George:
Also posted on the other thread.....
How, exactly, are:
Bob Charles, Dave Marr, Tony Lema, Bobby Nichols, Gay Brewer, Don January, Orville Moody, Charles Coody, Tommy Aaron, Tom Weiskopf, and Lou Graham -- major winners all, from 1963 through 1975 (Jack's dominant period as a player) -- that much different than:
...Justin Leonard, Paul Lawrie, David Toms, Rich Beem, Shaun Micheel, Ben Curtis, , Todd Hamilton, Mike Weir, Zach Johnson, Michael Campbell and Trevor Immelman, all major winners from 1997 through 2008 (Tiger's dominant period as a player)?
More seriously this time:
Looking quickly at the results of the above, what jumps out at me is how many victories besides majors the earlier guys racked up, versus the relatively one hit wonders in the more recent group. Again, you can read that two ways: 1) the guys today can't win or 2) there are far more guys who can win, so they all win at a smaller rate overall.
To me, it defies common sense to think that the fields aren't getting far deeper, with the dollar amounts involved. The miniscule differences between the second tier (and I use that term respectfully and without intent to lessen the accomplishments of the Trevino/Els level of golfer) is just that, miniscule.
Was Jones' competition better because he had to contend with Hagen, who won a bunch of majors?
Was Hogan's competition better because he had to deal with Nelson and Snead?
Each generation sees greater depth in the overall talent pool, which makes it that much harder for the true greats to stand out.
In summary, I agree with AG's point entirely, looking at the variety of winners while Tiger slumps is just more indication of how great he has been. He has completely warped everyone's perspective. Were it not for him, I think some people would be looking at Phil or Ernie with 8 majors and thinking, is that comparable to Jones/Hogan/Nicklaus? Is that the best someone can do now?