Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 06 Mar 2007 12:04:23
From: David
Subject: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

Okay, all of this talk about which era of players was as a group
better, I have done a bit of research. I am going to refer to 2
ear--Nicklaus and Woods. What came before this would be just as
interesting, I am sure; however, this is directed at the comments made
during the Nicklaus interview on Sunday.

I begin this post with "the Nicklaus Era." I have selected the best
golfers of his day and compiled some numbers. These are all golfers
who were playing peak golf at some point during Nicklaus career. Most
of these golfers were playing their best golf right in the middle of
Nicklaus' career. For purposes of this demonstration, the era runs
from 1962--though it could have started as early as 1958, had Nicklaus
decided not to finish at university--through his Master's win in 1986,
although his peak was really over around 1982, when he had already
been playing on the tour fo 20 years.
r
Nicklaus played in his first Masters in 1958. Arnold Palmer joined
the PGA Tour in 1954 and won his first event in 1955--the Canadian
Open. Palmer was playing on the tour for 7 years when Nicklaus joined
the tour in 1962.

Between 1960 and 1962, Palmer won 29 events. Around half of his PGA
Tour victories, a total of 61, came during the Nicklaus era. Palmer
won 8 major events during his career. The total number of events that
Pamler won was 92. Between 1960 and 1965, the only golfer other than
Palmer or Nicklaus to win the Master's was Gary Player, who won in
1961. In a seven year span, Palmer won the Green Jacket four times,
and if not for a disastrous 18th hole, would have won 5 times during
that period.

Gary Player turned pro in 1957. He won 9 major titles, had 24
victories on the PGA Tour and more than 120 other victories worldwide.
It is estimated that he has travelled more than 14 million miles
during his international career. He won his last Master's title in
1978. He was seven strokes behind the leaders after the third round.
He birdied 7 of the last 10 holes fora 30 on the back nine for a final
round total of 64. Reminiscent of someone else's great back nine to
win at Augusta.

Billy Casper, between the years 1964 and 1970, won 27 of his total
51 victories on the PGA Tour. He was the winningest golfer during
this period. He also won three majors. He won the Vardon Trophy five
times between 1960 and 1968. In 1968, he won six times on the tour.

Lee Trevino joined the tour in 1967. He is the only player in
history to hold three national championships in the same calendar year
when, in 1971, he won the US Open, the Canadian Open and the British
Open. He won ten times between 1971 and 1972. In 1975, he was struck
by lightening and had injury to his back and spine and had to undergo
surgery. He was not ever able to fully recover from this injury, yet,
he still won 29 times on the PGA Tour, including six majors. His last
major came in 1984, when he won the PGA Championship at the age of 44.
His total number of victories was 49.

Johnny Miller was like a supernova event. He won his first event in
1971. In 1973, in the final round of the US Open at Oakmont, he
played what many consider to be one of the finest rounds of golf ever
produced when he shot a 63 and came from 6 shots back to win. The
players he had to pass included, Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, Gary
Player and Lee Trevino. In 1974, he won 8 events and between 1974 and
1976 he won a total of 15 events. In all, Miller won 25 PGA Tour
events, including two major titles. He had 29 wins total. He lost
his form and devoted his time to his family after that.

Tom Watson was the #1 ranked golfer in the world from 1978-1982. In
1983 and 1984, he was a close second to the Spaniard, Seve
Ballesteros. His major victories over a peaking Nicklaus are
legendary and if you are not old enough to have witnessed them live,
you missed out what may have been some of the best golf ever played.
Watson won 39 times on the PGA Tour, including 8 major titles. His
last victory was at the Mastercard Colonial, at the age of 48. In
2003, he had took the opening lead at the US Open, at the age of 54.
His most recent appearance on the PGA Tour, the ATT Pebble Beach,
shows that Watson still has plenty of game. If his putting had not
left him during the late 80's, he would have won more.

During the Nicklaus era, there were many more golfers who won on the
tour who have not been mentioned. Hale Irwin (20 PGA wins, 30 total
wins, 3 US Opens), Raymond Floyd (22 PGA wins, 10 other wins, 4 major
titles), Seve Ballesteros (9 PGA wins, 49 Euro wins, 5 major wins),
Tom Weiskopf (16 PGA Tour wins, 1 major--and had one of the greatest
swings in golf), to name a few.

Nicklaus career has been hashed over many time and to post the
numbers here would be redundant. All of the players mentioned played
top quailty golf during the Nicklaus era. For Nicklaus to post his
amazing numbers during this time should only strengten the idea that
the competition was extremely tough.

The "Woods Era" is, of course, far from over. He has been playing
on the PGA Tour now for 11 years. During this time, many other
golfers have had an opportunity to entrench their names in the annals
of golfing history.

The only two players who can come close to any of the golfers
mentioned above are Mickelson and Singh. Singh, however, has been a
professional golfer for over 20 years, although he only began playing
the PGA Tour regularly 15 years ago.

Since Woods plays carefully selected events--much the same way that
Nicklaus did, although Jack's numbers are deceiving--there has been
more than ample time for other players to shine. The fact that other
players have not stepped up to the plate and taken a swing does not
lead to the conclusion that the fields are deepers and anyone can win,
but that the players mentioned above were all exceptional golfer and
simply did not allow other golfers to sneak in an occasional win.

When talking about the "hardness" of a player, it is, in my opinion,
the above statistics which should be taken in to account. Remember,
while the workhorses of the 60's and 70's were going about their
business, Jack was still running up amazing numbers.

From the mid 80's to the mid 90's, the argument that the field was
deeper than the field today is probably more true. Norman, Faldo,
Price, Strange, Olazabal, Payne Stewart, Zoeller,Tom Kite, to name a
few, were the dominant golfers between the Nicklaus' and Woods' era.
As Woods came on to the scene, these golfers had already peaked. Add
to that, none of these golfers could approach the numbers posted by
the golfers named at the beginning of this post.

I make the contention here that what Miller said during the Sunday
broadcast, although poorly stated, does ring of truth. How many times
during the broadcast did we here a statement concerning some golfer
who has the potential and why they don't win, or win more often, was
the question?

I refer back to the quote by Weekly, "if it is not meant to be...."
The golfers today already go in to the weekend thinking they don't
have a chance and the result is that they don't win. The golfers
today, by virtue of improvements in equipment technology are playing
better golf. This does not make them better golfers than the golfers
during the Nicklaus era.

During the Nicklaus era, any golfer could have won on any given
weekend as easily as today. If you cannot expect to win when one
golfer dominates, how can you expect to win when six, or seven golfer
are totally dominating the sport?

The task, should anyone choose to accept it, is to name five current
golfers who you may think will end up having the careers of the
golfers metioned at the beginning of the post during the Woods Era.
There are many golfers playing regularly on the PGA Tour who have been
playing as long as Woods, or longer. Who will present the ultimate
challenge to Woods over the next 10 years?

If you can beat Woods once, you should be able to beat him again.
Stenson has been doing well lately. CHIII may finally be coming in to
his own--a player who five years ago was being projected as one of the
next great players on the Tour. Can Garcia find a way to elevate his
game to its fullest potential? Will Mickelson find a way to win 50
tournaments in his career? Singh may have been able to do it, but he
started very late on the PGA Tour (fueled by an "incident") and time
is running out on him.

So, who's it going to be, if anyone? When I compare Nicklaus career
to Woods career, I will always have the though in the back of my mind
that the competition was indeed much tougher during Jack's reign.
Until a couple of players can step up, win a bunch of tournaments (at
least 30) and throw in a few majors, Woods' competition was simply not
as good. As a headstart, you already have Mickelson and Singh to
choose from. Of course, Singh had a huge headstart and Phil also had
about a five year headstart on Woods.

David

Date: 10 Mar 2007 07:23:56
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 10, 3:34 am, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>
> He didn't have close to Weiskopf's core talent, either. Core talent
> and a dollar will buy you a coke.

The Oldest Member often says that if you watched Weiskopf on the
practice range next to Nicklaus (which the OM has done), there is no
way you'd ever bet on Nicklaus. Weiskopf had special skills when it
came to swinging a golf club.

The difference today is that there are many more Wesikopfs (guys with
great swings who could win at any time) out there. The fundamentals
have improved so much that winning does come down to the intangibles
like mental toughness as well as putting.

Date: 10 Mar 2007 16:42:06
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
: On 10, 3:34 am, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
: >
: > He didn't have close to Weiskopf's core talent, either. Core talent
: > and a dollar will buy you a coke.
:
: The Oldest Member often says that if you watched Weiskopf on the
: practice range next to Nicklaus (which the OM has done), there is no
: way you'd ever bet on Nicklaus. Weiskopf had special skills when it
: came to swinging a golf club.
:
: The difference today is that there are many more Wesikopfs (guys with
: great swings who could win at any time) out there.

And, like Weiskopf, many of them lack that mental something
that would make them champions. That's a large part of my point.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 10 Mar 2007 21:38:08
From: David
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Sat, 10 2007 16:42:06 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:

>annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>: On 10, 3:34 am, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>:>
>:> He didn't have close to Weiskopf's core talent, either. Core talent
>:> and a dollar will buy you a coke.
>:
>: The Oldest Member often says that if you watched Weiskopf on the
>: practice range next to Nicklaus (which the OM has done), there is no
>: way you'd ever bet on Nicklaus. Weiskopf had special skills when it
>: came to swinging a golf club.
>:
>: The difference today is that there are many more Wesikopfs (guys with
>: great swings who could win at any time) out there.
>
>And, like Weiskopf, many of them lack that mental something
>that would make them champions. That's a large part of my point.

