GOAT 2012 v 2025

[kp17]

Tiger loses points for coming up with TGL, but even then he's still right up there in contention. He was untouchable for long periods of time in his prime.

Good point forgot about TGL. Nicklaus hands down now.

 

[Hobbit]

As I touched upon in my earlier post, Nicklaus's greater number of top tens just points to how much weaker the fields were, and very little else.

Or he was better than the others. Bearing in mind how many wins he had I’d expect him to be well up in the top 10’s.

The stats can be spun either way, and either way can be right.

One thing that I’ve never seen mentioned when comparisons are drawn is that the top players Woods & Nichlaus were playing against in their early years aren’t necessarily the same ones they would have played against 15-20 years later.

 

[Voyager EMH]

As I touched upon in my earlier post, Nicklaus's greater number of top tens just points to how much weaker the fields were, and very little else.

I see it as the other way round. Tiger's opposition was not as deep or strong as Nicklaus's. Tiger exploited a shorter timespan of weaker fields than Nicklaus faced.

The great players that Tiger faced early in his major winning years learnt to play a game of wooden woods and blades. Their style of play was based on that type of game.
Tiger blew them away with a game based on big drives. Faldo, Norman, Els, Ballaesteros etc could not catch up. Tiger then led the field of top pros that had basically been cut in half.

Tiger won 2000 British open by 8 shots. The field was weak in his wake. Nicklaus era was far closer and stronger fields of very good players.

 

[Orikoru]

I see it as the other way round. Tiger's opposition was not as deep or strong as Nicklaus's. Tiger exploited a shorter timespan of weaker fields than Nicklaus faced.

The great players that Tiger faced early in his major winning years learnt to play a game of wooden woods and blades. Their style of play was based on that type of game.
Tiger blew them away with a game based on big drives. Faldo, Norman, Els, Ballaesteros etc could not catch up. Tiger then led the field of top pros that had basically been cut in half.

Tiger won 2000 British open by 8 shots. The field was weak in his wake. Nicklaus era was far closer and stronger fields of very good players.

But these players are already better than most of the players Nicklaus was up against. Add Singh and Mickelson to that. If Mickelson had played in Nicklaus' era, he would have had 10 or 12 majors.

 

[Slab]

I’m not even sure I understand the fascination with finding out who a goat might be

Even if its just me proclaiming in the clubhouse after a few drinks that xyz was the best player & a PP says no you’re wrong it was abc
Firstly that’s just the opinions of a couple of fellas in the pub and counts for nought

In fact the only opinion worth any consideration is from those fellas under consideration as the goat (even then I doubt I’d trust their answer to be unbiased)

 

[Lord Tyrion]

But these players are already better than most of the players Nicklaus was up against. Add Singh and Mickelson to that. If Mickelson had played in Nicklaus' era, he would have had 10 or 12 majors.

Nope, He would still have blown up by going for a miracle shot or spraying his driver around. Mickleson's lack of majors is largely down to himself and that doesn't change because the era is different.

 

[Hobbit]

But these players are already better than most of the players Nicklaus was up against. Add Singh and Mickelson to that. If Mickelson had played in Nicklaus' era, he would have had 10 or 12 majors.

Are they? And you know because?

I don’t know either way. I’ve watched the professionals from the early 70’s, and I’ve seen some from that era have stellar rounds on a par with the current top pros. Some of them were very Rory-esque. Palmer, Norman & Miller being prime examples. They could destroy a course with ridiculously low rounds, occasionally all 4 and sometimes for several weeks running.

The only differences between then and now is the equipment, their fitness and course length.

 

[Slab]

Are they? And you know because?

I don’t know either way. I’ve watched the professionals from the early 70’s, and I’ve seen some from that era have stellar rounds on a par with the current top pros. Some of them were very Rory-esque. Palmer, Norman & Miller being prime examples. They could destroy a course with ridiculously low rounds, occasionally all 4 and sometimes for several weeks running.

The only differences between then and now is the equipment, their fitness and course length.

You say 'only' but the player, their kit and the course kinda covers just about everything there is in the game of golf

 

[Hobbit]

You say 'only' but the player, their kit and the course kinda covers just about everything there is in the game of golf

But the crucial factor, which I didn’t list, is ability. In my view the best of yesteryear are as good as today. In fact, I believe the best worker of the ball from the eras I’ve watched is Ballesteros closely followed by Trevino. Woods is definitely up there, and easily better than Nichlaus in that respect.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

But the crucial factor, which I didn’t list, is ability. In my view the best of yesteryear are as good as today. In fact, I believe the best worker of the ball from the eras I’ve watched is Ballesteros closely followed by Trevino. Woods is definitely up there, and easily better than Nichlaus in that respect.

Nicklaus knew how to work the ball into the hole well enough .That's the only thing that matters. Did Jack not have to work the ball so much because he wasn't wild? Before my time so I have not seen him play.

 

[Hobbit]

Nicklaus knew how to work the ball into the hole well enough .That's the only thing that matters. Did Jack not have to work the ball so much because he wasn't wild? Before my time so I have not seen him play.

You hit the nail. He was straighter. That said, his shot into the 72nd green a Turnberry in 77 out of a scabby lie was stunning.

