Tiger vs Jack question...

[king_biscuit]

[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1450499634' post='12738344']
Funny how now guys on here want to say the Tiger era was weak because he dominated. Shows the immense...we'll call it dislike...of Tiger. The era he came up in was just 10 years after Jack's stunning 1986 Masters win. No one thought it was because the era was weak then. And immediately following Jack's win we had the era of the Shark, and Faldo, and Strange and Phil. And no one thought it was weak, in fact it was so competitive that everyone thought domination would not happen again because there was so much talent. To the point where Strange famously told Tiger "you'll learn" when Tiger turned pro and said "second sucks". So now the era is weak because Tiger dominated it? In other sports we celebrate the dynasties but somehow in this one relatively short era we say the champion was no good the competition must have sucked . Unbelievable.
[/quote]

I am not going to go find all the stats again -- already posted in several older threads -- but there is a good argument to be made that Tiger caught the tour at the end of the careers of Faldo, Norman, Langer, Seve, etc., and before the era of the modern athletic players of today. VJ played the various tours since the 80s and only broke out on the PGA Tour during the same era as Tiger, and Phil had a fairly mediocre career with no majors against The Faldos, Normans, etc., but destroyed the same DiMarcos, Mays, and Clemets that Tiger routinely beat up. There is no question in my mind that from the late 90s until the mid 2000s the tour was below average and fairly weak.

One other thing, Tiger was always going to be an exciting player, but compared to say Chris DiMarco he looked like frekin' Elvis

[Shilgy]

[quote name='king_biscuit' timestamp='1450504087' post='12738528']
[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1450499634' post='12738344']
Funny how now guys on here want to say the Tiger era was weak because he dominated. Shows the immense...we'll call it dislike...of Tiger. The era he came up in was just 10 years after Jack's stunning 1986 Masters win. No one thought it was because the era was weak then. And immediately following Jack's win we had the era of the Shark, and Faldo, and Strange and Phil. And no one thought it was weak, in fact it was so competitive that everyone thought domination would not happen again because there was so much talent. To the point where Strange famously told Tiger "you'll learn" when Tiger turned pro and said "second sucks". So now the era is weak because Tiger dominated it? In other sports we celebrate the dynasties but somehow in this one relatively short era we say the champion was no good the competition must have sucked . Unbelievable.
[/quote]

I am not going to go find all the stats again -- already posted in several older threads -- but there is a good argument to be made that Tiger caught the tour at the end of the careers of Faldo, Norman, Langer, Seve, etc., and before the era of the modern athletic players of today. VJ played the various tours since the 80s and only broke out on the PGA Tour during the same era as Tiger, and Phil had a fairly mediocre career with no majors against The Faldos, Normans, etc., but destroyed the same DiMarcos, Mays, and Clemets that Tiger routinely beat up. There is no question in my mind that from the late 90s until the mid 2000s the tour was below average and fairly weak.

One other thing, Tiger was always going to be an exciting player, but compared to say Chris DiMarco he looked like frekin' Elvis
[/quote]Please look at the PGA tour stats year by year and tell me when it got weak. Did they make the courses easy for just one guy? Scoring averages got better and better and yet somehow that indicates weak fields? That super talented crop of players in 1986 had 23 players average under 71 stokes per round, none under 70, and just 92 under 72 strokes. In 2000 there were 77 under 71 and 174 under 72. Is it really, in your opinion, a weak field that led Tiger to average over a stroke a round better than the second place guy? Let's see-more good players and more depth of field makes an era weak...got it.
Again, one player or team dominating does not necessarily mean an era is weak. It can mean that one is just that good.

[starsail85]

If anybody played in a weak era it was jack

People forget how low everybody started scoring in the late 80s and early 90s . Look at the winning scores in events they all got lower and lower and then a trend of lengthening courses started

if you compare jacks game in his prime to tigers in every department it's not even close woods was a great deal better in every department apart from possibly driving . Short game isn't even close , would Jack even be able to compete with his chipping and sand play on a modern course with fast greens?

In jacks day everybody played safe for 63 holes then went for it

You haven't been able to do that since the mid 80s

[John L.]

[quote name='starsail85' timestamp='1450553004' post='12740108']
If anybody played in a weak era it was jack

People forget how low everybody started scoring in the late 80s and early 90s . Look at the winning scores in events they all got lower and lower and then a trend of lengthening courses started

if you compare jacks game in his prime to tigers in every department it's not even close woods was a great deal better in every department apart from possibly driving . Short game isn't even close , would Jack even be able to compete with his chipping and sand play on a modern course with fast greens?

In jacks day everybody played safe for 63 holes then went for it

You haven't been able to do that since the mid 80s
[/quote]

The mid 80's......when Jack won another Masters?