Chris, the people trying to build up the players of today just do
not get the point. If Furyk, with arguably the worst swing on the
tour can become number two in the world, then all of these
perfect-swinging pros of today are just going through the motions.
That is what they want to call depth of field.

David

Date: 10 Mar 2007 23:53:36
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:
: On Sat, 10 2007 16:42:06 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
:
: >annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
: >: On 10, 3:34 am, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: >:>
: >:> He didn't have close to Weiskopf's core talent, either. Core talent
: >:> and a dollar will buy you a coke.
: >:
: >: The Oldest Member often says that if you watched Weiskopf on the
: >: practice range next to Nicklaus (which the OM has done), there is no
: >: way you'd ever bet on Nicklaus. Weiskopf had special skills when it
: >: came to swinging a golf club.
: >:
: >: The difference today is that there are many more Wesikopfs (guys with
: >: great swings who could win at any time) out there.
: >
: >And, like Weiskopf, many of them lack that mental something
: >that would make them champions. That's a large part of my point.
:
: Chris, the people trying to build up the players of today just do
: not get the point. If Furyk, with arguably the worst swing on the
: tour can become number two in the world, then all of these
: perfect-swinging pros of today are just going through the motions.

I think Furyk most closely resembles the pros of yesterday, too.
He does it with guts more than anything.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 09 Mar 2007 20:24:04
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 9, 3:21 pm, David <dgold1...@yahoo.de > wrote:
>
> >It's real simple. Ernie Els is a better golfer than Gary Player ever
> >was.
> >Ernie knows it and Gary knows it. Yet Player has the better record.
> >Why is that? When you figure that out, you'll have a clue what we're
> >talking about.
>
> Explain it to me, Bret. How is Els a better golfer than Player? I
> need help with this one. The numbers tell me otherwise.

Well, he is longer, straighter, a better iron player, a better
chipper, about equal in sand play (both of them may be the two best in
the world in that department), and has great touch on the greens.
Ever seen that Gary Player "pop" stroke?

Having said all that, Gary Player may have gotten the most out of his
ability of anybody since Ben Hogan. Player is the modern equivalent of
Corey Pavin, the "gritty little Bruin." I take nothing from him or
his accomplishments.

Els may be one of the most talented players ever, and perhaps has
gotten the least from it. But his record is nothing to sneeze at.
Plus, he played in the Tiger era, where wins, especially Majors, were
harder to come by.

The game has changed. A player like Player (pun intended) would have
little chance today, just as a Corey Pavin or a Fred Funk has to pick
his spots to compete with the long knockers. You can no longer get by
on guts alone.

Date: 10 Mar 2007 01:59:41
From: multi
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 9 2007 20:24:04 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
>Els may be one of the most talented players ever, and perhaps has
>gotten the least from it. But his record is nothing to sneeze at.
>Plus, he played in the Tiger era, where wins, especially Majors, were
>harder to come by.

He has finished second to Woods in at least two majors I can think of,
the 2000 Opens.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 21:39:12
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1173500643.974651.292340@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> On 9, 3:21 pm, David <dgold1...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>
>> >It's real simple. Ernie Els is a better golfer than Gary Player ever
>> >was.
>> >Ernie knows it and Gary knows it. Yet Player has the better record.
>> >Why is that? When you figure that out, you'll have a clue what we're
>> >talking about.
>>
>> Explain it to me, Bret. How is Els a better golfer than Player? I
>> need help with this one. The numbers tell me otherwise.
>
> Well, he is longer, straighter, a better iron player, a better
> chipper, about equal in sand play (both of them may be the two best in
> the world in that department), and has great touch on the greens.
> Ever seen that Gary Player "pop" stroke?
>
> Having said all that, Gary Player may have gotten the most out of his
> ability of anybody since Ben Hogan. Player is the modern equivalent of
> Corey Pavin, the "gritty little Bruin." I take nothing from him or
> his accomplishments.
>
> Els may be one of the most talented players ever, and perhaps has
> gotten the least from it. But his record is nothing to sneeze at.
> Plus, he played in the Tiger era, where wins, especially Majors, were
> harder to come by.
>
> The game has changed. A player like Player (pun intended) would have
> little chance today, just as a Corey Pavin or a Fred Funk has to pick
> his spots to compete with the long knockers. You can no longer get by
> on guts alone.

Yep, what Annika said.
Els is hugely talented. He's the real deal. Light years beyond some guys who
win more ( Philly Mick ).
Player was an over achiever who got the ball in the hole, but didn't have
close to Els' core talent.
But, thats also the beauty of the game.

Date: 10 Mar 2007 08:34:56
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

glfnaz <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com > wrote:

: Yep, what Annika said.
: Els is hugely talented. He's the real deal. Light years beyond some guys who
: win more ( Philly Mick ).
: Player was an over achiever who got the ball in the hole, but didn't have
: close to Els' core talent.

He didn't have close to Weiskopf's core talent, either. Core talent
and a dollar will buy you a coke.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 10 Mar 2007 07:50:13
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3u0fgiI3tvN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> glfnaz <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com> wrote:
>
> : Yep, what Annika said.
> : Els is hugely talented. He's the real deal. Light years beyond some guys
> who
> : win more ( Philly Mick ).
> : Player was an over achiever who got the ball in the hole, but didn't
> have
> : close to Els' core talent.
>
> He didn't have close to Weiskopf's core talent, either. Core talent
> and a dollar will buy you a coke.
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/

Weiskopf' had a clinical medical handicap.
A brain spur.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 20:12:43
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 9, 9:56 pm, Mike Dalecki <m...@removeclubdoctor.com > wrote:
>
> The competition *is* better. I pointed out a number of reasons why in
> my previous post, but one of the best reasons is the number of players
> in the population is far greater than what it was. There are many more
> international players, and all-in-all, there's far better performance.
>
> If you want an analogy, ask yourself whether athletes in any sport are
> better today than 35 years ago; the answer is yes. Look at what happens
> to records in swimming, track, any kind of sport in which there is an
> objective standard.
>
> You can't hardly argue that golfers aren't better as well.
>

Apparently, David continues to try to make that argument.
What you have said here, Mike, is dead on.
Athletes get better and golfers are no exception.

Anyone who follows Junior golf or Amateur golf can attest to this.
Around here, I could always qualify for the State Open by breaking 80
in the qualifier. Nowadays, a 71 might get you into a playoff for the
last spot.

Similarly, it isn't unusual for the local high school team to have 4
players break par in a match. And if you really want to see how the
game has changed go enter a USGA Public Links event. You'll think you
showed up at a college tournament by mistake. Old guys like me
haven't got a prayer against these high school and college kids who
play every day.

I remember playing at Pungent Municipal back in the early 80's.
Everybody knew who the long hitters were. There were usually 2 or 3
guys who could really move it on out there. But I wasn't sweating
those guys because they couldn't chip or putt. My old teacher used to
tell me, "Just straight 'em to death."

Now, it seems like everybody is a long hitter. And they are all
hitting it as straight as I do. And many of them can putt. Shit!

Date: 10 Mar 2007 08:50:22
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:

: Apparently, David continues to try to make that argument.
: What you have said here, Mike, is dead on.
: Athletes get better and golfers are no exception.

I have an idea. Let's hold a PGA Tour event at Glen Garden CC
soon. 1930's era clubs and balls only, please (replicas ok).
Stymie rule in effect -- no king your ball on the greens.

I'm not sure if they were playing on sand greens there back
in the day, but I think the bumpy bermuda they have now should
be sufficient. Let's see them stimp at about 7.

Then let's see the scores before we jump to conclusions.

Golf is a game of nerve as much as it is athleticism. I don't care
how well conditioned Davis Love may be, if he can't make a putt
when he really has to have one, he's not an all-time great golfer,
not unless his ballstriking can compensate for it like Hogan's did.
I refuse to believe that today's crop of scions bred to play golf
at their clubs from childhood have half the nerve of yesteryear's
bunch of scoundrels who knew what it was like to play for more
money than they had in their pockets... and I think that in golf,
that matters TONS.

Exception: Tiger, of course. That guy is a cold-blooded killer.
Otherwise, though, no, I don't see that instinct much anymore.

Who would you rather have putting to save both your and his life,
Ernie Els or Sam Snead? Davis Love or Tommy Bolt? (Yes, you have
to be thinking of them in their prime.)

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 09 Mar 2007 20:01:04
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 9, 3:21 pm, David <dgold1...@yahoo.de > wrote:
>
> More than half of Palmer's victories--and two of his Master's wins--
> came during the first 10 years of Jack's career. Billy Casper won 27
> times from 1964-1970--more than any other golfer during that period of
> seven years.
>
> Player came on to the tourin the late 50's. He only won 24 times on
> the PGA Tour, however, since he was travelling the world playing golf.
> Between 1962 and 1972, he won 4 majors and had 12 titles..
>
> Trevino came on to the tour in 1967. In 1968, he won the US Open.
> He won 6 times in 1971 while winning the US Open, the Canadian Open
> and the British Open. In 1972, he won four more times, including
> another British Open. In 1973, he was struck by lightening and,
> although he never fully recovered, won at least oen tournament every
> year for a 13 year stretch, beginning in 1968.
>

Thank you. You just refuted your own assertion of Jack's dominance
better than I ever could.

