. Driving matters about 2x as much, approach shots almost 3x as much.

To bring it back to the topic…
http://widgets.penguin.com/features/everyshotcounts/table-6-5.png

That shows that Tiger's true advantage… was his approach shots. From 2003 to 2012, he finished outside of the top four in SG:Approach only once: in 2004 when he finished way, way down in… fifth. Over that same time frame, he finished outside the top 20 in short game six times and outside the top 15 in putting five times. Tiger was never first in putting, but was first or second in total strokes gained all but two years.

Tiger isn't the most awesome driver of the golf ball, but his averages still greatly favor approach shots. His putting, though better than average, accounted for only about 1/5 of his scoring advantage.

[Jason Topp]

The most amazing thing about tiger's record is how he beat the field by 3 shots year after year.  Other top modern players might do it one year but never consistently.  The best are more like 2 shots better than the field. 


It would be interesting to see what Jack's average shots gained was.   It would not be a perfect comparison assuming overall fields were in fact weaker back in the day. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It would be interesting to see what Jack's average shots gained was.   It would not be a perfect comparison assuming overall fields were in fact weaker back in the day.

A friend of mine will tell you that Tiger had 10 or 11 years when he was clearly the most dominant player, and Jack had only about five.

[JESII]

Which could support either side of this debate...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Which could support either side of this debate...

Not really. Tiger was more dominant over better fields.

Here's another example:

"There were only 56 touring pros in the starting field of 168 players at [the 1968 PGA Championship in] San Antonio. One day a writer asked me about this ratio, and I said, "It's absurd and unfortunate." Only a third of the players at the PGA were regular tour competitors—or, in other words, the best players in the world. The PGA's antiquated qualifying system prevented top players such as Bob Murphy, Lee Elder and Deane Beman from playing at San Antonio. As a member of the Tournament Committee, I spoke out against the system. I had nothing to gain for myself; I was exempt from qualifying for the PGA tournament. I wanted a proper tour representation at the pros' own championship. The PGA should be the No. 1 tournament in golf because it is our own championship. It cannot be No. 1, though, when many top players—the tour players—cannot tee the ball up. "
--- Jack Nicklaus

https://www.si.com/vault/1968/09/16/614249/rebuttal-to-a-searing-attack

It wasn't just the PGA that had incredibly shallow, soft fields, either. PGA Tour events weren't even separate events until 1969 at the earliest - the PGA still controlled them, and most of the regular Tour events were filled with local club pros and some rabbits. The British Open was horribly weak, even through the 80s and early 90s, with top players opting to skip it. The U.S. Open was bad. The Masters, always a small field, was weaker then as well - there simply weren't many actual touring professionals.

[JESII]

I agree that overall depth is greater. I’m not sure I agree that their respective top competition is better today.


Winning begets winning...


If Jack could ONLY clearly dominate in 5 of 25 years, but Tiger could dominate in 10 of his 15 or 18, that implies Jacks elite level competition was better relative to both Jack, and the rest of the field.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I agree that overall depth is greater. I’m not sure I agree that their respective top competition is better today.

Of course they are. The best of the best are better because the rest are better, too. Jack, FWIW, disagrees with you. See the earlier quote(s) from Jack Nicklaus circa 1995 or 1996.

If Jack could ONLY clearly dominate in 5 of 25 years, but Tiger could dominate in 10 of his 15 or 18, that implies Jacks elite level competition was better relative to both Jack, and the rest of the field.

I get what you're saying, but no, it doesn't imply that. It says what it says: that Jack was unable to dominate weaker competitors as well as Tiger has been able to dominate stronger competitors. Top to bottom.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()