 

[Slab]

But the crucial factor, which I didn’t list, is ability. In my view the best of yesteryear are as good as today. In fact, I believe the best worker of the ball from the eras I’ve watched is Ballesteros closely followed by Trevino. Woods is definitely up there, and easily better than Nichlaus in that respect.

With the clubs/balls they had back then I think the yesteryear guys would struggle to play any straight shot back in the day so they had little choice but to hit shapes

 

[Hobbit]

With the clubs/balls they had back then I think the yesteryear guys would struggle to play any straight shot back in the day so they had little choice but to hit shapes

I had no problem shaping a balata but 9 times out of 10 it was unintentional.

 

[sunshine]

I think a reasonable comparator of levels across eras is the scoring averages.
Hogan & Snead were scoring sub 69.50 over a full season in the late 1940s with inferior equipment and less manicured courses but with a clear requirement to offset that with lengthening of courses in modern day.
This scoring at the top wasn’t matched until in 1990s.

Good scoring will stand the test of time sometimes even over wins.

Very difficult to definitively resolve.

I think scoring average works when you are looking at the last 30 years, but it falls apart when you go back beyond that because the course and the equipment are not comparable.

- Hogan had inferior equipment, but he was playing courses 1000 yards shorter than today. Does equipment make up 1000 yards of advantage? I have no idea.
- Big technology advantage for the long game, but less impact on putting and chipping, which is around half the shots in a round.
- Today's pros play perfectly manicured fairways which has got to improve ball striking. Perfect bunkers especially help them get up and down more easily. But then I bet the rough is much thicker today, and fairways are narrower.
- Greens were slower in the old days so easier to read and hole putts. But also more bobbles.
- Pins are all tucked away much more than they used to be. I went to the Open in 2000 and the pins were no way near as tough as they were the last time the event was at St Andrews in 2022.

 

[Voyager EMH]

But these players are already better than most of the players Nicklaus was up against. Add Singh and Mickelson to that. If Mickelson had played in Nicklaus' era, he would have had 10 or 12 majors.

I don't think that adds anything to a case for Nicklaus facing weaker fields than Woods.

Jack's first Major was 1962 US Open beating Palmer in a playoff.
By the end of 1962 Palmer's Major tally was 6 and he remained competitive through to 1970 tied 2nd in the PGA.
By 1962 Player had won 3 Majors and won his last Major in 1978.
Palmer and Player were 10 years and 5 years older than Jack and were the established dominant players that he overcame through the 1960s.
Trevino was a great competitor and around the same age as Jack.
In the 1970s Nicklaus faced opposition from younger players that came along such as, Floyd, Miller, Jacklin, Watson and many more.
Late 1970s into the 80s saw Faldo, Norman, Ballesteros, Els, winning Majors, but Jack was able to compete with them and win 3 Majors in the 1980s.

Jack finished in the top 10 in the Masters from 1970 to 1979. Ten years.
Jack finished in the top 6 in the British Open from 1966 to 1980. Fifteen years.
Tiger's best run in one Major was top 10 in the Masters from 2005 to 2011. Seven years.

Through the 1960s, 1970s and into the 1980s, Jack can in no way be described as facing weaker fields than Tiger did in his era.
As a young player, he overcame the established players fairly quickly and took on all opposition that came his way in the following 20 years. These were not weak fields.
I watched golf on TV fairly avidly from late 1960s onwards.
Tiger's most dominant period was very impressive.
Jack's was longer and more impressive.
Tiger's Masters win in 2019 was an incredible comeback feat after his problem years. For me, a truly great and inspiring golfing achievement.
Jack never needed a comeback .

 

[IanM]

Anyone thinking Nicklaus didnt play against strong opposition, probably wasn't around to watch it!

Smells a bit like the thinking that there was no valid football before 1992.

 

[evemccc]

Jack had nowhere near the level of competition that Tiger did. Not even close. There were some greats, but it could be argued they won so much because the talent pool was so shallow. The talent pool is even deeper now than when Tigers was in his prime.

You can only play and dominate (as both Tiger and obvs Jack did) those in the field against you..Obvs it’s one thing you cannot control

However…for sure the talent pool is now vastly greater now then it is compared to Tiger’s pomp, of the early to mid 00s.

What Scheffler is doing is fantastic. What Tiger and Jack did was also fantastic.

 

[Orikoru]

Anyone thinking Nicklaus didnt play against strong opposition, probably wasn't around to watch it!

Smells a bit like the thinking that there was no valid football before 1992.

I said it already, but it's not literally about going man for man who was better than who. It's a fact that as a sport grows, money involved grows, participation grows, and therefore the strength of the field as a whole is automatically better. Because it comes from a much wider pool. Whoever the 40th best golfer was in 1970 was probably not as good as the 40th best golfer now. Just like the 20th best football team in 1970 would get pumped by the 20th best team now.

 

[irip]

I think this very much depends on when you were born.
If you remember as a kid FA cup finals were much better, cars were much better, life was a lot simpler.

Why would golf be different?

 

[D-S]

I think this very much depends on when you were born.
If you remember as a kid FA cup finals were much better, cars were much better, life was a lot simpler.

Why would golf be different?

I think the fact that cars were simpler is undeniably true - better? bit of a stretch. I know which era of car I would like to make a long journey in.