[widow-maker]

[quote name='starsail85' timestamp='1450553004' post='12740108']
If anybody played in a weak era it was jack

People forget how low everybody started scoring in the late 80s and early 90s . Look at the winning scores in events they all got lower and lower and then a trend of lengthening courses started

if you compare jacks game in his prime to tigers in every department it's not even close woods was a great deal better in every department apart from possibly driving . Short game isn't even close , would Jack even be able to compete with his chipping and sand play on a modern course with fast greens?

In jacks day everybody played safe for 63 holes then went for it

You haven't been able to do that since the mid 80s
[/quote]Jack's era was a different game, with different equipment. Those guys were hitting 3 irons into a 440 yard hole. You can't compare because they were facing different conditions, different challenges, different equipment. All you've got to go on is how they did against the best of their era. Any comparison you try to make is always going to be "out of context". Just like trying to compare Tiger with today's kids. They're all hitting it further than Tiger and the scoring in majors is going lower. The Driver and ball that Tiger used in the mid 90's is nothing like the driver that Rory, Jason, and Jordan are using today. The fields are getting better because of the equipment, the money is bringing in more competition. But, you can judge Tiger by what he accomplished in his era vs what these young guys accomplish in theirs. That's all we've got. 20 years from now Tiger will be in the afterthought category as the new young guns on Tour will be held as being better than Tiger ever could have been.

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='widow-maker' timestamp='1450559668' post='12740486']
[quote name='starsail85' timestamp='1450553004' post='12740108']
If anybody played in a weak era it was jack

People forget how low everybody started scoring in the late 80s and early 90s . Look at the winning scores in events they all got lower and lower and then a trend of lengthening courses started

if you compare jacks game in his prime to tigers in every department it's not even close woods was a great deal better in every department apart from possibly driving . Short game isn't even close , would Jack even be able to compete with his chipping and sand play on a modern course with fast greens?

In jacks day everybody played safe for 63 holes then went for it

You haven't been able to do that since the mid 80s
[/quote]Jack's era was a different game, with different equipment. Those guys were hitting 3 irons into a 440 yard hole. You can't compare because they were facing different conditions, different challenges, different equipment. All you've got to go on is how they did against the best of their era. Any comparison you try to make is always going to be "out of context". Just like trying to compare Tiger with today's kids. They're all hitting it further than Tiger and the scoring in majors is going lower. The Driver and ball that Tiger used in the mid 90's is nothing like the driver that Rory, Jason, and Jordan are using today. The fields are getting better because of the equipment, the money is bringing in more competition. But, you can judge Tiger by what he accomplished in his era vs what these young guys accomplish in theirs. That's all we've got. 20 years from now Tiger will be in the afterthought category as the new young guns on Tour will be held as being better than Tiger ever could have been.
[/quote]

"20 years from now Tiger will be in the afterthought category as the new young guns on Tour will be held as being better than Tiger ever could have been."


I read this as I was eating a nice roast beef hero and indulging myself with a rare can of soda.

Good thing I wasnt taking a sip when I read it ; )

[PouncePony]

Compare the multiple major winners from both eras....

Palmer - 7
Player - 9
[color=#191919]Ballesteros * - 5 late in the Nicklaus era[/color]
[color=#191919]Watson - 8[/color]
[color=#191919]Trevino - 6[/color]
[color=#191919]Floyd - 4[/color]
[color=#191919]Casper - 3[/color]
[color=#191919]Nelson - 3[/color]
[color=#191919]Irwin - 3[/color]
[color=#191919]Miller -[/color]2
[color=#191919]North - 2[/color]

[color=#191919]Vs[/color]

[color=#191919]Mickelson - 5[/color]
[color=#191919]Els - 4[/color]
[color=#191919]McIlroy - 4 * late in Tiger era[/color]
[color=#191919]Harrington - 3[/color]
[color=#191919]Singh - 3[/color]
Olazabal - 2
Daly - 2
O'Meara - 2
Goosen - 2

Jack had 19 runner up finishes in majors; Tiger has 6.

Tiger's domination is incomparable, but which group of guys would you want to play against for all the marbles? 18 majors and 19 runner ups against that competition. Jack is the best of all time.

[Shilgy]

[quote name='widow-maker' timestamp='1450559668' post='12740486']
[quote name='starsail85' timestamp='1450553004' post='12740108']
If anybody played in a weak era it was jack

People forget how low everybody started scoring in the late 80s and early 90s . Look at the winning scores in events they all got lower and lower and then a trend of lengthening courses started

if you compare jacks game in his prime to tigers in every department it's not even close woods was a great deal better in every department apart from possibly driving . Short game isn't even close , would Jack even be able to compete with his chipping and sand play on a modern course with fast greens?