You mentioned Gary Player, who had 12 wins and 4 Majors in a 10 year
stretch. That's pretty impressive, at least until you compare it to
Vijay Singh who had 3 Majors and 27 PGA Tour victories (and 7 others
worldwide) from 1995-2005.

Ernie Els has 15 PGA Tour wins, including 3 Majors, as well as 43 wins
worldwide.

And let's not forget the Hefty Lefty with his 30 wins and 3 Majors (so
far).

And Tiger Woods has dominated all of these guys. And he's been doing
it for 10 years (so far). So when I point out (and you agree) that
Jack didn't exactly dominate his competition (Casper won more in the
60's than Nicklaus did while Watson dominated him in the late 70's-
early 80's), all you have to fall back on is the silly argument that
the old players must have been better and the modern players are all
spineless chumps with no desire to win.

This argument flies in the face of logic and the natural progression
of athletes. It would be difficult to name a sport where the old time
athlete is superior to the modern athlete (I realize I'm throwin
around the term "athlete" a little loosely here). Perhaps one could
make the claim that the old time boxers were tougher, but even Rocky
ciano would get killed today by guys who outweighed him 50 pounds
or more.

I've only watched the pros up close for about 20 years now and I can
tell you that Tiger is the best I've ever seen, even better than my
old hero, Greg Norman. Ask an old-time fan like The Oldest Member,
who has seen all the greats since Bobby Jones, and they'll tell you
that the old guys were good, but it isn't even close to what Tiger and
the rest of the pros do today. And even the best pros like Nicklaus,
Palmer, Player, and Trevino will agree, if pressed.

Date: 10 Mar 2007 14:30:40
From: David
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 9 2007 20:01:04 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:

>On 9, 3:21 pm, David <dgold1...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>
>> More than half of Palmer's victories--and two of his Master's wins--
>> came during the first 10 years of Jack's career. Billy Casper won 27
>> times from 1964-1970--more than any other golfer during that period of
>> seven years.
>>
>> Player came on to the tourin the late 50's. He only won 24 times on
>> the PGA Tour, however, since he was travelling the world playing golf.
>> Between 1962 and 1972, he won 4 majors and had 12 titles..
>>
>> Trevino came on to the tour in 1967. In 1968, he won the US Open.
>> He won 6 times in 1971 while winning the US Open, the Canadian Open
>> and the British Open. In 1972, he won four more times, including
>> another British Open. In 1973, he was struck by lightening and,
>> although he never fully recovered, won at least oen tournament every
>> year for a 13 year stretch, beginning in 1968.
>>
>
>Thank you. You just refuted your own assertion of Jack's dominance
>better than I ever could.

No, Bret, I refute the argument that the fields back then were not
deep as the are today. If the fields really are deeper today then top
honors would be shared more frequently. Singh proved that it is
possible, he just did it too late in his career.

David

Date: 10 Mar 2007 08:31:13
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

David wrote:
> On 9 2007 20:01:04 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9, 3:21 pm, David <dgold1...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>> More than half of Palmer's victories--and two of his Master's wins--
>>> came during the first 10 years of Jack's career. Billy Casper won 27
>>> times from 1964-1970--more than any other golfer during that period of
>>> seven years.
>>>
>>> Player came on to the tourin the late 50's. He only won 24 times on
>>> the PGA Tour, however, since he was travelling the world playing golf.
>>> Between 1962 and 1972, he won 4 majors and had 12 titles..
>>>
>>> Trevino came on to the tour in 1967. In 1968, he won the US Open.
>>> He won 6 times in 1971 while winning the US Open, the Canadian Open
>>> and the British Open. In 1972, he won four more times, including
>>> another British Open. In 1973, he was struck by lightening and,
>>> although he never fully recovered, won at least oen tournament every
>>> year for a 13 year stretch, beginning in 1968.
>>>
>> Thank you. You just refuted your own assertion of Jack's dominance
>> better than I ever could.
>
> No, Bret, I refute the argument that the fields back then were not
> deep as the are today. If the fields really are deeper today then top
> honors would be shared more frequently. Singh proved that it is
> possible, he just did it too late in his career.
>
> David

Your argument has one major flaw: Tiger's dominance. By virtue of the
fact that Tiger has won so many majors, you limit the number of majors
that *can* be won by everyone else. The "fact," if it is one, that
honors would be shared more frequently if the fields were deeper is
specious. It assumes little difference between the top spot or spots,
and the lowest ones. There *is* a big difference between the top spot
(or 2 or 3) and the rest, but priily between the top spot and the rest.

Further, some of the majors won by others came during a period of Tiger
reconstructing his swing. He did that for about a year and a half after
winning his first Masters, then again after he left Butchie (remember
him saying he was very close?). During those periods of swing
reconstruction, Tiger in essence conceded many of those majors against
even greater dominance after his swing changes were in place.

Further yet, recall what happened after Tiger's first period of
dominance (prior to and up to the Tiger slam period)? Many players
altered their training regimens, physical shape, and so on, because they
found out they couldn't compete at all with Tiger. He was *so* dominant
that nobody was in his league. Players back 30 and 40 years ago spent a
lot of time in the clubhouse bar, on the town, and partied hardy. Not
so much today (other than Daly :), priily because a hangover *and*
Tiger together are just too difficult to overcome.

And so Tiger's dominance early, and other golfers response to that,
raised the quality of the entire field--a lot. And he's *still*
dominant despite that.

The evidence is overwhelming--Tiger's the best ever, even more so given
the quality of his competition.

Mike

--
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdoctor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2007: June 22-24----Lawsonia!
Website: http://clubdoctor.com/rsgwis2007

Date: 10 Mar 2007 11:39:26
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Sat, 10 2007 08:31:13 -0600, Mike Dalecki
<mike@removeclubdoctor.com > wrote:

>Your argument has one major flaw: Tiger's dominance. By virtue of the
>fact that Tiger has won so many majors, you limit the number of majors
>that *can* be won by everyone else.

I think that is probably the biggest factor in why people argue that
today's fields are weaker compared to years past.
--

jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 10 Mar 2007 12:53:12
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspammy@bite.org > writes:

> On Sat, 10 2007 08:31:13 -0600, Mike Dalecki
> <mike@removeclubdoctor.com> wrote:
>
> >Your argument has one major flaw: Tiger's dominance. By virtue of the
> >fact that Tiger has won so many majors, you limit the number of majors
> >that *can* be won by everyone else.
>
> I think that is probably the biggest factor in why people argue that
> today's fields are weaker compared to years past.

I've wondered whether there is a timing component as well. Did Tiger
coincidentally 'fit in' at a time when certain players (e.g., Faldo)
of prominence were at the end of their best years and no other
players had risen to take their place.

Don't misunderstand; I do not mean to suggest that Tiger's accomplishments
are anything short of phenomenal.

I have tried to convince a statistician of my acquaintance to work
on this problem, but I have not been successful in suckering her into
doing so.

--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: 11 Mar 2007 16:52:13
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

Date: 11 Mar 2007 16:15:53
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspammy@bite.org > writes:

> On 10 2007 12:53:12 -0600, Aress Gee
> <invalid@not_real_address.com> wrote:
>
> >John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspammy@bite.org> writes:
> >
> >> On Sat, 10 2007 08:31:13 -0600, Mike Dalecki
> >> <mike@removeclubdoctor.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Your argument has one major flaw: Tiger's dominance. By virtue of the
> >> >fact that Tiger has won so many majors, you limit the number of majors
> >> >that *can* be won by everyone else.
> >>
> >> I think that is probably the biggest factor in why people argue that
> >> today's fields are weaker compared to years past.
> >
> >I've wondered whether there is a timing component as well. Did Tiger
> >coincidentally 'fit in' at a time when certain players (e.g., Faldo)
> >of prominence were at the end of their best years and no other
> >players had risen to take their place.
> >
> >Don't misunderstand; I do not mean to suggest that Tiger's accomplishments
> >are anything short of phenomenal.
> >
> >I have tried to convince a statistician of my acquaintance to work
> >on this problem, but I have not been successful in suckering her into
> >doing so.
>
> So, your skills as a lady's man are sorely lacking?
>

Please accept the two-word reply that you so
richly deserve (once again).

--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: 11 Mar 2007 21:41:16
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 11 2007 16:15:53 -0500, Aress Gee
<invalid@not_real_address.com > wrote:

>John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspammy@bite.org> writes:
>
>> On 10 2007 12:53:12 -0600, Aress Gee
>> <invalid@not_real_address.com> wrote:
>>
>> >John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspammy@bite.org> writes:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 10 2007 08:31:13 -0600, Mike Dalecki
>> >> <mike@removeclubdoctor.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Your argument has one major flaw: Tiger's dominance. By virtue of the
>> >> >fact that Tiger has won so many majors, you limit the number of majors
>> >> >that *can* be won by everyone else.
>> >>
>> >> I think that is probably the biggest factor in why people argue that
>> >> today's fields are weaker compared to years past.
>> >
>> >I've wondered whether there is a timing component as well. Did Tiger
>> >coincidentally 'fit in' at a time when certain players (e.g., Faldo)
>> >of prominence were at the end of their best years and no other
>> >players had risen to take their place.
>> >
>> >Don't misunderstand; I do not mean to suggest that Tiger's accomplishments
>> >are anything short of phenomenal.
>> >
>> >I have tried to convince a statistician of my acquaintance to work
>> >on this problem, but I have not been successful in suckering her into
>> >doing so.
>>
>> So, your skills as a lady's man are sorely lacking?
>>
>
>Please accept the two-word reply that you so
>richly deserve (once again).

