[Paul Stephenson]

If Jack did not exist:

Here is who would have won majors.  The adjusted career totals are in parenthesis.

B Crampton +4 (4)
A Palmer +3 (10)
B Casper +1 (4)
J Miller +1 (3)
T Lema +1 (2)
T Kite +1 (2)

One Hit Wonders (would have won their only major)
I Aoki
T Jacobs
D Ragan
D Sanders

Of his 18 wins there was a tie for second twice.  The following players could have won an additional major in a playoff.  These numbers are not reflected above:

Sanders
Thomas
Kite
Owen
Crenshaw
Floyd

Interesting that only one of the "greats" would have benefitted... Arnie.  Trevino, Player, and Watson would not have won any more.

Also, is Bruce Crampton under-rated?

[George Pazin]

Matt, that's certainly one way of looking at it.

The other is that Tiger is so much better than Jack that he makes his competition look worse. That's far more believable to me than believing somehow that golfers have gotten less tough.

All Tiger's competitors could retire tomorrow if money was truly the only thing motivating them.

People are people and athletes are athletes, period. All the best want to win, with a burning desire far greater than mortal men can understand.

The most perceptive thing anyone ever said about this issue is what AG Crockett said - under the "Jack's competition was better" theory, logic would tell us that Tiger would be better if he lost more often.

From faulty premises, anything follows....

[Garland Bayley]

If Jack did not exist:

...
Interesting that only one of the "greats" would have benefitted......

Excuse me, but how many more majors have Els, Mickelson, and Goosen won than Casper and Miller? Also, remember what happened to Lema!

[Garland Bayley]

...
The other is that Tiger is so much better than Jack that he makes his competition look worse. That's far more believable to me than believing somehow that golfers have gotten less tough.

...

Speaking of toughness. Send a few of the young guns to Iraq, and compare toughness before and after.

Also, notice Tiger's meltdown in rough weather compared to Watson's toughing it out.

George, us old codgers think the whole society has gotten less tough. But then you probably suspected that all along.

[Garland Bayley]

Speaking more of tough.

"a subsample of PGA tournaments in 1984 to show that larger prizes lead to lower scores, a result I do not observe in my analysis."

These modern guys are complacent wimps.

[Paul Stephenson]

If Tiger did not exist:

Those who would have won:

C DiMarco +2 (2)
E Els +1 (4)
P Mickelson +1 (4)
T Kite +1 (3) - interesting that he's on both lists.  Is Tom Kite under-rated??
R Goosen +1 (3)
D Duval +1 (2)
S Micheel +1 (2)

One Hit Wonders:
B May
W Austin
S Garcia
Monty

Only 1 T2 with Tiger.  Els and Bjorn would have had a shot at a  British Open.

Depending on your definition of "great," Mickelson and Els would get to 4.  Only VJ is absent from Tiger's list of peers.

[George Pazin]

Speaking of toughness. Send a few of the young guns to Iraq, and compare toughness before and after.

Also, notice Tiger's meltdown in rough weather compared to Watson's toughing it out.

George, us old codgers think the whole society has gotten less tough. But then you probably suspected that all along.

One time for Tiger does not a pattern make.

As for the toughness issue, I can only conclude you don't know many people who are or were high level athletes. Every one I've known is hyper competitive at everything (the rare few like Freddie who appear mellow are probably a helluva lot more competitive inside than anyone would ever notice), whether they were an athlete 30 years ago or a top college or pro prospect now. That's what makes them the way they are. And that doesn't change over time.

If Tiger were never born, or chose a different sport or something, Phil and Ernie would probably have a few more majors each, and we'd be debating whether anyone again would ever win 10 majors, and if they did, whether it would be the equal of Jack's 18.

Tiger's warped everything.

[Paul Stephenson]

If Jack did not exist:

...
Interesting that only one of the "greats" would have benefitted......

Excuse me, but how many more majors have Els, Mickelson, and Goosen won than Casper and Miller? Also, remember what happened to Lema!

Els and Mickelson have the same number as Casper.  Funny thing is without Tiger or Jack this still would hold true.  Goosen has the same as Miller.

None of them have as many as Player, Watson, Palmer, Trevino, or Thompson.

[Garland Bayley]

...
As for the toughness issue, I can only conclude you don't know many people who are or were high level athletes. Every one I've known is hyper competitive at everything ...

I can only conclude you don't know mny people who are or were high level athletes, because you confuse competitiveness with toughness.

[Kalen Braley]

I don't know if the information on Jack was presented clearly. 

