[Kirk Gill]

I was watching the recap show of the '86 Master the other night on television, and was struck by the number of major winners on that leaderboard. The 10 golfers who finished closest to Nicklaus combined for 23 major championship wins, and that leaves out multiple winners like Ben Crenshaw, Bernhard Langer, and Curtis Strange. Looking at the 10 golfers behind Tiger in the '05 masters, they combine for 9 major victories.

For what it's worth...............

[George Pazin]

I was watching the recap show of the '86 Master the other night on television, and was struck by the number of major winners on that leaderboard. The 10 golfers who finished closest to Nicklaus combined for 23 major championship wins, and that leaves out multiple winners like Ben Crenshaw, Bernhard Langer, and Curtis Strange. Looking at the 10 golfers behind Tiger in the '05 masters, they combine for 9 major victories.

For what it's worth...............

And by Garland and Matt's reasoning, all those great players on the 86 leaderboard went backwards on Sunday....

[Michael Moore]

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.

Matt Ward -

Can you please explain to me how Tom Watson is germane to this comparison?

When Nicklaus was 32 years old, Tom Watson had won zero events on tour, was two years away from his first win on tour, and was three years away from his first major.

[JESII]

...and Palmer had not been heard of 8 years...and Trevino had been around for only three or four...

[Kalen Braley]

I'm sensing a theme to many of the recent posts that have been made...just sounds like we are going to have to wait it out before we really know.  Especially in light of how few majors Jacks "greats" had won when he was 32.

In the meantime, this thread needs a boost of SERENITY NOW!!

[Michael Moore]

Trevino was only a year older and racked up four majors very quickly by 1972. He was surely the number one threat to the 1972 edition of Nicklaus.

[Garland Bayley]

I was watching the recap show of the '86 Master the other night on television, and was struck by the number of major winners on that leaderboard. The 10 golfers who finished closest to Nicklaus combined for 23 major championship wins, and that leaves out multiple winners like Ben Crenshaw, Bernhard Langer, and Curtis Strange. Looking at the 10 golfers behind Tiger in the '05 masters, they combine for 9 major victories.

For what it's worth...............

And by Garland and Matt's reasoning, all those great players on the 86 leaderboard went backwards on Sunday....

Sorry George, but going forward means going from x to x - n where n is a counting number. Going backwards means going from x to x + n where n is a counting number.

It is not reasoning, it is applying definitions to factual information.

[Matt_Ward]

Michael Moore:

I'll say it again in the event you missed it.

I simply named four key names tied to the overall breath of the career of Jack Nicklaus. Each of the men mentioned had to deal with the greatness the Bear provided. No doubt each may have done it at different intervals but each of the folks mentioned were able to rack up majors inspite of the fact that Jack stood in the way. In some cases -- that often meant going head-to-head w Jack and beating him even he was playing well -- very well.

The point is that none of the so-called "great players" of today seem capable in beating Tiger head-to-head in a major. For God's sake -- Rich Beem did it in the PGA -- Bob May almost did it in the same event. Angel C did it last year at Oakmont.

I concur with Jack's comments -- the overall depth of the tour is better than during the Bear's time but the elite top players are not. I don't take anything away from Tiger but frankly his competition has far too many times blinked when Woods has been at or near the lead. The folks I mentioned did not beat Jack consistently -- but they were able to raise their games at particular times and make their marks as truly "great" players and not the pretenders one sees today.

JES II

Please -- nuff of the erroneous belief that because AP had not won a major since 1964 that his overall presence as a big time player had ended when 1972 rolled around. Palmer was still a competitive presence in majors and in other key events -- likely through the '74 season.

Gents:

One general comment -- there is often way too much misguided belief that sports figures of today could easily crush the great names from the past -- especially in the golf arena. I don't see it that way. Give the old timers the same benefits that modern stars use today and it's more than likely the "old" timers would be fully capable in giving the modern players all they could handle.

George P:

Oh poor Duval he was now "hurt" -- love the rationalizations. I gave you the stats -- you played dodge ball instead of dealing with them. Happy to put up the best five years of Miller and compare it to Duval as well. George, you know your cooked on this one -- just be a good sport and admit you've got a poor hand to play on this one.

As a few others mentioned -- no one hit it closer than Miller and his record supports that in a range of ways.

[Matt_Ward]

Art R:

Here's a bit of info on the Lefty v Mex debate.

Lefty's stats ...

Career Totals 371 starts, 303 cuts made, 33 wins, 21 2nd's, 20 3rd's, 133 top tens and 201 top 25's.

Three majors -- two Masters and one PGA. Best finish in the BO is a 3rd in '04 at Troon - one shot out of the playoff w Todd Hamilton and The Big Easy.

The Merry Mex stats ...