You would have saved yourself a lot of time by just typing, "Yes,
sir."
--

jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 10 Mar 2007 21:35:18
From: David
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 10 2007 12:53:12 -0600, Aress Gee
<invalid@not_real_address.com > wrote:

>John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspammy@bite.org> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 10 2007 08:31:13 -0600, Mike Dalecki
>> <mike@removeclubdoctor.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Your argument has one major flaw: Tiger's dominance. By virtue of the
>> >fact that Tiger has won so many majors, you limit the number of majors
>> >that *can* be won by everyone else.
>>
>> I think that is probably the biggest factor in why people argue that
>> today's fields are weaker compared to years past.
>
>I've wondered whether there is a timing component as well. Did Tiger
>coincidentally 'fit in' at a time when certain players (e.g., Faldo)
>of prominence were at the end of their best years and no other
>players had risen to take their place.
>
>Don't misunderstand; I do not mean to suggest that Tiger's accomplishments
>are anything short of phenomenal.

My intent was never to diminish Woods. Mearly to point out that the
so-called greater depth of field is a myth. Like you, I believe that
Faldo, Norman, Watson, Price, Strange, et al were in between Jack and
Woods, which is why I intentionally left them out of the discussion.

>I have tried to convince a statistician of my acquaintance to work
>on this problem, but I have not been successful in suckering her into
>doing so.

The people here don't respond to the true numbers. They are basing
their observations on gut feelings. There is no doubt that Woods will
end up being the best golfer of all time, because he has a lot of
talent, is mentally much stronger than the field today (where is the
depth of mental toughness) and that the golfers today have openly, or
privately conceded to themselves that Woods cannot be beat. If they
believe he cannot be beaten, they will not beat him.

David

Date: 10 Mar 2007 17:24:30
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspammy@bite.org > wrote:
: On Sat, 10 2007 08:31:13 -0600, Mike Dalecki
: <mike@removeclubdoctor.com > wrote:
:
: >Your argument has one major flaw: Tiger's dominance. By virtue of the
: >fact that Tiger has won so many majors, you limit the number of majors
: >that *can* be won by everyone else.
:
: I think that is probably the biggest factor in why people argue that
: today's fields are weaker compared to years past.

To me, it's the way that today's fields crumble in his presence
when he is playing well. We've had what, one major he won where
he was really pushed, and that was by Bob May? Meanwhile, the
elite players of today suddenly start missing putts they usually
make, missing greens they should hit, etc. I think Tiger could
still beat them but I'd just like to see him pushed more often.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 10 Mar 2007 11:25:27
From: multi
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Sat, 10 2007 17:24:30 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:

>To me, it's the way that today's fields crumble in his presence
>when he is playing well. We've had what, one major he won where
>he was really pushed, and that was by Bob May?

Don't forget Dico. And don't forget the guys who beat him even
though he was charging, like Beem and Campbell. Campbell drained one
long putt after another on the back nine. He reminded me of Billy
Casper beating Palmer, when Palmer had a seven shot lead with nine
holes to play.

Note to David: Billy Casper, probably the best player in the world
during the late 60's, said he was just trying to finish second. That
is a direct quote.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,835890,00.html

>Meanwhile, the
>elite players of today suddenly start missing putts they usually
>make, missing greens they should hit, etc.

That's a result of having to aim at Sunday sucker pins because Tiger
is two shots ahead of them. In the old days, when the difference
between winning and second was about $10K, they might have settled for
second. Today, the difference between winning and second is more like
half a million, plus millions in endorsements. Nobody plays for
second today.

>I think Tiger could
>still beat them but I'd just like to see him pushed more often.

I agree that his duel with Bob May was a classic.

Date: 10 Mar 2007 22:37:54
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Sat, 10 2007 11:25:27 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:

>That's a result of having to aim at Sunday sucker pins because Tiger
>is two shots ahead of them. In the old days, when the difference
>between winning and second was about $10K, they might have settled for
>second. Today, the difference between winning and second is more like
>half a million, plus millions in endorsements. Nobody plays for
>second today.

I suspect that your reasoning here might be misleading. I think the
reason they don't play for second is slightly different. They don't
need the money enough to be interested in the half million second
prize, so they don't need to play for second. Money doesn't matter
as much for the top players - so they play for pride - which means to
win.

Date: 10 Mar 2007 21:28:47
From: David
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Sat, 10 2007 11:25:27 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:

>On Sat, 10 2007 17:24:30 GMT, Chris Bellomy
><puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>
>>To me, it's the way that today's fields crumble in his presence
>>when he is playing well. We've had what, one major he won where
>>he was really pushed, and that was by Bob May?
>
>Don't forget Dico. And don't forget the guys who beat him even
>though he was charging, like Beem and Campbell. Campbell drained one
>long putt after another on the back nine. He reminded me of Billy
>Casper beating Palmer, when Palmer had a seven shot lead with nine
>holes to play.
>
>Note to David: Billy Casper, probably the best player in the world
>during the late 60's, said he was just trying to finish second. That
>is a direct quote.
>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,835890,00.html
>
>>Meanwhile, the
>>elite players of today suddenly start missing putts they usually
>>make, missing greens they should hit, etc.
>
>That's a result of having to aim at Sunday sucker pins because Tiger
>is two shots ahead of them. In the old days, when the difference
>between winning and second was about $10K, they might have settled for
>second. Today, the difference between winning and second is more like
>half a million, plus millions in endorsements. Nobody plays for
>second today.

When the difference was 10K, it was a lot of money. The leading
money winner was typically around 150K for the year. Today, a 400k
difference means you win a big house, instead of a mansion. Since all
of the pros today say that they are playing for second place when
Woods is in the field, that would refute the claim you made. I'll
check in to the Casper quote, who, even if he was playing for second
place, still manage to rack up 61 tour victories ;-)

>
>>I think Tiger could
>>still beat them but I'd just like to see him pushed more often.
>
>I agree that his duel with Bob May was a classic.

So, there was one classic finish in the last 11 years that involved
Woods. Big deal. I can rattle off five truly great major finishes
during the 70's alone.

Fact is, all of the players fold today when under pressure by Woods.
Chris Dico got a reprieve after Woods bogied 16 and 17 and could
not hit the 18th green in regulation in two tries. Garcia, wearing
the banana suit last year, only had to two putt to keep up with Woods
at The Open, and we know how that turned out.

When was the last time that someone shot a 65 on Sunday to push
Woods? Oh, that's right, has not happened. That is in 40 majors.

David

Date: 10 Mar 2007 19:38:28
From: multi
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Sat, 10 2007 21:28:47 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:
>Since all
>of the pros today say that they are playing for second place when
>Woods is in the field, that would refute the claim you made.

It certainly would, if it were true. But I call bullshit. Vijay has
been on the tour for Tiger's entire career. Find me a single time he
ever said he was playing for second. Find one from Sergio. And if by
chance you can, be prepared for me to make some lame excuse for them,
like you did for Casper and Watson.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 22:19:44
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1173499263.926179.189030@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> It would be difficult to name a sport where the old time
> athlete is superior to the modern athlete (I realize I'm throwin
> around the term "athlete" a little loosely here). Perhaps one could
> make the claim that the old time boxers were tougher, but even Rocky
> ciano would get killed today by guys who outweighed him 50 pounds
> or more.

Secretariat and Willie Mays.
No peers.
Not in their day, not now.

Date: 10 Mar 2007 10:48:46
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

glfnaz wrote:
> Willie Mays.
> No peers.
> Not in their day, not now.

Ahem. Andruw Jones says hi.

Date: 10 Mar 2007 11:22:58
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote in message
news:rrAIh.7343$sC.6497@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> glfnaz wrote:
>> Willie Mays.
>> No peers.
>> Not in their day, not now.
>
> Ahem. Andruw Jones says hi.

Yeah, he actually hit over .300 once, didn't he!
You comparing a guy who has a career average below .265 to Mays?
Mays made 20 consecutive all star teams
Mays won 12 consecutive gold gloves.
660 Home runs hitting at the 'Stick and the Polo Grounds while missing 2
seasons serving his country.
A first ballot HOF'er.

Date: 10 Mar 2007 19:54:30
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

glfnaz wrote:
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
>> glfnaz wrote:
>>> Willie Mays.
>>> No peers.
>>> Not in their day, not now.
>>
>> Ahem. Andruw Jones says hi.
>
> Yeah, he actually hit over .300 once, didn't he!
> You comparing a guy who has a career average below .265 to Mays?
> Mays made 20 consecutive all star teams
> Mays won 12 consecutive gold gloves.
> 660 Home runs hitting at the 'Stick and the Polo Grounds while
> missing 2 seasons serving his country.
> A first ballot HOF'er.

