irip
Head Pro
Oh I agree but if given the choice of the car now or the one in 30 years time I would take the future car.
It doesn’t make it better just different
GOAT 2012 v 2025
- Thread starter Highfade
- Start date
It doesn’t make it better just different
IanM
Journeyman Pro
- Joined
- May 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,632
- Location
- Monmouthshire, UK via Guildford!
IanM
Journeyman Pro
- Joined
- May 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,632
- Location
- Monmouthshire, UK via Guildford!
irip
Head Pro
That’s just the same car with a new number plateUnless its the new iteration of the Ford Capri!!!
Out of curiosity I’ve been looking at the stats between the players from the 60’s & 70’s compared to now. It extremely difficult to do a fair comparison. Different equipment & different balls. FIR & GIR stats are available but, again, you’re looking at driving distances being shorter due to the equipment. But shorter courses too.
Winning scores in the Majors are significantly different with winners often having a round or two around 70+.
There are so many different variables, I don’t think it’s possible to do an accurate comparison. I also think, reading some of the posts, that there’s a bias based on the respective ages of posters.
But I challenge anyone to say the 1977 duel in the sun isn’t as good as anything we see today.
Orikoru
Tour Winner
That's different to saying Faldo was better than Jacklin or whatever. I'm talking about the field as a whole being stronger in later years. Comparing the top handful of players from each era isn't it.Maybe I've misunderstood?
Orikoru
Tour Winner
Everything you're saying is true, which is why I reiterate that the only thing we can say with any certainty, is that participation has grown exponentially, therefore the field HAS to be stronger now than it was then. (Or stronger in 2000 than it was in 1960-70.)
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
Got to be recognised as a truly dominant period.
He won the Grand Slam of Majors 4 years in a row. (1871 is not counted as no Majors were played)
Bob Fergusson also worth a mention. Grand Slam 3 years in a row and runner up the following year.
But not much of a world-wide field in those years, I will have to say.
I kinda agree with your post but I’ll add another reason why some weren’t as good, especially Brits/Europeans. The money wasn’t in the game, nor did the European season extend much into the autumn. Quite a number of European tour players played in South Africa in the winter.
Some lower end players slept in cars or caravans when touring, and some caddies were known to find a barn.
However, the top players earned enough to travel and stay comfortably.
rulie
Head Pro
Imo, any of the stats that involve money, other than standings within the respective money lists, is irrelevant.
The duel in the sun was spectacular golf by Nicklaus and Watson. Everyone else was in the second flight.
I can’t remember the gap to 3rd but I think it was around 9(?) shots. Watson shot 65-65 in the last 36 holes to Nichlaus’s 65-66… I think.
Wasn’t it the Aussie who lost an arm to an aircraft prop that cam 3rd?
rulie
Head Pro
Checking the results, it was Hubert Green that finished third, ten shots behind. Then it was Lee Trevino, Ben Crenshaw, Arnold Palmer, Ray Floyd, Tommy Horton and Johnny Miller.
Pretty good second flight!
Pretty good second flight!
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
Age difference was 35 years
Open for debate, maybe.
Thirty five years apart. 1965 to 1980 compared with 2000 to 2015.
Were fields stronger or weaker for these two guys to overcome them?
Think about the top 50 or 100 players in the world at that time.
I say Jack faced the tougher challenge most times when playing Majors. Far more often the challenge to Tiger was very weak.
fenwayrich
Assistant Pro
I was there, aged 20. I followed Jack for all 4 rounds! It was truly captivating. Didn't Hubert Green claim that he won the tournament, because Jack and Tom were playing a different game altogether? Happy days
rulie
Head Pro
Lucky you!I was there, aged 20. I followed Jack for all 4 rounds! It was truly captivating. Didn't Hubert Green claim that he won the tournament, because Jack and Tom were playing a different game altogether? Happy days
Yes, Green and others said that!
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
What I remember from the 18th green scenes on the final day Open 1977 is how much respect was shown to each other when the 10-years-ish younger player won.
Saw a similar thing at this year's Masters.
Two great golfing moments.
Saw a similar thing at this year's Masters.
Two great golfing moments.
fenwayrich
Assistant Pro
Indeed. In 1977, after Jack's 30ft birdie putt, he actually held his hands up for the crowd to be quiet so Tom could tap in his two-footer for victory.
It's still, in the main, a classy game.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
And 15 years earlier in 1962, Arnold lost the US Open in a playoff to the 10-years younger Jack. Jack's first Major.
Arnold had already won the Masters that year and went on to win The Open by a big margin. Player won the PGA.
The Big Three had started.
sunshine
Well-known member
When I've seen videos of the swings of the greats of the game, Nickaus, Palmer etc, their ball striking just looks nowhere near as good as Tiger's. Tiger in his prime 20 years ago was striking it way better than his contemporaries. I think the top players today have caught up, young players today like Aberg etc are striping it like Tiger.
This is progress, evolution of athleticism. If you pay out millions of dollars every week, the talent pool grows and the skill required to win increases. Orikoru and Hobbit have both made this point.
This is progress, evolution of athleticism. If you pay out millions of dollars every week, the talent pool grows and the skill required to win increases. Orikoru and Hobbit have both made this point.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
And Jack's ball striking was far better than Vardon's or Hagen's.
But Jack's equipment was better than theirs as well.
This does not diminish those earlier players' achievements in their time. They were better than their contemporaries.
Jack was better than his contemporaries. Tiger was better than his contemporaries.
But Jack's dominance from the early 1960s into the 1980s has exceeded any of these other great players from all eras - so far.
The contemporary players that each faces and the standard of equipment used, are fixed in those different time periods.
But to state, " played against weaker fields", is not a valid criticism of Vardon, Hagen, Nicklaus, and does mark them down when considering the best players of all time.
All played against the best players in the world in their time.
Jack played against more great players because of his timespan. This, and the number of Major wins, puts him at the top - so far.
