[BHoover]

Modern equipment has created the illusion of strength of field. Anyone can win because anyone can find the club face under pressure.

I will give you credit — when you’re right, you’re right.

[Sean_A]

Really, math proves Tiger was better? Very heavy sigh.

Math supports the idea that the strength and depth of field is much, much better now than in Jack's day. That Tiger had to beat significantly more and better players overall. That it was easier to win majors in the 60s and 70s than it has been in the 90s to 2010s.

The only number to which Jack people can cling is 18 > 15, but if you add in strength and depth of field, 15 >>> 18 in the minds of many, and 82 > 72. And Tiger was far, far more dominant to boot: if you sort their years in order from best to worst and play match play against them, you get to about year 12 or 13 before Jack notches a win.

If you honestly believe that Jack was the better player, IMO you're ignorant to the strength and depth of field, you think that Jack didn't really try that hard or something, or you're weighting the stuff outside of golf (personal life, family, wife, general like or dislike) into the equation.

Again, strength of field arguments don't add up to much that is supportive unless we can point to who won what.  Saying there are more quality players now than 40 years ago does not equate to the best of today are better than the best of Jack's era.  All the math in the world can't prove this point.  Therefore it is supposition based on your belief of what are the most important factors in drawing your conclusion.   

It is convenient that you attempt to use math to support a point, but conveniently dismiss the most important indicator of greatness...and that is major wins.  If you are going to throw that statistic out the window then there is little point in continuing the conversation. 

I guess it is easy for every generation to dismiss those who came along in earlier times.  However, you won't find me underestimating the abilities of the ODGs. 

JakaB

Do you think the best of today would have learned how to play old equipment and less groomed courses?  I do, just as I think the best of yesterday would have learned how to make all the players have today pay.

Happy Hockey

[John Kavanaugh]

I think many of the best of today would have given up the dream of professional golf if not for the money available for top 100 play. Jouneyman smourmeyman.


I simply do not believe that anyone on this site believes that modern equipment, more money and ease of travel has built a better golfer than in the past. The Champions Tour is dying because of the weakness of Tiger's competition.

[Sean_A]

I am not sure the best players would have given up, but it is easy to overlook the massive advantages players of today have. Few people even mention medicine. When would Tiger's career have ended if not for the superior med facilities etc of today VS 40 years ago. As I say, it's all too easy for folks these days to take all the advantages for granted as well as assuming the greats of yesteryear would somehow not know how to make these advantages pay.

Happy Hockey

[Kalen Braley]

I think JK does make a good point here, but there are other points to consider when evaluating this.  Look at what was available to up and coming players in Jacks day vs now and last couple of decades?


1)  First and foremost the primary feeder tour, which didn't start until 1990, (currently Korn Ferry Tour) - Instead of being isolated Teaching Pros, the set of "next best" golfers can hone thier skills, like the minor league system in Baseball.
2)  PGA Asian Tour - Founded in 1995.  Where most of these players once had little to no opportunities, the Asian market is currently blossoming with top notch talent.
3)  Other Mini tours, many of which I'm guessing have only popped up after Jacks prime.
4)  Mature college golf programs with generous resources at their disposal for practice and instruction and frequent country wide travel to play the best competition.
5)  As JK points out, superior equipment with advanced instruction techniques, technology, and data analysis to fine tune swings, ball trajectory, etc. much earlier on. Think of all the players who perhaps stick with it now at early ages instead of getting frustrated learning the game and drop out before they have a chance to develop into who knows what.
5) Junior golf programs, where players learn to deal with competitive scenarios much earlier on and are that much better by the time they reach the college and top AM ranks.
6)  A much wider international advertising and promotional reach among the top golf bodies that transformed low profile golfers into high profile celebs attracting more talent to the game.
7)  Current Tour card structure vs predominance of Monday qualifying allowing players to set schedules and in general establish better stability.
  The relative ease and increased frequency of international travel allowing the best players to congregate far more often.
etc, etc.


And its not just Golf.  NBA and NFL teams would decimate those from 40-50 years ago....

[Jay Mickle]

Which life would you wish upon your son? Only a millennial would pick Tiger.

Wish only that my son were still alive.

[Sean_A]

I think a problem with comparing across eras is folks isolate ODGs in their times rather than envisioning how they might have been improved athletes by taking advantage of the same things which make later athletes more honed, but I will say not necessarily better champions.