I would like to address this position of yours in two parts. In the first
part, I would like to compare Mays to Jones through age 29. In the second
part, I am going to post an article from the AP Sports Wire yesterday.

Andrew (age 29) 342 HR, 9 Gold Gloves, 1023 RBI, 5 All Star Games, 133
SB's
Willie (age 29) 279 HR, 4 Gold Gloves, 812 RBI, 7 All Star Games, 204
SB's

Andruw Jones: In his prime and ready to strike gold
By PAUL NEWBERRY, AP Sports Writer

This guy is good -- and he knows it. From the barely open eyelids to the
mischievous grin to the Louis Vuitton man-bag that hangs over his shoulder
once he's out of uniform, Jones is one of those people who simply oozes
confidence. Why wouldn't he? With nine straight Gold Gloves on his mantle,
Jones is one of the best defensive outfielders ever to play the game. He's
not too shabby at the plate either, putting up 92 homers and 257 RBIs over
the past two seasons. And, get this, he's still more than a month away from
his 30th birthday.

"I think Andruw is an easy pick for Cooperstown," Bobby Cox said. "You know
he's going to win five or six more Gold Gloves. He'll probably win at least
15 in a row. He'll probably average 30 homers and 100 RBIs the rest of his
career. Where will that put him?"

Say Jones plays another 10 years and fulfills Cox's offensive
prognostication. That would push him past 600 homers and 2,000 RBIs -- Hall
of Fame numbers, to be sure, before the stellar defense is even factored in.
And make no mistake: No one plays defense quite like Andruw Jones. His
instincts are unmatched, allowing him to take a step or two in the right
direction before the pitch is even thrown. Once the ball is struck, he gets
a better jump than anyone else, making tough plays look routine and putting
him in position to go for catches that most outfielders wouldn't even
attempt. Plus, he's fearless with his body, hurling himself onto the grass
and into the wall if he's got a chance to catch the ball. "He's on top of
his game defensively," Cox said. "He catches every ball that's catchable.
He's as good as there's ever been in the outfield. ... I can't tell you how
many earned runs he's saved us over the last 10 years."

Date: 10 Mar 2007 18:32:11
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote in message
news:4rIIh.14282$68.9965@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> glfnaz wrote:
>> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
>>> glfnaz wrote:
>>>> Willie Mays.
>>>> No peers.
>>>> Not in their day, not now.
>>>
>>> Ahem. Andruw Jones says hi.
>>
>> Yeah, he actually hit over .300 once, didn't he!
>> You comparing a guy who has a career average below .265 to Mays?
>> Mays made 20 consecutive all star teams
>> Mays won 12 consecutive gold gloves.
>> 660 Home runs hitting at the 'Stick and the Polo Grounds while
>> missing 2 seasons serving his country.
>> A first ballot HOF'er.
>
> I would like to address this position of yours in two parts. In the first
> part, I would like to compare Mays to Jones through age 29. In the second
> part, I am going to post an article from the AP Sports Wire yesterday.
>
> Andrew (age 29) 342 HR, 9 Gold Gloves, 1023 RBI, 5 All Star Games, 133
> SB's
> Willie (age 29) 279 HR, 4 Gold Gloves, 812 RBI, 7 All Star Games,
> 204 SB's

Now I understand.
You are trying to pull a fast one.
Through the age of 29, Andrew gets 3 extra seasons in the majors to compare
to Willie's stats.
Willie, was kept down because he was black, then spent 2 pre- age 29 years
in the Army.
And you thinks it's OK to compare the cumulative stats prior to 29?
Is this a game you're trying to play?
You think it's fair to compare HR or RBI totals when Willie gets 450 less
games, can't stay at the team hotels and hits at the Polo Grounds and the
Stick instead of the launching pad in Atl, the second highest elevation
field in the majors.
You doing drugs or you think I'm not paying attention?
Jones is a .261 career hitter.

Date: 10 Mar 2007 22:55:03
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

glfnaz wrote:
> Now I understand.
> You are trying to pull a fast one.

Honestly; I'm not trying to pull anything. I gave the stats that I could
dig up at baseball-reference.com. The article was written by someone at
Associated Press. You may or may not know more than that guy (how would I
know?), but I am trusting AP to get writers that know what they are talking
about; and Andruw has often been compared to Willie Mays by sports writers.
Now you may have valid excuses as to why Mays has less HR's or less RBI's at
the same age; but at some point Andruw will retire and it's very reasonable
to assume Andruw will have numbers that are darn close one way or the other
to Willie Mays. Defensively; Andruw is better than Mays. At age 29; he
has already won 9 Gold Gloves in a row; and I expect him to win about 15 to
18 in a row when he finishes his career.

Date: 10 Mar 2007 21:10:52
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote in message
news:t%KIh.11484$Dw2.530@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> glfnaz wrote:
>> Now I understand.
>> You are trying to pull a fast one.
>
> Honestly; I'm not trying to pull anything. I gave the stats that I could
> dig up at baseball-reference.com. The article was written by someone at
> Associated Press. You may or may not know more than that guy (how would I
> know?), but I am trusting AP to get writers that know what they are
> talking about; and Andruw has often been compared to Willie Mays by
> sports writers. Now you may have valid excuses as to why Mays has less
> HR's or less RBI's at the same age; but at some point Andruw will retire
> and it's very reasonable to assume Andruw will have numbers that are darn
> close one way or the other to Willie Mays. Defensively; Andruw is
> better than Mays. At age 29; he has already won 9 Gold Gloves in a row;
> and I expect him to win about 15 to 18 in a row when he finishes his
> career.

Ask Vic Wertz who is a better defensive outfielder.
Doubt you heard of him. Check out 'the catch' in '54.
Other than Mays, Clemente was the best.
Then have A Jones take 3 years off in the prime of his career and come back
and play at 32.
Then check your stats.
You ever seen the dimensions of the Polo Grounds?
You ever seen the wind at the Stick?
You know why they call ATL the launching pad?
Fact is, you know nothing except how to goggle someone else's opinion.
You ever play the game?
Go back to Political posts. At least there if you can't impress 'em with
facts, you can dazzle 'em with bullshit.
You a 20+ handicapper?
Don't answer, thought so.

Date: 11 Mar 2007 13:38:49
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

glfnaz wrote:
> Ask Vic Wertz who is a better defensive outfielder.
> Doubt you heard of him. Check out 'the catch' in '54.

How many of his games have you gone to?

> Other than Mays, Clemente was the best.

Roberto died young. You are continuing to make crap up now.

> Then have A Jones take 3 years off in the prime of his career and
> come back and play at 32.

Making up excuses for Mays? What is your excuse for his drug abuse? The
red juice concoctions he used to hide in his locker.

> Then check your stats.
> You ever seen the dimensions of the Polo Grounds?

How many games at the Polo Grounds have you been to?

> You ever seen the wind at the Stick?

Yes. You?

> You know why they call ATL the launching pad?

Making up more stories now?

> Fact is, you know nothing except how to goggle someone else's opinion.
> You ever play the game?

You saying you played pro ball? Is that you, Lllllarry? Post a link to
your statistics at Baseball-Reference.com

> Go back to Political posts. At least there if you can't impress 'em
> with facts, you can dazzle 'em with bullshit.

Fourth grade name calling when you cannot respond to facts? Priceless.

> You a 20+ handicapper?
> Don't answer, thought so.

Yes I am, asshole. And I have played for one year and a total of 15 to 20
rounds. Tell us all how you were a scratch golfer the first year you
played so we can all get a huge laugh. BWHAHAHAHAHHA

Date: 11 Mar 2007 17:47:51
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote in message
news:A8XIh.13664$Wc.1413@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> glfnaz wrote:
>> Ask Vic Wertz who is a better defensive outfielder.
>> Doubt you heard of him. Check out 'the catch' in '54.
>
> How many of his games have you gone to?

Wertz, none
Mays, 100.
>
>> Other than Mays, Clemente was the best.
>
> Roberto died young. You are continuing to make crap up now.

Clemente died at 39. His playing career was basically over after 18 seasons.
>
>> Then have A Jones take 3 years off in the prime of his career and
>> come back and play at 32.
>
> Making up excuses for Mays? What is your excuse for his drug abuse? The
> red juice concoctions he used to hide in his locker.
>

What concoction in Mays' locker was against MLB rules from '51-74?
>> Then check your stats.

>> You ever seen the dimensions of the Polo Grounds?
>
> How many games at the Polo Grounds have you been to?
None.
>
>> You ever seen the wind at the Stick?
>
> Yes. You?
100.
>
>> You know why they call ATL the launching pad?
>
> Making up more stories now?