In jacks day everybody played safe for 63 holes then went for it

You haven't been able to do that since the mid 80s
[/quote]Jack's era was a different game, with different equipment. Those guys were hitting 3 irons into a 440 yard hole. You can't compare because they were facing different conditions, different challenges, different equipment. All you've got to go on is how they did against the best of their era. Any comparison you try to make is always going to be "out of context". Just like trying to compare Tiger with today's kids. They're all hitting it further than Tiger and the scoring in majors is going lower. The Driver and ball that Tiger used in the mid 90's is nothing like the driver that Rory, Jason, and Jordan are using today. The fields are getting better because of the equipment, the money is bringing in more competition. But, you can judge Tiger by what he accomplished in his era vs what these young guys accomplish in theirs. That's all we've got. 20 years from now Tiger will be in the afterthought category as the new young guns on Tour will be held as being better than Tiger ever could have been.
[/quote]The courses were shorter to accommodate the shorter equipment and the 3 iron they were hitting in was the equivalent of a 5 or 6 iron as so many are fond of saying today. So that long par 4 of 440 is about the equivalent of today's common 500 yarders.

[Shilgy]

[quote name='PouncePony' timestamp='1450561427' post='12740670']
Compare the multiple major winners from both eras....

Palmer - 7
Player - 9
[color=#191919]Ballesteros * - 5 late in the Nicklaus era[/color]
[color=#191919]Watson - 8[/color]
[color=#191919]Trevino - 6[/color]
[color=#191919]Floyd - 4[/color]
[color=#191919]Casper - 3[/color]
[color=#191919]Nelson - 3[/color]
[color=#191919]Irwin - 3[/color]

[color=#191919]Vs[/color]

[color=#191919]Mickelson - 5[/color]
[color=#191919]Els - 4[/color]
[color=#191919]McIlroy - 4 * late in Tiger era[/color]
[color=#191919]Harrington - 3[/color]
[color=#191919]Singh - 3[/color]

Jack had 19 runner up finishes in majors; Tiger has 6.

Tiger's domination is incomparable, but which group of guys would you want to play against for all the marbles? 18 majors and 19 runner ups against that competition. Jack is the best of all time.
[/quote]Back to that logic. Did you know the best players were all born by 1915? 19 of the top 37 all time winners on the PGA tour were. So does that make that the strongest era or maybe the few good players dominated? Kinda like the 60's and 70's era majors being dominated by a few.

[PouncePony]

[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1450562009' post='12740722']
[quote name='PouncePony' timestamp='1450561427' post='12740670']
Compare the multiple major winners from both eras....

Palmer - 7
Player - 9
[color=#191919]Ballesteros * - 5 late in the Nicklaus era[/color]
[color=#191919]Watson - 8[/color]
[color=#191919]Trevino - 6[/color]
[color=#191919]Floyd - 4[/color]
[color=#191919]Casper - 3[/color]
[color=#191919]Nelson - 3[/color]
[color=#191919]Irwin - 3[/color]

[color=#191919]Vs[/color]

[color=#191919]Mickelson - 5[/color]
[color=#191919]Els - 4[/color]
[color=#191919]McIlroy - 4 * late in Tiger era[/color]
[color=#191919]Harrington - 3[/color]
[color=#191919]Singh - 3[/color]

Jack had 19 runner up finishes in majors; Tiger has 6.

Tiger's domination is incomparable, but which group of guys would you want to play against for all the marbles? 18 majors and 19 runner ups against that competition. Jack is the best of all time.
[/quote]Back to that logic. Did you know the best players were all born by 1915? 19 of the top 37 all time winners on the PGA tour were. So does that make that the strongest era or maybe the few good players dominated? Kinda like the 60's and 70's era majors being dominated by a few.
[/quote]

I thought the topic was Tiger vs Jack, not pre and early 20th century golfers.

I guess the Harlem Globe Trotters are the best basket ball team ever.

[Shilgy]

[quote name='PouncePony' timestamp='1450562961' post='12740792']
[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1450562009' post='12740722']
[quote name='PouncePony' timestamp='1450561427' post='12740670']
Compare the multiple major winners from both eras....

Palmer - 7
Player - 9
[color=#191919]Ballesteros * - 5 late in the Nicklaus era[/color]
[color=#191919]Watson - 8[/color]
[color=#191919]Trevino - 6[/color]
[color=#191919]Floyd - 4[/color]
[color=#191919]Casper - 3[/color]
[color=#191919]Nelson - 3[/color]
[color=#191919]Irwin - 3[/color]

[color=#191919]Vs[/color]

[color=#191919]Mickelson - 5[/color]
[color=#191919]Els - 4[/color]
[color=#191919]McIlroy - 4 * late in Tiger era[/color]
[color=#191919]Harrington - 3[/color]
[color=#191919]Singh - 3[/color]

Jack had 19 runner up finishes in majors; Tiger has 6.

Tiger's domination is incomparable, but which group of guys would you want to play against for all the marbles? 18 majors and 19 runner ups against that competition. Jack is the best of all time.
[/quote]Back to that logic. Did you know the best players were all born by 1915? 19 of the top 37 all time winners on the PGA tour were. So does that make that the strongest era or maybe the few good players dominated? Kinda like the 60's and 70's era majors being dominated by a few.
[/quote]

I thought the topic was Tiger vs Jack, not pre and early 20th century golfers.