Happy Hockey

[Lou_Duran]

Sean,


The issue of better physical and mental conditioning, both which include access to superior knowledge, medicines, surgeries, therapies, faster recoveries, practice, ease of travel, etc. has been brought up many times.  I  happen to believe that this is at least as important as the ball and equipment technology issues, which together have contributed to better, larger athletes playing at the highest levels.  I do think that the top players in other eras would hold their own with the elite players today, but perhaps they would win less often because today's field is deeper.


Tiger is particularly impressive because without him, Els, Norman, Mickelson and others may have achieved the status of Player, Palmer, Watson, and Snead.  I am in awe of what he has been able to accomplish given where he came from and the intense, increasingly unforgiving media scrutiny of the last 20 years.   

[John Kirk]

I simply do not believe that anyone on this site believes that modern equipment, more money and ease of travel has built a better golfer than in the past. The Champions Tour is dying because of the weakness of Tiger's competition.

A more plausible reason the Champions Tour is dying is because most good players are financially independent by age 45, and there's little incentive to continue grinding over ten foot putts for money.


An even better explanation is that the Champions Tour is dull.

As for modern golfers, it's modernized training and diet, plus huge financial incentives for performance, that make them better.  If Jack Nicklaus were transported into the modern age, he'd probably do quite well.

[Peter Pallotta]

Golf is different.
Any GOAT discussion is always mere speculation, but more even more so when it comes to golf. 
Rod Laver -- just as he was back then, in his prime, but with no new/additional training regimes or better fitness level or healthier diet -- wouldn't be able to compete against today's top tennis players.
Frank Gifford, transported here from the 1950s, wouldn't be the starting half-back for the current New York Giants.
Chris Mullin would have a hard time both running the offence and playing defence for & with his new Golden State teammates.
And Guy LaFleur and his two pack a day habit would gave a hard time keeping up with the rest of the Canadiens in 2020.
But take Jack in his prime, and transport him here unchanged in any way. What do you think:
he wouldn't be able to generate enough club head speed to hit the ball a really long way? Do you think someone who could hit 1 and 2 irons the size of bread knives wouldn't hit modern hybrids even better and more accurately?
Would he have forgotten how to strategize or manage his game? Would he be missing more putts on today's smooth pure surfaces, or likely instead making even more of them. And unlike in football or basketball or hockey, he wouldn't be competing directly or physically 'against' today's bigger and stronger and faster athletes, but against the course.
Which is to say: Tiger may well be the greatest of all time, but please spare me these definitive answers and undeniable statistical analysis and tired cliches about 'today's athletes' and 'deeper fields'. 
Golf is different.
20 time major champions are too.
Since JN nowadays could hit the ball a mile and have a great iron game and make tons of putts when they mattered most, today's 'field' would do about as well (ie poorly) against him as it did against Tiger (give or take).
The very best, the best of the best, aren't like you and me.
 

[Sean_A]

Pietro

I tend to think more in terms of style of play for team sports. Different skill sets are emphasised in different eras. Which is why I am less than convinced a guy like Orr would be the success today that he was in the early 70s. Even so, he had hockey smarts like all the all time greats and that counts for a ton.

Happy Hockey

[John Kavanaugh]

Of course I believe that McEnroe, Borg and God forbid even Conners could beat Federer time and time again.

[Ira Fishman]

Men’s Tennis is a very interesting comparison. Despite the advances in nutrition, technology, and training, exactly three Athletes have dominated for nearly 20 years. Are the challengers less motivated? Or less talented? Depth of the field might be a red herring. I would take Laver any day, just as I would take Hogan any day.


Ira

[Rob Marshall]

I’ve known far to many amateur golfers who have sacrificed relationships because of their golf habit and everything that comes with it. If we are going to look up to a man who we consider the greatest of all time we need to look past just the numbers of wins and such. I’m sure that jack has made mistakes as both a husband and father but Barbara is still there and Jack had his son on the bag for the greatest championship ever won. He is a goddamned stone cold family man of the first order. Maybe Tiger will find a good woman and have his son on the bag for that 19th Major. Maybe not.

Weds I took a lesson with an old school top 50 teacher in the country. After my lesson we sat in his office talking golf  and I asked him who the GOAT was in his opinion. He stated without hesitation, Jack. Good enough for me.

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean -
I still think Orr was the greatest hockey player I've ever seen; but I'm trying to make allowances for the reality that, playing today (just as he was then), he'd be trying to defend and check and skate past & around and score on a group of athletes that are bigger & faster and in better condition than in his day.
But of course, none of that applies to golf -- cause no one is trying to do anything against anyone. JN or Hogan or Snead or Jones could either hit the ball long and accurately with both their woods and their irons or they couldn't. And since they could, they could do it now just as well as they could do it then; and 'the field' would be of little importance.
Just trying to put words to the same heavy sigh you expressed a while ago, at the mention of math.   