Fulton County Stadium was nick namesd the 'launching pad' because at the
time it was the highest elevation park in MLB. It was a home run park.
>
>> Fact is, you know nothing except how to goggle someone else's opinion.
>> You ever play the game?
>
> You saying you played pro ball? Is that you, Lllllarry? Post a link
> to your statistics at Baseball-Reference.com

Did I say I played pro ball? Where?
I played in the 14 year old PONY World Series. Lost the final to Hawaii in
'69. Mosi Tatupu hit 2 out to beat us. I had 6 College Scholorship offers
after high school. I signed with the California Angels and went to short
season Rookie ball. My bonus was a hot dog, coke, and one-way bus trip to
Idaho Falls. The Angels found a tumor in my shoulder and I was gone. Hit
.283 anyway.
I now coach competitive club baseball and we've one one 10U National
Championship ( Triple Crown Sports Summer World Series '05 ) and one 11U
National Runner Up ( Super Series Winter National '06 ). We're 56-6 this
season and ranked 1st in the country.
>
>
>> Go back to Political posts. At least there if you can't impress 'em
>> with facts, you can dazzle 'em with bullshit.
>
> Fourth grade name calling when you cannot respond to facts? Priceless.
What facts did I not respond to?
>
>
>
>> You a 20+ handicapper?
>> Don't answer, thought so.
>
> Yes I am, asshole. And I have played for one year and a total of 15 to
> 20 rounds. Tell us all how you were a scratch golfer the first year you
> played so we can all get a huge laugh. BWHAHAHAHAHHA

I was less than 8 my 2nd year
Played to a 3-4 for 10 years.

Date: 13 Mar 2007 05:39:19
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 11--2007, "glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com > wrote:

> Fulton County Stadium was nick namesd the 'launching pad' because at the
> time it was the highest elevation park in MLB. It was a home run park.

Andruw did not play in FCS (maybe one season) the Ted is a lot bigger than
the Pad and has more center field to cover.

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 08:47:52
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 8, 10:40 am, Mike Dalecki <m...@removeclubdoctor.com > wrote:
> Would Babe Ruth be the star today that he was in the 20s? I have my
> doubts--he stood out against his peers, but there were far fewer peers
> to compare him against (meaning he was the best of the best at the time,
> but that doesn't mean he'd be that today, which I doubt). Babe Ruth
> never faced a split-fingered fastball, a slider, or a bevy of relief
> pitchers with specialty pitches.

He also never faced pitchers named Rivera, Hernandez, or Gibson &
ichal for that matter.

It is quite possible that Josh Gibson would have hit 1000 homers in
that era had he been allowed to compete.
But all of that shouldn't detract too much from Ruth as the greatest
of his day. He stood head and shoulders above the competition he
faced.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 18:36:06
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

annika1980 wrote:
> On 8, 10:40 am, Mike Dalecki <m...@removeclubdoctor.com> wrote:
>> Would Babe Ruth be the star today that he was in the 20s? I have my
>> doubts--he stood out against his peers, but there were far fewer peers
>> to compare him against (meaning he was the best of the best at the time,
>> but that doesn't mean he'd be that today, which I doubt). Babe Ruth
>> never faced a split-fingered fastball, a slider, or a bevy of relief
>> pitchers with specialty pitches.
>
> He also never faced pitchers named Rivera, Hernandez, or Gibson &
> ichal for that matter.
>
> It is quite possible that Josh Gibson would have hit 1000 homers in
> that era had he been allowed to compete.
> But all of that shouldn't detract too much from Ruth as the greatest
> of his day. He stood head and shoulders above the competition he
> faced.
>
>
>

That he did. Bill James did an analysis years ago which examined the
question of who was the greatest player ever. He did normalization
w/r/t era played in, which compared players to their peers. Babe Ruth,
in that analysis, was like Tiger is today--just out of this world.

But today? The Babe would have been Keith Hernandez, without the mustache.

--
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdoctor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2007: June 22-24----Lawsonia!
Website: http://clubdoctor.com/rsgwis2007

Date: 08 Mar 2007 10:13:10
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 8 2007 08:47:52 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:

>But all of that shouldn't detract too much from Ruth as the greatest
>of his day. He stood head and shoulders above the competition he
>faced.

He did stand head and shoulders above the competition he faced - but
he didn't face anybody from the Negro leagues.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 06:49:49
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 8, 5:29 am, David <dgold1...@yahoo.de > wrote:
> So far, no one has taken the challenge and come up with a list of
> golfers playing today to compare against the listof golfers that I
> came up with during the 60's and 70's.

That's stupid. You are choosing a 20 year span against today.
Pick any year you'd like and I can name you the top players of that
year.
And guess what? They weren't all named Nicklaus, Palmer, and Player.
There were lots of Mason Rudolphs, Johnny Potts, and Miller Barbers
in there as well.

The point is that we don't have the complete numbers for the next 10
years. Brandt Snedeker may win 6 Majors vaulting him into the list of
all-time greats. And if you want to go over a 20-year period then we
must include guys like Faldo and Norman in the modern era.

It's real simple. Ernie Els is a better golfer than Gary Player ever
was.
Ernie knows it and Gary knows it. Yet Player has the better record.
Why is that? When you figure that out, you'll have a clue what we're
talking about.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 21:21:00
From: David
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 8 2007 06:49:49 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:

>On 8, 5:29 am, David <dgold1...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>> So far, no one has taken the challenge and come up with a list of
>> golfers playing today to compare against the listof golfers that I
>> came up with during the 60's and 70's.
>
>That's stupid. You are choosing a 20 year span against today.
>Pick any year you'd like and I can name you the top players of that
>year.

Besides that fact that Phil, Vijay and Ernie have all been playing
for at least 10 years, I'll make it easy on you. Chop Jack's career
in to two disctinct decades.

More than half of Palmer's victories--and two of his Master's wins--
came during the first 10 years of Jack's career. Billy Casper won 27
times from 1964-1970--more than any other golfer during that period of
seven years.

Player came on to the tourin the late 50's. He only won 24 times on
the PGA Tour, however, since he was travelling the world playing golf.
Between 1962 and 1972, he won 4 majors and had 12 titles..

Trevino came on to the tour in 1967. In 1968, he won the US Open.
He won 6 times in 1971 while winning the US Open, the Canadian Open
and the British Open. In 1972, he won four more times, including
another British Open. In 1973, he was struck by lightening and,
although he never fully recovered, won at least oen tournament every
year for a 13 year stretch, beginning in 1968.

>And guess what? They weren't all named Nicklaus, Palmer, and Player.
>There were lots of Mason Rudolphs, Johnny Potts, and Miller Barbers
>in there as well.

No, you are quite wrong, Bret. Miller Barber had a respectable
career--comparable to someone like Els. None of the players you
mention were ever POY, or had the lowest scoring average.

Since you can name some names, though, that surely must be a
testament to the depth of field, Bret. Julius Boros won multiple
times during the first ten years of Jack's career,and was POY in 1963.
Dave r, and Ken Venturi also garnered POY awards during the first
half of Jack's career, as did Orville Moody.

You can also add Don January, JC Snead, Bruce Crampton, Bob Charles,
Dave Hill, and the list goes on and on. Plenty depth of field, if you
ask me.

>The point is that we don't have the complete numbers for the next 10
>years. Brandt Snedeker may win 6 Majors vaulting him into the list of
>all-time greats. And if you want to go over a 20-year period then we
>must include guys like Faldo and Norman in the modern era.

No, we don't. The 20 years that I picked were the 20 years during
Jack's peak--1962-1982. Faldo and Norman come after that. The three
best golfers during Woods' career all had at least a five year
headstart on Woods and were still not able to compile numbers that the
true legends of this game compiled.

That Jack could only get POY four time in his career, twice during
the first ten years and twice during the second ten years, tells me
that there was greater parity during Jack's career. Greater parity
means depth of field.

>It's real simple. Ernie Els is a better golfer than Gary Player ever
>was.
>Ernie knows it and Gary knows it. Yet Player has the better record.
>Why is that? When you figure that out, you'll have a clue what we're
>talking about.

Explain it to me, Bret. How is Els a better golfer than Player? I
need help with this one. The numbers tell me otherwise.

David

Date: 09 Mar 2007 13:45:10
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Fri, 09 2007 21:21:00 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:

> That Jack could only get POY four time in his career, twice during
>the first ten years and twice during the second ten years, tells me
>that there was greater parity during Jack's career. Greater parity
>means depth of field.

Only if by "field" you mean "candidates for POY".

Date: 09 Mar 2007 13:42:33
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Fri, 09 2007 21:21:00 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:

> No, you are quite wrong, Bret. Miller Barber had a respectable
>career--comparable to someone like Els. None of the players you
>mention were ever POY, or had the lowest scoring average.

Certainly Jack's competitors won more Vardon trophies and POYs in
1961-1971 than Tiger's competitors have during 1996-2006.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 15:24:09
From: multi
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Fri, 09 2007 13:42:33 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>On Fri, 09 2007 21:21:00 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>> No, you are quite wrong, Bret. Miller Barber had a respectable
>>career--comparable to someone like Els. None of the players you
>>mention were ever POY, or had the lowest scoring average.
>
>Certainly Jack's competitors won more Vardon trophies and POYs in
>1961-1971 than Tiger's competitors have during 1996-2006.

So it would make Tiger look better if he hadn't won almost all of the
Vardons and POYs?

Date: 08 Mar 2007 17:40:12
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:

: It's real simple. Ernie Els is a better golfer than Gary Player ever
: was.

Only because Player was a cheat.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 08 Mar 2007 06:36:14
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 8, 5:51 am, David <dgold1...@yahoo.de > wrote:
>
> Jack competed against the field throughout the 70's, as well. Faldo,
> Price, Stewart (by no fault of his own), Norman, O'Meara, Janzen(?),
> Zoeller, and Strange were all pre-Woods. They for the groups between
> Jack's and Woods' era.