I guess the Harlem Globe Trotters are the best basket ball team ever.
[/quote]Absolutely. If all that matters is 18-14 then I guess they are. If you want to compare eras by counting Player Seve and Irwin as the same era then let's point out how different eras are dominated by different quantities of players.

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='PouncePony' timestamp='1450561427' post='12740670']
Compare the multiple major winners from both eras....

Palmer - 7
Player - 9
[color=#191919]Ballesteros * - 5 late in the Nicklaus era[/color]
[color=#191919]Watson - 8[/color]
[color=#191919]Trevino - 6[/color]
[color=#191919]Floyd - 4[/color]
[color=#191919]Casper - 3[/color]
[color=#191919]Nelson - 3[/color]
[color=#191919]Irwin - 3[/color]
[color=#191919]Miller -[/color]2
[color=#191919]North - 2[/color]

[color=#191919]Vs[/color]

[color=#191919]Mickelson - 5[/color]
[color=#191919]Els - 4[/color]
[color=#191919]McIlroy - 4 * late in Tiger era[/color]
[color=#191919]Harrington - 3[/color]
[color=#191919]Singh - 3[/color]
Olazabal - 2
Daly - 2
O'Meara - 2
Goosen - 2

Jack had 19 runner up finishes in majors; Tiger has 6.

Tiger's domination is incomparable, but which group of guys would you want to play against for all the marbles? 18 majors and 19 runner ups against that competition. Jack is the best of all time.
[/quote]

Less concentration of Majors amongst a few players is indicative of stronger fields. Making 14, while the closest others had 4 or 5, phenomenal.

And I would not consider Palmer a rival of Jack much. Arnold was 38 when Jack was 27. He won 6 of 7 Majors by end of 1962. Jack won 17 of 18 after 1962.

[PouncePony]

[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1450563430' post='12740820']
Absolutely. If all that matters is 18-14 then I guess they are. If you want to compare eras by counting Player Seve and Irwin as the same era then let's point out how different eras are dominated by different quantities of players.
[/quote]

37 firsts/seconds - 20.

There is no definitive answer. It's subjective. I'm definitely not a Tiger hater, just expressing my thoughts.

[Shilgy]

[quote name='PouncePony' timestamp='1450563969' post='12740856']
[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1450563430' post='12740820']
Absolutely. If all that matters is 18-14 then I guess they are. If you want to compare eras by counting Player Seve and Irwin as the same era then let's point out how different eras are dominated by different quantities of players.
[/quote]

37 firsts/seconds - 20.

There is no definitive answer. It's subjective. I'm definitely not a Tiger hater, just expressing my thoughts.
[/quote]same here.

[starsail85]

Don't see Jack winning by 12 or 15

[hogans71]

[quote name='starsail85' timestamp='1450553004' post='12740108']
If anybody played in a weak era it was jack

People forget how low everybody started scoring in the late 80s and early 90s . Look at the winning scores in events they all got lower and lower and then a trend of lengthening courses started

if you compare jacks game in his prime to tigers in every department it's not even close woods was a great deal better in every department apart from possibly driving . Short game isn't even close , would Jack even be able to compete with his chipping and sand play on a modern course with fast greens?

In jacks day everybody played safe for 63 holes then went for it

You haven't been able to do that since the mid 80s
[/quote]

Didn't Byron Nelson hold the lowest scoring average for a year on Tour until TW surpassed it back in 2000?

[Shilgy]

[quote name='hogans71' timestamp='1450622083' post='12743118']
[quote name='starsail85' timestamp='1450553004' post='12740108']
If anybody played in a weak era it was jack

People forget how low everybody started scoring in the late 80s and early 90s . Look at the winning scores in events they all got lower and lower and then a trend of lengthening courses started

if you compare jacks game in his prime to tigers in every department it's not even close woods was a great deal better in every department apart from possibly driving . Short game isn't even close , would Jack even be able to compete with his chipping and sand play on a modern course with fast greens?

In jacks day everybody played safe for 63 holes then went for it

You haven't been able to do that since the mid 80s
[/quote]

Didn't Byron Nelson hold the lowest scoring average for a year on Tour until TW surpassed it back in 2000?
[/quote]Do you mean this should be a Tiger-Lord Byron thread? ☺

[hogans71]

[quote name='starsail85' timestamp='1450613428' post='12742810']
Don't see Jack winning by 12 or 15
[/quote]

Does larger margin of victory count as two wins?

The notion that JN couldn't achieve superstar status in ANY era is absurd. Like TW, JN is a once in generation talent that would win in any era with any equipment. And win in bunches..