[John Kavanaugh]

How many more teams are there now than in Orr’s day? He without doubt could find a place.

[Pete_Pittock]

I simply do not believe that anyone on this site believes that modern equipment, more money and ease of travel has built a better golfer than in the past. The Champions Tour is dying because of the weakness of Tiger's competition.

A more plausible reason the Champions Tour is dying is because most good players are financially independent by age 45, and there's little incentive to continue grinding over ten foot putts for money.


An even better explanation is that the Champions Tour is dull.

As for modern golfers, it's modernized training and diet, plus huge financial incentives for performance, that make them better.  If Jack Nicklaus were transported into the modern age, he'd probably do quite well.

Your theory will be tested as Els, Micklestix, Mickleson, Furyk, Choi and others become eligible.

[John Kirk]

Your theory will be tested as Els, Micklestix, Mickleson, Furyk, Choi and others become eligible.

My guess is these guys will play in two or three senior majors, and continue to play a few events with the young bucks.  We'll see.

[Sean_A]

Sean -
I still think Orr was the greatest hockey player I've ever seen; but I'm trying to make allowances for the reality that, playing today (just as he was then), he'd be trying to defend and check and skate past & around and score on a group of athletes that are bigger & faster and in better condition than in his day.
But of course, none of that applies to golf -- cause no one is trying to do anything against anyone. JN or Hogan or Snead or Jones could either hit the ball long and accurately with both their woods and their irons or they couldn't. And since they could, they could do it now just as well as they could do it then; and 'the field' would be of little importance.
Just trying to put words to the same heavy sigh you expressed a while ago, at the mention of math.

Pietro

Nothing more to say about golf. Nothing the Jack haters have said convinced me that major wins is not the be all of measuring greatness.

I definitely think Orr would have a place in today's NHL. I am less convinced that he would be able to drive an offense from the back end by keeping the puck on his stick for so long in today's NHL. The emergence of two way players makes that style of play awfully difficult. To me Orr's style of play helped the emergence of two way hockey become the way to play as well as clogging the neutral zone. These days, what a player does off the puck can be just as valuable as when on the puck. I am still amazed at what Lidstrom achieved just by being smart with his situational position play. In a way he was like Jack, played the percentages knowing he was tough to beat that way.

I think the only position I really think players of old would struggle is in the net. It is very telling how much less athletic great goalies were back in the day compared to today. Mind you, having a mask, helmet and far better pads makes it a lot easier these days. No question imo, the biggest change in hockey is the goalie. Not just because of pads, but also because of size. These guys are huge. Which of course means players today have to have great shots like never before, but of course this is made possible by new technology for sticks. Like golf, this tech has made it harder to stand out from the pack with a quality shot, lots of players have one.

Happy Hockey

[archie_struthers]

 


Was in the Nicklaus camp for a long time but if Tiger wins any more tournaments this year or next its going to be enough to sway me. Quite sure Jack would hit it ridiculous distances with the new equipment but that is part of my reason for giving Tiger the nod as GOAT.


Today's technology brings everyone closer together not further apart. With the old equipment Jack's superior skills were magnified not minimized, just go try and hit one of the one irons of his era. The first time I hit the ping eye 2's it was eye popping   as the long irons were like trampolines and they went far and straight almost all the time. So be careful getting into any arguments that the equipment was to Tiger's advantage vis a vis the Bear!

[A.G._Crockett]

1. It isn't "Jack hating" to say that Tiger Woods was the better golfer.  It also isn't either surprising or revealing that older guys tend to lean toward Nicklaus, though I AM an older guy and do NOT lean that way.

2. It is sort of pointless to compare guys of different eras in ANY sport.  This is perhaps more true of golf than some others because of the explosive growth of the game, changes in equipment in a VERY short period of time, and changes in the way top pro golfers train and condition and are taught.
3. Finally, and most importantly, if you are EVER tempted to make the argument that Nicklaus was playing against comparable strength of fields, PLEASE take a minute, breathe deeply and do NOT say or type that; it is patently absurd.  How many Euros were capable of winning a major during Jack's prime?  What has happened to the level of competition in junior and college golf since Jack's prime?  What has happened to "lesser" professional tours since then?  Nicklaus had to beat great players, but he didn't have to beat a particularly large number of great players in a given week.  Woods and everybody else on Tour right now are faced with fields of 144 guys who have ALL won at high levels of amateur and professional golf.