It makes little sense to compare Jack's entire career with Tiger's
since Tiger has only played 11 years. So let's stick to apples vs.
apples and just compare similar time frames.

>
> Some journeyman golfer named Tom
> Watson took over the reigns and won 29 tournaments from 1977 to 1984
> and seven major titles. He also garnered POY awards from 1977 to
> 1982.

Yes, and in Watson's era he was a better player than Nicklaus. He
owned Jack. So how can you make the case that Nicklaus was so
dominant?

>
> Name a golfer today who played that well over the last five years.

Tiger Woods?

Date: 08 Mar 2007 05:23:47
From:
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 6, 10:40 am, greenkeeper
<greenkee...@alanxxxcampbell.demon.co.uk > wrote:
> In message <indqu2df0gnr3cs3s3im48brqhso5a5...@4ax.com>, David
> <dgold1...@yahoo.de> writes
> > Lee Trevino joined the tour in 1967. He is the only player in
> >history to hold three national championships in the same calendar year
> >when, in 1971, he won the US Open, the Canadian Open and the British
> >Open. He won ten times between 1971 and 1972.
>
> Not quite true, Langer has 4 in a year, Ballesteros has done this too,
> if you count the Monte Carlo as the National Championships!! Amongst
> others.

He's wrong even if you stick to the three events he name. Somebody
name Tiger Woods won all three in 2000. Also, Trevino was -27 for
the three events. Pretty good, but Woods was -53.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 04:55:41
From: me
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 8, 5:51 am, David <dgold1...@yahoo.de > wrote:
[snip]
> Name a golfer today who played that well over the last five years.
> Please, don't feed me crap about how it is more difficult today to
> achieve such a feat. Singh proved that it is possible, if one
> dedicates himself to the game and did it after he turned 40. There
> are plenty of in-shape, young guns who have the opportunity, yet they
> cannot pull it off? Singh's glory years should have been incentive
> enough for them to go out and take what is there for the taking.
[snip]

I understand your point, but there is a circular nature to your
logic. If there are alot of good players now, fewer players
are going to have alot of victories. If Tiger is alot better than
all the other players, there will be fewer major winners, and
fewer multiple major winners. More good players means
that no single player can easily dominate, and more
importantly dominate for long. Singh is a classic example.
The fact that Tiger has done so, in this environment,
demonstrates just how unique he is. It is the fact that no
one else has been able to do it (even Jack who had fewer
top talents with which to compete) that demonstrates
just how good Tiger is.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 04:35:25
From:
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 8 , 03:38, "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com > wrote:

> One measure of the differences in strength of fields can be seen by
> the number of Multiple-major winners at a given time.
> By 1972 Jack had competed with these multiple-Major winners:
> Arnie, Player, Trevino, Casper, Jacklin, Doug Ford (won 2 in the
> 50's), Peter Thompson (6 BO's, 5 in the 50's before Jack played),
> Julius Boros, and that's pretty much it. That's 8 guys who had won
> multiple Majors by 1972. Guys like Watson and Irwin would come along
> later, of course.

Assuming that "BO" indicates The Open Championship, Thomson's total
was 5, with 4 in the '50s. Still a great champion, nonetheless.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 04:25:31
From:
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 8, 2:51 am, David <dgold1...@yahoo.de > wrote:
> Nicklaus finished in the top three 167 times up to 2003 and had a
> career total of 113 victories. He was also the leading scorer 8
> times, and swept that title from 1971 to 1976, and was runner-up 6
> times.

The Vardon Trophy went to other people all those years. What is your
source for Jack being the scoring leader?

Date: 07 Mar 2007 19:38:33
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 7, 7:32 pm, multi <m...@asm.org > wrote:
>
> You could have played the same game in the 11th year of Jack's career.
> How many active PGA players in 1972, including Jack, could match the
> victory totals of Nelson, Hogan, and Snead? I tells ya, the fields
> were WAY deeper in 1945.

Let's look at who won in 1972.
Jack had 7 wins.
Trevino was next with 3 wins.
Five players had 2 wins .... Jerry Heard, Grier Jones, George Archer,
Bruce Devlin, and Gary Player.
Scattered among the players with one win in '72 were superstars like
Bobby Mitchell, Jim Jamieson, Dave Hill, Homero Blancas, and even
Deane Beman. Not too many Hall of Famers in that bunch.
Those were the guys that Nicklaus dominated.

One measure of the differences in strength of fields can be seen by
the number of Multiple-major winners at a given time.
By 1972 Jack had competed with these multiple-Major winners:
Arnie, Player, Trevino, Casper, Jacklin, Doug Ford (won 2 in the
50's), Peter Thompson (6 BO's, 5 in the 50's before Jack played),
Julius Boros, and that's pretty much it. That's 8 guys who had won
multiple Majors by 1972. Guys like Watson and Irwin would come along
later, of course.

Compare that to the multiple-Major winners that Tiger has competed
against. Guys like:
Faldo, Mickelson, Els, Singh, Price, Stewart, Crenshaw, Daly, Goosen,
Norman, Olazabal, O'Meara, Janzen, Langer, Zoeller, Strange.
That's 16 if I counted correctly.

And of course, you've got a lot of pretty good players with only 1
Major or no Majors like Davis Love III, Couples, Pavin, Toms, Furyk,
Lehman, Duval, Azinger, Elkington, Montgomerie, Leonard, Sutton,
Woosnam, Weir, Adam Scott, etc.

That Tiger has won all his Majors and totally dominated those great
names is testament enough to his greatness.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 11:51:04
From: David
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 7 2007 19:38:33 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:

>On 7, 7:32 pm, multi <m...@asm.org> wrote:
>>
>> You could have played the same game in the 11th year of Jack's career.
>> How many active PGA players in 1972, including Jack, could match the
>> victory totals of Nelson, Hogan, and Snead? I tells ya, the fields
>> were WAY deeper in 1945.
>
>
>Let's look at who won in 1972.
>Jack had 7 wins.
>Trevino was next with 3 wins.
>Five players had 2 wins .... Jerry Heard, Grier Jones, George Archer,
>Bruce Devlin, and Gary Player.
>Scattered among the players with one win in '72 were superstars like
>Bobby Mitchell, Jim Jamieson, Dave Hill, Homero Blancas, and even
>Deane Beman. Not too many Hall of Famers in that bunch.
>Those were the guys that Nicklaus dominated.
>
>One measure of the differences in strength of fields can be seen by
>the number of Multiple-major winners at a given time.
>By 1972 Jack had competed with these multiple-Major winners:
>Arnie, Player, Trevino, Casper, Jacklin, Doug Ford (won 2 in the
>50's), Peter Thompson (6 BO's, 5 in the 50's before Jack played),
>Julius Boros, and that's pretty much it. That's 8 guys who had won
>multiple Majors by 1972. Guys like Watson and Irwin would come along
>later, of course.
>
>Compare that to the multiple-Major winners that Tiger has competed
>against. Guys like:
>Faldo, Mickelson, Els, Singh, Price, Stewart, Crenshaw, Daly, Goosen,
>Norman, Olazabal, O'Meara, Janzen, Langer, Zoeller, Strange.
>That's 16 if I counted correctly.

Jack competed against the field throughout the 70's, as well. Faldo,
Price, Stewart (by no fault of his own), Norman, O'Meara, Janzen(?),
Zoeller, and Strange were all pre-Woods. They for the groups between
Jack's and Woods' era.

>And of course, you've got a lot of pretty good players with only 1
>Major or no Majors like Davis Love III, Couples, Pavin, Toms, Furyk,
>Lehman, Duval, Azinger, Elkington, Montgomerie, Leonard, Sutton,
>Woosnam, Weir, Adam Scott, etc.

Pretty good players are not great players. None of the players you
metion in this category are close to Palmer, Player, Watson, Trevino,
or even Miller.

>That Tiger has won all his Majors and totally dominated those great
>names is testament enough to his greatness.

That Nicklaus won 18 majors against players who would win more
majors combined than all of the players put together that you have
mentioned is proof that Nicklaus, as well, was the real deal.
Especially when you consider that he finished 2nd nineteen other
times.

Nicklaus finished in the top three 167 times up to 2003 and had a
career total of 113 victories. He was also the leading scorer 8
times, and swept that title from 1971 to 1976, and was runner-up 6
times. He was Player of the Year five time, four of those during the
70's, with his last year being 1976. Some journeyman golfer named Tom
Watson took over the reigns and won 29 tournaments from 1977 to 1984
and seven major titles. He also garnered POY awards from 1977 to
1982.

Name a golfer today who played that well over the last five years.
Please, don't feed me crap about how it is more difficult today to
achieve such a feat. Singh proved that it is possible, if one
dedicates himself to the game and did it after he turned 40. There
are plenty of in-shape, young guns who have the opportunity, yet they
cannot pull it off? Singh's glory years should have been incentive
enough for them to go out and take what is there for the taking.

David

Date: 07 Mar 2007 08:07:38
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 7, 5:37 am, "Alan Murphy" <afm...@btinternet.com > wrote:
>
> Absolutely agree. But they were perhaps mentally
> tougher than todays lot.

Or even more likely, they were exactly the same. Competitors are
competitors, no matter the era. You demean the modern players when
you make silly assumptions like that.