[starsail85]

[quote name='hogans71' timestamp='1450622387' post='12743130']
[quote name='starsail85' timestamp='1450613428' post='12742810']
Don't see Jack winning by 12 or 15
[/quote]

Does larger margin of victory count as two wins?

The notion that JN couldn't achieve superstar status in ANY era is absurd. Like TW, JN is a once in generation talent that would win in any era with any equipment. And win in bunches..
[/quote]

I don't see that Jack had even close to the array of shots you need on a modern tour course. He played on slow greens and there was no need to have any variety and your could get away with real weaknesses

The 12 and 15 comment is aimed at the fact that tiger blew fields away in a way that Jack simply couldn't , there shouldn't even be a question that tiger was a far better player than Jack . Jack has a better record as a complete body of work but then again Harrington has a better major record that Greg Norman

[John L.]

I wonder how many majors Tiger would have won if he a had a few more Rory's and Speith's in his heyday.

Phil and Ernie were about it for........truly great players..

Jack had 8-12 guys who could take him down at any time, and often did so. It was fun watching guys like Casper & Player & Watson & Trevino take down Jack. The Golden Bear was my favorite, but it was fun watching Lee running his mouth at Jack. or Watson dropping bombs on him. Those guys were tough, tenacious, and looked forward to beating Jack.

Players might be overall[b] statistically[/b] better today creating the illusion of deeper fields, but they also have the benefit of better turf conditions, equipment, balls, head shrinks, and fitness training. How did all those changes work out when it came to winning majors? How did all those better modern statistics work out when they had to be paired with Tiger on day 4 of a major? How many other 5-8 time major winners in Tiger's era? Tiger didn't win them all, so what happened to rest of these[b] statistically[/b] better players?

[b]Tiger is great.....no question[/b]. I loved watching him play, and I hope he comes back to win again. But, it was funny to watch most of these [b]statistically better[/b] players of today get paired with Tiger on Sunday's because they knew they were about to get a slow 5 hour ride to Palookaville.

Are there any statistics that can compare a players heart & tenacity between the two era's (?)

[cdnglf]

[quote name='starsail85' timestamp='1450623688' post='12743190']
[quote name='hogans71' timestamp='1450622387' post='12743130']
[quote name='starsail85' timestamp='1450613428' post='12742810']
Don't see Jack winning by 12 or 15
[/quote]

Does larger margin of victory count as two wins?

The notion that JN couldn't achieve superstar status in ANY era is absurd. Like TW, JN is a once in generation talent that would win in any era with any equipment. And win in bunches..
[/quote]

I don't see that Jack had even close to the array of shots you need on a modern tour course. He played on slow greens and there was no need to have any variety and your could get away with real weaknesses
[/quote]

Tiger used all those shots to overcome a real weakness with the driver.

[king_biscuit]

[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1450532787' post='12739000']
[quote name='king_biscuit' timestamp='1450504087' post='12738528']
[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1450499634' post='12738344']
Funny how now guys on here want to say the Tiger era was weak because he dominated. Shows the immense...we'll call it dislike...of Tiger. The era he came up in was just 10 years after Jack's stunning 1986 Masters win. No one thought it was because the era was weak then. And immediately following Jack's win we had the era of the Shark, and Faldo, and Strange and Phil. And no one thought it was weak, in fact it was so competitive that everyone thought domination would not happen again because there was so much talent. To the point where Strange famously told Tiger "you'll learn" when Tiger turned pro and said "second sucks". So now the era is weak because Tiger dominated it? In other sports we celebrate the dynasties but somehow in this one relatively short era we say the champion was no good the competition must have sucked . Unbelievable.
[/quote]

I am not going to go find all the stats again -- already posted in several older threads -- but there is a good argument to be made that Tiger caught the tour at the end of the careers of Faldo, Norman, Langer, Seve, etc., and before the era of the modern athletic players of today. VJ played the various tours since the 80s and only broke out on the PGA Tour during the same era as Tiger, and Phil had a fairly mediocre career with no majors against The Faldos, Normans, etc., but destroyed the same DiMarcos, Mays, and Clemets that Tiger routinely beat up. There is no question in my mind that from the late 90s until the mid 2000s the tour was below average and fairly weak.

One other thing, Tiger was always going to be an exciting player, but compared to say Chris DiMarco he looked like frekin' Elvis
[/quote]Please look at the PGA tour stats year by year and tell me when it got weak. Did they make the courses easy for just one guy? Scoring averages got better and better and yet somehow that indicates weak fields? That super talented crop of players in 1986 had 23 players average under 71 stokes per round, none under 70, and just 92 under 72 strokes. In 2000 there were 77 under 71 and 174 under 72. Is it really, in your opinion, a weak field that led Tiger to average over a stroke a round better than the second place guy? Let's see-more good players and more depth of field makes an era weak...got it.
Again, one player or team dominating does not necessarily mean an era is weak. It can mean that one is just that good.
[/quote]

And the fact that guys in 86 were still playing wooden drivers with heavy steel shafts, and balata balls had noting to do with the scoring differential. I guess I could once again link to the Snedeker and Donald articles were they couldn't break 80 testing 80s era equipment. I guess you think Chris DiMarco was stud too, right?