I don't think it's a bad comparison to equate the golf boom to integration in other professional sports to get an idea of this.  The MLB pitchers of the "old days" were great, without question.  But does anybody think that pitching to lineups that didn't include Jackie or Frank Robinson, or Hank Aaron, or Willie Mays, and on and on, is comparable to facing THOSE guys?  And so it is with more golfers.

There are LOTS of valid arguments favoring Jones, or Hogan, or Nicklaus as the GOAT over Woods; it all depends on what standard you want to use.  But strength of field is NOT one of those arguments; it is a mathematical and logical absurdity. 

[Kalen Braley]

Which is to say: Tiger may well be the greatest of all time, but please spare me these definitive answers and undeniable statistical analysis and tired cliches about 'today's athletes' and 'deeper fields'.

Peter,

I don't understand what your point is with this statement.  At least some of us are attempting to look at this issue from a qualitative perspective and use rational analysis. What have you brought to the table other than Jack was very good?...well yes we know that.


P.S.  Go back and look at post 66, where I used and apples vs apples comparison to show that better players win more often against shallow fields in the Masters, vs The Players the deepest field year over year.

[Dan_Callahan]

If Bobby Orr played today, I wonder if he might not be even better than he was in the 70s. Obviously, his greatest impact was how he revolutionized the role of defensemen. But Orr was widely considered to be the greatest skater the game had ever seen, yet by the time he was 29, he had already had 6 knee surgeries. At a time when knee surgery meant opening up the joint to take a look, rather than the minimally invasive arthroscopic surgery athletes undergo today. He first tore cartilage in his knee in 1967, in only his second season. He had knee pain every year after that. Yet was named the NHL's top defensemen for 8 consecutive seasons. He retired at 31 because he could barely walk.

If he played now, with modern medicine, I would wager he might be even better than he was.

Two Orr items most probably already know but what the hell ...

Before every home game, Larry Bird would look up in the rafters during the national anthem. Most assumed he was either looking at the American flag or at all the Celtics championships banners. At a dinner for Orr, Bird admitted that in fact what he always stared at was Orr's #4 hanging above the parquet. He couldn't explain why, but every time he looked at it, he got chills. Something about Orr's immense talent, the way he was beloved in Boston, and the truly good guy that he is.

Years ago, the Boston Globe published a story about all the things Orr does in retirement that he doesn't want anyone to know because he is one of the most humble, selfless athletes who's ever lived. If you haven't read it, it's worth your time:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/09/28/number-bobby-orr-still-number/2QgHMeTyFcjwgoIKj2mlJL/story.html

[Ira Fishman]

If Bobby Orr played today, I wonder if he might not be even better than he was in the 70s. Obviously, his greatest impact was how he revolutionized the role of defensemen. But Orr was widely considered to be the greatest skater the game had ever seen, yet by the time he was 29, he had already had 6 knee surgeries. At a time when knee surgery meant opening up the joint to take a look, rather than the minimally invasive arthroscopic surgery athletes undergo today. He first tore cartilage in his knee in 1967, in only his second season. He had knee pain every year after that. Yet was named the NHL's top defensemen for 8 consecutive seasons. He retired at 31 because he could barely walk.

If he played now, with modern medicine, I would wager he might be even better than he was.

Two Orr items most probably already know but what the hell ...

Before every home game, Larry Bird would look up in the rafters during the national anthem. Most assumed he was either looking at the American flag or at all the Celtics championships banners. At a dinner for Orr, Bird admitted that in fact what he always stared at was Orr's #4 hanging above the parquet. He couldn't explain why, but every time he looked at it, he got chills. Something about Orr's immense talent, the way he was beloved in Boston, and the truly good guy that he is.

Years ago, the Boston Globe published a story about all the things Orr does in retirement that he doesn't want anyone to know because he is one of the most humble, selfless athletes who's ever lived. If you haven't read it, it's worth your time:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/09/28/number-bobby-orr-still-number/2QgHMeTyFcjwgoIKj2mlJL/story.html

Dan,


An outstanding point about the advancements in surgeries.  ACLs still are extremely serious, but the ability of players to recover and play at full strength and speed is remarkable.  We (the NFLPA) are funding research for yet another what we hope will be a significant advancement in ACL repairs.


I grew up during Original Six days disliking the Bruins intensely, but it was/is impossible not to admire how great a player he was and what a contribution he made to the sport.  I did not know about his post-career work so thank you for sharing.


Ira

[Kalen Braley]

Perhaps this also needs to be included in the convo of why Tiger isn't the GOAT....given all the other topics that have come up.   


https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/greg-norman-upset-tiger-woods-didnt-respond-to-his-handwritten-letter-maybe-tiger-just-dislikes-me/ar-AAJOMys?li=BBnbfcL

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()