While Jack won 18 majors, he also had 19 2nd place finishes, and 9 3rd place finishes....just in majors alone.

Yes, Tiger has 13 major wins, but only 4 2nds and 3 3rds.

It sure seems that Jack always showed up to compete in every tourney, while Tiger seems to be more hit and miss.  And it seems the evidence does support Jacks claim. 

So if Tiger wanted to make a statement, he could improve his non-winning finishes instead of the all or nothing he usually does in majors.  Hence, the winning when losing as was alluded to in an earlier post.

[JESII]

If any of you really believe that, tell me, how many of those 28 second and third place finishes do you think Jack would sell for just one more victory?

My guess is all 28.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Jack's comment is spot on.
 

Matt -- I find your comments about George asleep at the wheel to be inappropriate.  George is one considerate and bright person.
p.s. Love ya Matt... 

How can someone trust Jack's comments when he is on record that when comparing himself to tiger he mentions his family commitments and how Tiger isn't (wasn't) as commited to family?
I think he isn't an objective source in this regard.
If he said something that didn't knock tiger down then I'd believe him.

I'm with Wayne on this one.

Cheers

[JohnH]

Wow.  Talk about a subjective thread.

The only irrefutable fact in my mind is that Jack was the greatest golfer of his era, as Tiger is his.  Everything else is mumbo-jumbo mamsy-pansy.

[Garland Bayley]

...
If he said something that didn't knock tiger down then I'd believe him.
...

Guess you must be a true believer then! Jack doesn't knock Tiger down! He knocks down Tiger's competition! If Jack is wrong, then let the competition step up and make more noise. We keep hearing about this is the year so-and-so is ready to take a peg out of Tiger, but then so-and-so is a no-show when it comes to really competing on the level of Tiger.

[Kalen Braley]

Thats true Charlie,

I think we will have to wait until its all said and done, for Tiger, his current rivals, and the ones that have yet to be identified.  I think most of his current rivals are good for a few more which will make thier cases/story alot more compelling 20-25 years from now when Tiger is done torturing everyone.  Its the young crop, or the lack thereof that really scares me.  Tiger has been on tour for 10 years now, but who has come since then of any consequence?  Geoff O maybe with his one US Open win...I can't think of anyone else.

In the meantime all we can do is speculate, argue, bicker, in a very subjective manner trying to figure it all out while wasting massive amounts of space on a server somewhere..        Ahhhh its wicked great fun!!

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

I just love to enlighten George -- people from the Pittsburgh area can often reside mentally too long in the mines.

Mike, I never said Jack doesn't have his own agenda / opinion. If the guy turns out to be right so be it for him.

Like I said before -- put up the following four names of Jack's toughest competitors and match that against what Tiger has encountered thus far.

Palmer                        Mickelson
Trevino                       Singh
Watson                      Goosen, Stricker, name anyone else
Player                        Els

I mean the ones on the left are miles -- repeat after me -- miles beyond the next grouping. Player won all four of the majors -- Ernie is still barfing up when going down the stretch -- see the el foldo routine against Todd Hamilton, the miss fires at Augusta, the no real impact in major play (save for one title) since the '97 US Open.

Give Vijay his due -- most wins on the PGA Tour for any player in his 40's. But Vijay against Trevino. The Mex is one of the 2-3 best shotmakers of all time.

Take Watson and Mickelson. If anyone seriously believes Lefty trumps Ole Tom than please put down the high octane lave juice you are sipping. Phil cannot play overseas -- check his cumulative record beyond SoCal and a few other key spots in the USA. Watson handled Jack mano-a-mano and the '82 US Open and '77 BO are classic championships.

I left Arnie for last because he's the king. Throw any COMBO of other challengers and Arnie still finishes ahead.

Guys, I don't doubt the overall depth of today's tour -- that was Jack's main point. But at the apex -- Jack's foes were a better lot. And that doesn't take one iota of what Tiger has achieved. It just says what his competition has not been able to do.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Matt,

Throw in Billy Casper and your point is even stronger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Casper

[Paul Stephenson]

The four foes that are mentioned for Jack seem to me to cross a couple of eras.

Palmer and Player were in Jack's early days while Trevino, and certainly Watson come later in his career.

That said, give me Els and Mickelson's 3 majors each for now and let me fill in the other 2 blanks 15 years from now.  By that time maybe one of them gets to 5 and Els gets his PGA for the career slam.  An Els career slam covers Trevino IMO.; although Watson would probably still trump both.