[starsail85]

[quote name='John L.' timestamp='1450631768' post='12743636']
I wonder how many majors Tiger would have won if he a had a few more Rory's and Speith's in his heyday.

Phil and Ernie were about it for........truly great players..

Jack had 8-12 guys who could take him down at any time, and often did so. It was fun watching guys like Casper & Player & Watson & Trevino take down Jack. The Golden Bear was my favorite, but it was fun watching Lee running his mouth at Jack. or Watson dropping bombs on him. Those guys were tough, tenacious, and looked forward to beating Jack.

Players might be overall[b] statistically[/b] better today creating the illusion of deeper fields, but they also have the benefit of better turf conditions, equipment, balls, head shrinks, and fitness training. How did all those changes work out when it came to winning majors? How did all those better modern statistics work out when they had to be paired with Tiger on day 4 of a major? How many other 5-8 time major winners in Tiger's era? Tiger didn't win them all, so what happened to rest of these[b] statistically[/b] better players?

[b]Tiger is great.....no question[/b]. I loved watching him play, and I hope he comes back to win again. But, it was funny to watch most of these [b]statistically better[/b] players of today get paired with Tiger on Sunday's because they knew they were about to get a slow 5 hour ride to Palookaville.

Are there any statistics that can compare a players heart & tenacity between the two era's (?)
[/quote]

More better players in the last 35 years hence nobody has won as many comparatively

[starsail85]

[quote name='king_biscuit' timestamp='1450632182' post='12743668']
[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1450532787' post='12739000']
[quote name='king_biscuit' timestamp='1450504087' post='12738528']
[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1450499634' post='12738344']
Funny how now guys on here want to say the Tiger era was weak because he dominated. Shows the immense...we'll call it dislike...of Tiger. The era he came up in was just 10 years after Jack's stunning 1986 Masters win. No one thought it was because the era was weak then. And immediately following Jack's win we had the era of the Shark, and Faldo, and Strange and Phil. And no one thought it was weak, in fact it was so competitive that everyone thought domination would not happen again because there was so much talent. To the point where Strange famously told Tiger "you'll learn" when Tiger turned pro and said "second sucks". So now the era is weak because Tiger dominated it? In other sports we celebrate the dynasties but somehow in this one relatively short era we say the champion was no good the competition must have sucked . Unbelievable.
[/quote]

I am not going to go find all the stats again -- already posted in several older threads -- but there is a good argument to be made that Tiger caught the tour at the end of the careers of Faldo, Norman, Langer, Seve, etc., and before the era of the modern athletic players of today. VJ played the various tours since the 80s and only broke out on the PGA Tour during the same era as Tiger, and Phil had a fairly mediocre career with no majors against The Faldos, Normans, etc., but destroyed the same DiMarcos, Mays, and Clemets that Tiger routinely beat up. There is no question in my mind that from the late 90s until the mid 2000s the tour was below average and fairly weak.

One other thing, Tiger was always going to be an exciting player, but compared to say Chris DiMarco he looked like frekin' Elvis
[/quote]Please look at the PGA tour stats year by year and tell me when it got weak. Did they make the courses easy for just one guy? Scoring averages got better and better and yet somehow that indicates weak fields? That super talented crop of players in 1986 had 23 players average under 71 stokes per round, none under 70, and just 92 under 72 strokes. In 2000 there were 77 under 71 and 174 under 72. Is it really, in your opinion, a weak field that led Tiger to average over a stroke a round better than the second place guy? Let's see-more good players and more depth of field makes an era weak...got it.
Again, one player or team dominating does not necessarily mean an era is weak. It can mean that one is just that good.
[/quote]

And the fact that guys in 86 were still playing wooden drivers with heavy steel shafts, and balata balls had noting to do with the scoring differential. I guess I could once again link to the Snedeker and Donald articles were they couldn't break 80 testing 80s era equipment. I guess you think Chris DiMarco was stud too, right?
[/quote]

Faldo and Norman seemed to do ok when they were making all the open championship courses look silly with 63s using wooden drivers

Golfers got a lot better on the tour in the mid to late 80s there is no doubt .

[king_biscuit]

[quote name='starsail85' timestamp='1450632801' post='12743694']
[quote name='John L.' timestamp='1450631768' post='12743636']
I wonder how many majors Tiger would have won if he a had a few more Rory's and Speith's in his heyday.

Phil and Ernie were about it for........truly great players..

Jack had 8-12 guys who could take him down at any time, and often did so. It was fun watching guys like Casper & Player & Watson & Trevino take down Jack. The Golden Bear was my favorite, but it was fun watching Lee running his mouth at Jack. or Watson dropping bombs on him. Those guys were tough, tenacious, and looked forward to beating Jack.