Career Totals 466 starts. 409 cuts made, 29 wins, 33 2nd's, 21 3rd's, 166 top tens and 286 top 25's.

The Mex has won six majors -- two in all of them save for The Masters where his best finish was T10th in '75.

Candidly, when I assess majors I rate the US and British Opens as the two most demanding and most prestigious when compared to The Masters and the PGA.

I'd consider Phil a lot more if he can bag a major in either of the two missing Slam events and does so by beating Tiger when it counts -- either head-to-head or when he's at or near the lead coming down the stretch. The Mex was able to beat Jack and his win in '71 at Merion in the US Open is a vintage one that elevates his overall stature to me. Until that happens -- I'd still stay with The Mex -- who incidentally, is acclaimed as one of the
2-3 best shotmakers of all time.

[Michael Moore]

I simply named four key names tied to the overall breath of the career of Jack Nicklaus.

Woods is only halfway through his prime golfing years. How about a fair comparison, using Nicklaus's competition between 1960 and 1972. Throwing Watson into the mix is absurd.

[George Pazin]

George P:

Oh poor Duval he was now "hurt" -- love the rationalizations. I gave you the stats -- you played dodge ball instead of dealing with them. Happy to put up the best five years of Miller and compare it to Duval as well. George, you know your cooked on this one -- just be a good sport and admit you've got a poor hand to play on this one.

As a few others mentioned -- no one hit it closer than Miller and his record supports that in a range of ways.

I already said I'd choose Miller over Duval, both at their primes, I simply said I think it is a lot closer than you think.

No one hit it closer than Miller - and yet he the same number of majors as a bunch of other guys. You favor ball striking over everything else - your dismissal of Mickelson v Trevino shows this as well. Phil's career is hardly over and he has in fact beaten Tiger when Tiger was in the hunt, as I highlighted earlier, in his 2nd Masters and only PGA.

At this point, I'd favor Miller and Trevino over Duval and Mickelson, but it's almost a coin toss.

How about addressing Michael Moore's point?

[Matt_Ward]

George:

Anyone home ... Lee has six (6) majors -- how many does Lefty have now? Do the math -- OK. How bout winning an Open Championship on either side of the pond. Lee's got four of them. Shall I go on and on and on.

Also, compare the overall record of Miller and Duval. Not even close. Again, do the math -- not the fanciful wish thinking you keep on throwing forward.

Phil has beaten Tiger when he's not held the lead or been right at the top of the leaderboard entering the final round. Let Lefty do it when Tiger is the man to take out as Lee did with Jack at Merion and Watson did to Jack at Augusta ('77) and US Open ('82), to name just a few examples.


Michael Moore:

I gave you the answer in regards to how Jack mentioned his comments in his Digest statement. I explained this before -- you must have missed it AGAIN.

[Richard Choi]

Richard,

I think your analysis falls down because only the same number of good players are allowed to compete for the major title each time.
I doubt the variation of who is in that group varies significantly enough between the eras to enable your analysis to start to be realistic.

No, that would not invalidate my analysis at all. All I am trying to prove with my example above is that more good players you have, you are likely to have less "great" players because there is so much more competition.

While my numbers are hypothetical and simplified for arguement sakes, it does demonstrate that fact clear. It does not matter whether or not there are more variation in groups between the eras.

Let me put it in another way...

Let say when a "super" player plays a tournament about 20% of the times, he will play so well that he will win the tournament no matter what he does. About 50% of the times he will play well enough to win (which means, it is just a roll of the dice on whether or not he wins based on how many other players play well enough to win), 30% of the times he plays badly enough that he has no chance of winning.

When a "great" player plays, about 50% of the times, he plays well enough to win, 50% of the times he has no chance of winning.

When a "good" player plays, about 10% of the times, he plays well enough to win, 90% of the times he has no chance of winning.

When a "mediocre" player plays, only about 1% of the times he will play well enough to win.

So, let's take a look at a hypothetical tournaments.

Let's model "yester-years" tournament where you have 1 super player, 4 great players, 45 good players and 50 mediocre players. In this scenario, if you are a great player, your chance of winning any given tournament is about 5.3%.

In today' tour model where almost any player has a chance to win, it will be more like 1 super player, 4 great players, and 95 good players. In this scenario, if you are a great player, your chance of winning any given tournament is 3.3% - you have about 40% less chance than yester-years that you will win.

Obviously, these are just hypothetical numbers and in real-life you will have a much more gradual difference between players. But that still does not change the fact that your chance of winning as a "great" player is much lower than it was in the past - even if you are a better player than yester-year great.

It is a statistical fact. If you have more "good" players, "great" players will not win as many tournaments and thus they will be viewed inferior to "yester-year" greats, even if their playing capability is equal or even slightly better.