It's the 2 players to be named later that are going to have problems.  They have Player and Palmer to cover.  I don't see Els and Mickelson matching those careers  with Tiger around.

[Will MacEwen]

How much did Jack and Arnie really square off?  Palmer won most of his majors pre-Bear, and was done by 1964.

[Peter Pallotta]

Steve S -

thanks, I never tire of seeing Bill Casper's name. I'm a late convert to his cause, but 50+ wins and 3 majors...and his grace and good humour and style at his last Masters appearance -- a true great.

Peter

[Mark Bourgeois]

You know, I think Nicklaus is right.

My own addled theory (call it "Standardization," "Unnatural Selection," or the "'Major Dummy' Theory") is that the entire process of learning how to play golf and getting better at golf has become standardized.

As a result, the distribution of skill has narrowed at the highest levels of the game: shamateurs + touring professionals.  The worst has gotten better but this standardization somehow -- no, I don't understand exactly how, either -- has extinguished the potential for "great" golfers. The potentially-great don't really dig it out of the dirt anymore, they're put on a sort of conveyor belt which squeezes out the stuff which is "flawed" but which could yield greatness down the road.

Like what?  Maybe shotmaking (not simply working the ball but "seeing" how to play a round, a hole, a shot), creative genius around the greens, and self-contained mental states. (Their psychologists were Jim Beam and Jack Daniels.)

Watson, Player, Trevino (not to mention every great golfer that came before them): all took a very different path to the top, and that's my point.  Would they have turned out differently (worse) had they been put on the conveyor belt of standardized learning?  (Which one said, "I never quit in a tournament because I was afraid if I did it once, I could do it again."  More to the point: does it matter?  More to the point: contemplate a contemporary pro saying this?  The closest they seem to come to that these days is to spew pseudo-psychological drivel...)

Two things have enabled Unnatural Selection bias:
1. Technology -- teaching technology drives a relentless "crowding out" of idiosyncrasies in various golf shots and teaches everyone a similar set of fundamentals. I&B advances lower the potential for skill to separate golfers.
2. Money -- ups the desire to make the pros and thus the participation rate (more pro tours + college golf), but *lowers* the desire to reach the tippy-top. (John Feinstein's books are full of Hamlet-like pros bemoaning life on the road away from their family; Mickelson et al hardly bother to show up for more than two handfuls of tournaments ex-majors per year.)

A half-baked theory -- but there's nothing better than taking the raw and serving it cooked!

[jeffwarne]

Mark,
That's a very interesting theory which I think has some merit.
Additionally, having unorthadox technique and playing at the highest level takes a certain amount of stubborness, mental toughness, and grit.

When I worked for Jim McLean he always stressed the importance of not coaching the talent out of a talented player with seemingly unusual action.

On a lower level, I see  coaches at the junior high and high school (in all sports)level who insist on a certain technique even when the player is highly successful with an unorthadox technique.
There is always more than one way to skin a cat successfully.
The better teachers and coaches have a wider range of experiences and thus allow wider parameters in acceptable technique.

Additionally, having a period of struggle allows a player to develop a great short game and perseverence skills.
A player who has a guru from age 10 who strikes it pretty well never sees the burning need for a bullet-proof short game.
I know a very talented mini player who often talks to me about needing more time to "hang out" (and does).

I'm sure Ben Hogan, Gary Player, and Lee Trevino didn't know what that meant as young men.

[JESII]

Mark and Jeff,

The flaw in your theory is that the only examples you used...Player, Trevino, Watson and Hogan...were successful in the end while the counter evidence is simply a mini-tour player that lacks the drive of those guys.

The standardization of swing analysis and technique has had an impact for sure. Players are less able to "self-correct" in the course of a round, but I disagree with the idea that the number of great players is in any way effected. Great players are born with the determination to refuse failure. That has not changed.

The size of the game has made ultimate success much more difficult. Ultimate success is to mean major championship victories.

I also think it is disingenuous to think removing Tiger or Jack from a field would automatically give second place the victory. The dynamics of a golf tournament are very fluid.

[jeffwarne]

JES,
I agree.
better technique makes more GOOD and GREAT players.
Better atheletes playing golf also means more good and great players as well.
There are always determined and driven players.

Hard to compare players of different eras, esp. with equipment, conditioning.

Tiger is an amazing thing to behold isn't he?

[JESII]

For sure...fun to watch.

Maybe I am just a front-runner, but I root for him as much as the guys like Johnson Wagner when in the hunt...not so much the other "great players" of today.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()