Players might be overall[b] statistically[/b] better today creating the illusion of deeper fields, but they also have the benefit of better turf conditions, equipment, balls, head shrinks, and fitness training. How did all those changes work out when it came to winning majors? How did all those better modern statistics work out when they had to be paired with Tiger on day 4 of a major? How many other 5-8 time major winners in Tiger's era? Tiger didn't win them all, so what happened to rest of these[b] statistically[/b] better players?

[b]Tiger is great.....no question[/b]. I loved watching him play, and I hope he comes back to win again. But, it was funny to watch most of these [b]statistically better[/b] players of today get paired with Tiger on Sunday's because they knew they were about to get a slow 5 hour ride to Palookaville.

Are there any statistics that can compare a players heart & tenacity between the two era's (?)
[/quote]

More better players in the last 35 years hence nobody has won as many comparatively
[/quote]

You could also argue more money in the modern era so players today are not as motivated to actually do what it takes to win. Who knows, it's all speculation. All we have are the records, and clearly Jack and Tiger have the best records. I suspect if you took either of them and put them in any era, gave them time to adjust to the equipment and playing conditions, they would still beat up on the fields. Both were supremely talented, and more importantly had the rare intangible quality of being able to play as well or better on Sunday with the lead as Wednesday in the pro am.

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='cdnglf' timestamp='1450632073' post='12743662']
[quote name='starsail85' timestamp='1450623688' post='12743190']
[quote name='hogans71' timestamp='1450622387' post='12743130']
[quote name='starsail85' timestamp='1450613428' post='12742810']
Don't see Jack winning by 12 or 15
[/quote]

Does larger margin of victory count as two wins?

The notion that JN couldn't achieve superstar status in ANY era is absurd. Like TW, JN is a once in generation talent that would win in any era with any equipment. And win in bunches..
[/quote]

I don't see that Jack had even close to the array of shots you need on a modern tour course. He played on slow greens and there was no need to have any variety and your could get away with real weaknesses
[/quote]

Tiger used all those shots to overcome a real weakness with the driver.
[/quote]

TW was driving best with the steel shafted driver. In 2000 he hit 71% fw.

TW never made the transition well to graphite and huge drivers and this actually hurt him as the competition picked up the advantage with it.


""If I ruled golf? We'd be playing persimmon and balata," he says."

-Tiger Woods

[John L.]

[quote name='starsail85' timestamp='1450623688' post='12743190']
[quote name='hogans71' timestamp='1450622387' post='12743130']
[quote name='starsail85' timestamp='1450613428' post='12742810']
Don't see Jack winning by 12 or 15
[/quote]

Does larger margin of victory count as two wins?

The notion that JN couldn't achieve superstar status in ANY era is absurd. Like TW, JN is a once in generation talent that would win in any era with any equipment. And win in bunches..
[/quote]

I don't see that Jack had even close to the array of shots you need on a modern tour course. He played on slow greens and there was no need to have any variety and your could get away with real weaknesses

The 12 and 15 comment is aimed at the fact that tiger blew fields away in a way that Jack simply couldn't , there shouldn't even be a question that tiger was a far better player than Jack . Jack has a better record as a complete body of work but then again Harrington has a better major record that Greg Norman
[/quote]

Yeah......it was painful to watch Jack putt those slow greens at Augusta National wasn't it? It was painful to watch him struggle with those high draws around the corner at 13 also.... setting up for all those birdies & eagles.

[b]Didn't have the array of shots?[/b] Where did you get that from? One of the longest straightest drivers of all time. Probably the best long iron player that ever lived, or close to it. He preferred a fade, but played a nice draw when he needed to, but you never hear about it because his people were in awe of a high fade going so far. One of the best clutch putters of all time.

[John L.]

[quote name='starsail85' timestamp='1450632801' post='12743694']
[quote name='John L.' timestamp='1450631768' post='12743636']
I wonder how many majors Tiger would have won if he a had a few more Rory's and Speith's in his heyday.

Phil and Ernie were about it for........truly great players..

Jack had 8-12 guys who could take him down at any time, and often did so. It was fun watching guys like Casper & Player & Watson & Trevino take down Jack. The Golden Bear was my favorite, but it was fun watching Lee running his mouth at Jack. or Watson dropping bombs on him. Those guys were tough, tenacious, and looked forward to beating Jack.

Players might be overall[b] statistically[/b] better today creating the illusion of deeper fields, but they also have the benefit of better turf conditions, equipment, balls, head shrinks, and fitness training. How did all those changes work out when it came to winning majors? How did all those better modern statistics work out when they had to be paired with Tiger on day 4 of a major? How many other 5-8 time major winners in Tiger's era? Tiger didn't win them all, so what happened to rest of these[b] statistically[/b] better players?