[Garland Bayley]

Richard,

My point was there are no mediocre players in the majors (at least all but the Masters) in either era.

The large number of good players now is reflected in there being a high quality Nationwide tour, European tour, Australasian tour, Japanese tour, etc. It is not reflected in there being a significant gap between best and worst in the majors.

[David Stamm]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned what kind of an effect the purses have on the psyche of today's players. One would think that complacency would be a factor. In Jack's time, if you didn't win, you didn't make a whole lot of money. We all can name alot of players from the present era that have made millions and never having won a tourny, yet alone a major. This has to be taken into consideration. I also think the equipment today has made the marginal player a  better player.

[JESII]

David,

Many have...it is the main argument of that side.


Garland,

Have you ever scanned a field list for the other three majors? The only deficiency the Masters has is the reduced size of the field.

The PGA had 40 club pros up until a handful of years ago.
The USOpen has dozens of non-Tour members included every year.
The Open - ditto

[David Stamm]

David,

Many have...it is the main argument of that side.


Garland,

Have you ever scanned a field list for the other three majors? The only deficiency the Masters has is the reduced size of the field.

The PGA had 40 club pros up until a handful of years ago.
The USOpen has dozens of non-Tour members included every year.
The Open - ditto

Sorry, Sully. I just didn't take the time to read all of the thread.

[Garland Bayley]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned what kind of an effect the purses have on the psyche of today's players. One would think that complacency would be a factor. In Jack's time, if you didn't win, you didn't make a whole lot of money. We all can name alot of players from the present era that have made millions and never having won a tourny, yet alone a major. This has to be taken into consideration. I also think the equipment today has made the marginal player a  better player.

It was mentioned, you just didn't notice.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

Have you ever scanned a field list for the other three majors? The only deficiency the Masters has is the reduced size of the field.

The PGA had 40 club pros up until a handful of years ago.
The USOpen has dozens of non-Tour members included every year.
The Open - ditto

Yes, I should not have singled out the Masters. Each of the tournaments have a group of no chance players (or such a minute chance I am sure I won't see it in my lifetime). My point was there are no mediocre players amongst the touring pros meeting their special qualification critera.

[David Stamm]

If this all comes down to more different players winning majors then back in Jack's era, then why not complie a list?

[Garland Bayley]

If this all comes down to more different players winning majors then back in Jack's era, then why not complie a list?

Also, been done earlier in the thread.

[jeffwarne]

George:

Anyone home ... Lee has six (6) majors -- how many does Lefty have now? Do the math -- OK. How bout winning an Open Championship on either side of the pond. Lee's got four of them. Shall I go on and on and on.

Also, compare the overall record of Miller and Duval. Not even close. Again, do the math -- not the fanciful wish thinking you keep on throwing forward.

Phil has beaten Tiger when he's not held the lead or been right at the top of the leaderboard entering the final round. Let Lefty do it when Tiger is the man to take out as Lee did with Jack at Merion and Watson did to Jack at Augusta ('77) and US Open ('82), to name just a few examples.

OK Matt, I'm going to have a little fun.

Doesn't what you stated above argue that Tiger is simply better than Jack in that fewer players have stared him down and beaten him head to head? 19 second places tells me Jack had trouble closing.
Which doesn't make the players around him great-in fact if he had a better short game many of those "great players" would be less majorless-therefore not great.

And you're right nobody hit it closer than Miller. Which is why despite a balky putter ,he won as many majors as....
Andy North
except Andy's a much better announcer.

Disclaimer- I think Trevino, Palmer, Player, Watson,Seve, Norman had  great careers
 Miller had a great streak but the parallels to Duval are striking (in different ways)

I am struggling to name a great player now. Michelson, Els -until lately? Has Tiger neutralize them all?

Maybe Jack is right?
but then I'd have to agree with Matt.

I truly think there are so many good players now that it's hard to be great. (by definition of majors won.)
There are too many competing for the too few left.

[David Stamm]

If this all comes down to more different players winning majors then back in Jack's era, then why not complie a list?

Also, been done earlier in the thread.

Well hell, why don't I get off my lazy tail read this thread!

[Garland Bayley]

...
I truly think there are so many good players now that it's hard to be great. (by definition of majors won.)
There are too many competing for the too few left.

Then why do we still get the Ben Curtis, Rich Beem, Todd Hamilton, etc. effect?
The historical information elicidated on this thread seems to show there is no significant varation other than Tiger's dominance.
The reason Tiger is not accumulating as many seconds as Jack, is that no one is stepping up and Tiger can substitute some of his excess firsts for seconds.

[jeffwarne]

I downloaded all data from this thread and all record books and drew the conclusion that......


Jack is the greatest ever, and Tiger is on pace to be the greatest ever.
The rest is irrelevant

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()