Jack's Record Is Safe

[BDKiiing]

Re: Jack's Record Is Safe

There's absolutely no question that today's field is exponentially better. When Jack played there was maybe 8-10 players who could go out and win each week. Now there's 30-40 players that could go out and give it a run. And the field gets better and better every year. Look at the additions of Wolff, Morikawa, and Hovland. No question golf's talent pool is at its absolute greatest.

[pietasterp]

Re: Jack's Record Is Safe

There's absolutely no question that today's field is exponentially better.

I would say there's plenty of question about that, as this thread (and many other threads on other golf forums) would attest.

When Jack played there was maybe 8-10 players who could go out and win each week.

Can you offer any objective proof of this statement?

[BDKiiing]

Re: Jack's Record Is Safe

I would say there's plenty of question about that, as this thread (and many other threads on other golf forums) would attest.



Can you offer any objective proof of this statement?

Well considering how may first time major winners, and the different winners every week, and the college kids coming in. And the fact that literally anyone in the top 50 golfers in the OWGR could go out and win any week. Can't say there was every a time in golf where that was true.

[pietasterp]

Re: Jack's Record Is Safe

Well considering how may first time major winners, and the different winners every week, and the college kids coming in. And the fact that literally anyone in the top 50 golfers in the OWGR could go out and win any week. Can't say there was every a time in golf where that was true.

I think we're having a difference of opinion on what constitutes the definition of a fact.

From 1962-1972, there were 474 tournaments and a total of 329 yearly individual winners.

From 1997-2007 there were 519 tournaments and a total of 369 yearly individual winners.

Percentage-wise, the eras are extremely close. Dividing the winners number by the total tournaments gives us 69% for the Nicklaus era and 71% for the Tiger era. To further clarify, if 100 tournaments were played in the Nicklaus era, you would likely see 69 different winners. In the Tiger era you would likely see 71 different winners over 100 tournaments. Not a big difference.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1687496-the-myth-of-deeper-pga-tour-fields-during-tiger-woods-era

[BDKiiing]

Re: Jack's Record Is Safe

I think we're having a difference of opinion on what constitutes the definition of a fact.

From 1962-1972, there were 474 tournaments and a total of 329 yearly individual winners.

From 1997-2007 there were 519 tournaments and a total of 369 yearly individual winners.

Percentage-wise, the eras are extremely close. Dividing the winners number by the total tournaments gives us 69% for the Nicklaus era and 71% for the Tiger era. To further clarify, if 100 tournaments were played in the Nicklaus era, you would likely see 69 different winners. In the Tiger era you would likely see 71 different winners over 100 tournaments. Not a big difference.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...iger-woods-era

While that is fine and all. That's during Tiger's run. I'm talking about today's game.


I'll keep it simple.



From 1962-1972. 44 Majors occurred during that time frame. There were 23 different major winners during that stretch. Admirable number.



Now let's look at 2009-2019. "Today's game". Oddly enough, also 44 Majors during that stretch. But, let's take a look. There were 33. I repeat 33 unique major winners during that stretch. 27 of those 33 were first time winners.



Since this is a thread about majors, I thought it'd be a fair judging.

[pietasterp]

Re: Jack's Record Is Safe

Yes, I think that's fair. I'd say the only issue is that when you get small numbers of events, true incidence rates tend to be less accurately represented. 44 is verging on a pretty small 'N', but nevertheless, I can appreciate your point.

[lowpaiddonkey10]

Re: Jack's Record Is Safe

There are more very good players foreign and domestic that play top flight golf in American colleges. No one even gets close to what Tiger and Jack have done in the majors. Even duplicating what a great player like Palmer did will be tough and no one can argue he is among the 10 best of all time.

[scagwi]

Re: Jack's Record Is Safe

We could go in circles on this topic, literally forever, and never come to any agreement.

[kehlis]

Re: Jack's Record Is Safe

We could go in circles on this topic, literally forever, and never come to any agreement.

Well, if nothing, at least it's as consistent here as it is on the rest of the site in that matter.

[scagwi]

Re: Jack's Record Is Safe

Well, if nothing, at least it's as consistent here as it is on the rest of the site in that matter.

Very true.

[pietasterp]

Re: Jack's Record Is Safe

We could go in circles on this topic, literally forever, and never come to any agreement.

Isn't that sort of the point of an internet forum?

I think it makes for interesting discussion and as long as people bring informed, interesting opinions that are hopefully fact-based (or as much as possible on what is essentially a pure opinion question), and do it in a respectful manner, it's all just good interweb-argument fun (aka time-wasting). Some people/forums do this better than others, and I'd say this one does it about as well as any other one on the site (and much better than a few....).

[tuckermaine]

Re: Jack's Record Is Safe

Steroids and bangin' have finally caught up with Tiger!

Agreed that his lifestyle has taken its toll, however 4 back surgeries, multiple knee surgeries has also taken his toll.
Personally I look at Tiger for his accomplishments for the game of golf itself..because of him Majors champions ect have reaped more money..more endorsements...he is in a way as Ali was for boxing, Bobby Orr for hockey.
His presence in his prime brought many people who had moderate interest in golf to full attention...

[lowpaiddonkey10]

Re: Jack's Record Is Safe

Another year older and what do you get? Schedule is death for Tiger. Clock is ticking ever more loudly. Watching the tournament this week you can see the odds for TW are slim and none and as they say slim just left town. Great run though.

[ImTellinTim]

Re: Jack's Record Is Safe

Another year older and what do you get? Schedule is death for Tiger. Clock is ticking ever more loudly. Watching the tournament this week you can see the odds for TW are slim and none and as they say slim just left town. Great run though.

He was hitting the ball just fine for the most part. Couldn’t make any putts. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen him misread that many short to mid range putts. I thought it was actually encouraging. Even finished with a strong -3 round.

[speels]

Re: Jack's Record Is Safe

He was hitting the ball just fine for the most part. Couldn’t make any putts. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen him misread that many short to mid range putts. I thought it was actually encouraging. Even finished with a strong -3 round.

He was working with a new putter that was actually longer than his previous one so that could have been the big issue. Changing your sight line can cause a problem with reading greens. I would imagine with another bunch of practice with the new putter he will be fine. I felt like he easily missed about 8-10 putts throughout the weekend that he would normally make, which would have put him in contention.