[b]Tiger is great.....no question[/b]. I loved watching him play, and I hope he comes back to win again. But, it was funny to watch most of these [b]statistically better[/b] players of today get paired with Tiger on Sunday's because they knew they were about to get a slow 5 hour ride to Palookaville.

Are there any statistics that can compare a players heart & tenacity between the two era's (?)
[/quote]

More better players in the last 35 years hence nobody has won as many comparatively
[/quote]

Not in Majors.

[king_biscuit]

[quote name='starsail85' timestamp='1450632991' post='12743708']
[quote name='king_biscuit' timestamp='1450632182' post='12743668']
[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1450532787' post='12739000']
[quote name='king_biscuit' timestamp='1450504087' post='12738528']
[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1450499634' post='12738344']
Funny how now guys on here want to say the Tiger era was weak because he dominated. Shows the immense...we'll call it dislike...of Tiger. The era he came up in was just 10 years after Jack's stunning 1986 Masters win. No one thought it was because the era was weak then. And immediately following Jack's win we had the era of the Shark, and Faldo, and Strange and Phil. And no one thought it was weak, in fact it was so competitive that everyone thought domination would not happen again because there was so much talent. To the point where Strange famously told Tiger "you'll learn" when Tiger turned pro and said "second sucks". So now the era is weak because Tiger dominated it? In other sports we celebrate the dynasties but somehow in this one relatively short era we say the champion was no good the competition must have sucked . Unbelievable.
[/quote]

I am not going to go find all the stats again -- already posted in several older threads -- but there is a good argument to be made that Tiger caught the tour at the end of the careers of Faldo, Norman, Langer, Seve, etc., and before the era of the modern athletic players of today. VJ played the various tours since the 80s and only broke out on the PGA Tour during the same era as Tiger, and Phil had a fairly mediocre career with no majors against The Faldos, Normans, etc., but destroyed the same DiMarcos, Mays, and Clemets that Tiger routinely beat up. There is no question in my mind that from the late 90s until the mid 2000s the tour was below average and fairly weak.

One other thing, Tiger was always going to be an exciting player, but compared to say Chris DiMarco he looked like frekin' Elvis
[/quote]Please look at the PGA tour stats year by year and tell me when it got weak. Did they make the courses easy for just one guy? Scoring averages got better and better and yet somehow that indicates weak fields? That super talented crop of players in 1986 had 23 players average under 71 stokes per round, none under 70, and just 92 under 72 strokes. In 2000 there were 77 under 71 and 174 under 72. Is it really, in your opinion, a weak field that led Tiger to average over a stroke a round better than the second place guy? Let's see-more good players and more depth of field makes an era weak...got it.
Again, one player or team dominating does not necessarily mean an era is weak. It can mean that one is just that good.
[/quote]

And the fact that guys in 86 were still playing wooden drivers with heavy steel shafts, and balata balls had noting to do with the scoring differential. I guess I could once again link to the Snedeker and Donald articles were they couldn't break 80 testing 80s era equipment. I guess you think Chris DiMarco was stud too, right?
[/quote]

Faldo and Norman seemed to do ok when they were making all the open championship courses look silly with 63s using wooden drivers

Golfers got a lot better on the tour in the mid to late 80s there is no doubt .
[/quote]

Jack shot 63 in the 80 US open -- so did Weiskoff. Miller did it in the US Open in 73. There were others in the 80s and pre 86. That doesn't change the fact that the older equipment was harder to use. Also, the greens are much more consistent today. The equipment and better turf conditions simply make scoring easier today that at any other time in golf. You can prove this to yourself by heading down to the thrift store and picking up a persimmon driver to use for a few rounds -- but to really get experience, you would need to grab some new old stock balata balls and ask the green keeper to cut all of the greens at slightly different heights

[John L.]

[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1450633187' post='12743724']
[quote name='cdnglf' timestamp='1450632073' post='12743662']
[quote name='starsail85' timestamp='1450623688' post='12743190']
[quote name='hogans71' timestamp='1450622387' post='12743130']
[quote name='starsail85' timestamp='1450613428' post='12742810']
Don't see Jack winning by 12 or 15
[/quote]

Does larger margin of victory count as two wins?

The notion that JN couldn't achieve superstar status in ANY era is absurd. Like TW, JN is a once in generation talent that would win in any era with any equipment. And win in bunches..
[/quote]

I don't see that Jack had even close to the array of shots you need on a modern tour course. He played on slow greens and there was no need to have any variety and your could get away with real weaknesses
[/quote]

Tiger used all those shots to overcome a real weakness with the driver.
[/quote]

TW was driving best with the steel shafted driver. In 2000 he hit 71% fw.

TW never made the transition well to graphite and huge drivers and this actually hurt him as the competition picked up the advantage with it.


""If I ruled golf? We'd be playing persimmon and balata," he says."

-Tiger Woods
[/quote]

I agree. I thought Tiger drove very well in his early years. Some of his driving in the US Amateur was fun to watch.