A case could be made that the modern players are even tougher mentally
since they face many more distractions than the old guys did.
Galleries are larger and louder, and there are many more off-course
distractions as well.

Many of those old guys would go out partying after each round. That
doesn't happen much today unless you are hangin with John Daly. Ben
Hogan was one of the few players from back then who lived and breathed
the game, but even he would play a card game or two. I doubt that any
of the old pros had the dedication to improve that players like Tiger
Woods or Vijay Singh have. If Jack Ncklaus ever tried Vijay's workout
regimen it would kill him. Jack preferred his own "ice cream"
regimen.
In that respect, I guess you could say he was hungrier.

I'm sick of all those washed up old farts like Lanny Wadkins and
Johnny Miller saying stupid stuff like, "Boy, that would have never
happened back in my day," every time some pro makes a bogey or hits a
bad shot. To listen to those fools, you would think that the old guys
walked on water and won everything.
But guess what? They didn't.

Phil Mickelson has what, 30 wins? Name all the players who played in
Jack's era with 30 wins or more. I'll wait cause it won't take long.

Date: 07 Mar 2007 20:45:18
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1173283658.649706.288730@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On 7, 5:37 am, "Alan Murphy" <afm...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> Absolutely agree. But they were perhaps mentally
>> tougher than todays lot.
>
> Or even more likely, they were exactly the same. Competitors are
> competitors, no matter the era. You demean the modern players when
> you make silly assumptions like that.
>
You're wrong. Money corrupts and the modern game
is awash with money. Caddies nowadays make 10 times
the money that the old champions made - and that's in
real terms. Money has changed golf out of all recognition.
The pressures on the old guys were of a totally different
order of magnitude. We are in a different era now - the
era of easy and abundant money - and that changes the
attitudes of the modern players towards the game. It's
not their fault, it's just the zeitgeist. I'm not demeaning
the modern players, they're just reacting to the situation
they find themselves in.

Alan

Date: 07 Mar 2007 14:50:22
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Wed, 7 2007 20:45:18 -0000, "Alan Murphy"
<afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote:

>You're wrong. Money corrupts and the modern game
>is awash with money. Caddies nowadays make 10 times
>the money that the old champions made - and that's in
>real terms. Money has changed golf out of all recognition.
>The pressures on the old guys were of a totally different
>order of magnitude.

The pressures were also of a totally different quality. Coming in
2nd instead of 3rd was significant back then.

The question is - how have these pressures changed how they play the
game? I would guess that more players now will be more likely to
take a chance when they are in 2nd place, as the money lost by falling
back to 4th place is only around $100,000 - chump change. But the
glory with winning is still important.

But I can't say I've actually seen anything that would demonstrate
this. People play to win at my Men's club, they played to win on the
early tour, and they play to win at the current tour. The money
simply means they don't need to play every week.

Date: 07 Mar 2007 20:27:27
From: David
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 7 2007 08:07:38 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:

<snipped >

>Phil Mickelson has what, 30 wins? Name all the players who played in
>Jack's era with 30 wins or more. I'll wait cause it won't take long.

Bret, I named a bunch of players who had many more than 30 wins
during Jack's era and a couple who were on the cusp.

David

Date: 07 Mar 2007 12:37:32
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Wed, 07 2007 20:27:27 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:

>>Phil Mickelson has what, 30 wins? Name all the players who played in
>>Jack's era with 30 wins or more. I'll wait cause it won't take long.
>
> Bret, I named a bunch of players who had many more than 30 wins
>during Jack's era and a couple who were on the cusp.

I would like to see the records of the top half-dozen players during
Jack's and Tiger's first 11 pro years. Not that it would prove
anything, in this discussion, but it would be interesting. Wins from
outside these periods don't count.

Date: 06 Mar 2007 18:22:53
From: WW
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

with out reading every post here..... did you give us Jacks total
number of victorys for his period V.S. Tigers victory number. Nice
post though....

Date: 07 Mar 2007 13:07:56
From: David
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 6 2007 18:22:53 -0800, "WW" <dirtymm@msn.com > wrote:

>with out reading every post here..... did you give us Jacks total
>number of victorys for his period V.S. Tigers victory number. Nice
>post though....

No, I did not. Of course, Woods has more victories in the same
length of time. My post was not meant to be a detraction to Woods
career, but to point out that is, in my opinion, tougher to win
against a field that included so many great players--and this was the
point that Miller, in an obnoxious way, was trying to make on Sunday.
Between 1962 and 1982, Jack finished 1st or 2nd in nearly half of
the majors played. That is an amazing statistic, especially when
combined with the fact that 10 golfers won nearly all of the majors
played during that time. Jack never had an easy weekend.

When Woods tees it up, he is a huge favorites to win because the
other golfers on the tour simply don't get the job done. While
Nicklaus was a favorite to win, the long shots were not as long the
long shots of the day, because they proved that they had the ability
to win anytime they teed the ball up.

I'll put it this way. If I was coming on to the tour during the
60's and 70's, Jack would not have been the only golfer that I had to
"fear." If I am coming on the tour today, the only golfer I would
fear (and that would be a mistake) would be Woods. There are a couple
of golfers that I may have some respect for, but I would go in with
the attitude that they need to beat me.

David

Date: 07 Mar 2007 12:36:32
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Wed, 07 2007 13:07:56 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:

<clip >
> When Woods tees it up, he is a huge favorites to win because the
>other golfers on the tour simply don't get the job done. While
>Nicklaus was a favorite to win, the long shots were not as long the
>long shots of the day, because they proved that they had the ability
>to win anytime they teed the ball up.

I believe that you have it wrong. The "other golfers" just don't come
close to his ability...nor would those in days past. IMHO the number
2-5 top golfers of today would be very competitive with Nicklaus and
the top 5 of that era.

Tiger Woods is just better than all of them.
--
___,
\o

Date: 07 Mar 2007 20:38:04
From: David
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Wed, 07 2007 12:36:32 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>On Wed, 07 2007 13:07:56 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
><clip>
>> When Woods tees it up, he is a huge favorites to win because the
>>other golfers on the tour simply don't get the job done. While
>>Nicklaus was a favorite to win, the long shots were not as long the
>>long shots of the day, because they proved that they had the ability
>>to win anytime they teed the ball up.
>
>I believe that you have it wrong. The "other golfers" just don't come
>close to his ability...nor would those in days past. IMHO the number
>2-5 top golfers of today would be very competitive with Nicklaus and
>the top 5 of that era.

It is really too bad that there is no way for me to take a bet on
the top 2-5 golfer vs Jack against the top 2-5 vs Woods. Do you want
to compare Mickelson to even Billy Casper? Perhaps you want to
compare Singh to Palmer. How about Furyk against Watson? You still
have Trevino, Player, Irwin, Floyd, Miller, Ballesteros--who played
limited golf in the states because he preferred being close to home. I
suppose you could compare Weiskopf to Goosen. There wer other palyers
whose records don't match up to the players mentioned who also won
some very nice tournaments--Hubert Green comes quickly to mind. Who do
you want to put up against those names that have been playing during
the last 11 years that Woods has been on tour?

>Tiger Woods is just better than all of them.

Well, many believe that Nicklaus was better than all of "them," as
well. Yet, the golfers named on won more than their share of
tournaments--majors, or otherwise. To me, that is a real sign of
true depth of field. One hundred different golfers winning one
tournamet definitely does not prove depth of field to me. A pack of
golfers consistently vying for the top spot does, however. As I
already said, a deep field of mediocrity is meaningless.

David

Date: 10 Mar 2007 23:03:10
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 10, 6:52 pm, Chris Bellomy

> I suggest you get to googling. I used to have knockdown dragouts
> with a guy named AZDav about Norman.

I did what you said and I found these gems:
-----------------

"The competition Jack faced was greater than Byron's competition, and
the competition Freddy Couples faces now is greater than what Jack
faced. I would guess Tiger Woods is going to face tougher competition
than Freddy does." - Dan King (06/14/93)
-----------------
"However, I think you can prove just about anything with statistics.
Why
not just consider common sense?

IMO, it's just common sense atheletes in all sports are better than
in
previous decades. And it's also common sense this is even more
pronounced in growth sports that are popular and have a lot of
financical reward because this draws talent like a magnet.

Ergo, there's more talent in golf today than in previous decades.

You can continue to fight a simple conclusion like this, but why?
You've
already admitted Norman has somewhat better raw golfing ability than
Nicklaus, so I just don't see it insane to think Norman might actually
be
the better golfer. But he's stuck in this place and time, to no fault
of
his own. Nicklaus was the right man at the right time to create a
legend
that can't be surpassed unless someone of unbelievable freak nature
type
of talent descends from the heavens. I don't see it happening if guys
like
Norman, Price, and Faldo can't win more majors than they have. I don't
see it happening for anyone, not even a Tiger Woods, but hey, you
never know! " - AZDave (7/2/95)
------------------------

"Golf World regularly lists standings from all the `major tours' and
the
amateur standings, and recent events.
What is reported is that Stephanie Sparks won her final match 2 up to
win the Western Open.
Tom Creavy defeated Tiger Woods 3 and 2 in the semis and then defeated
McEntee 2 up (18 Holes) at the Monroe Invitational."
- Bob McGwier (6/28/93)

[I know Stephanie Sparks from TGC, but who the hell is Tom Creavy?]

-----------------
"In a coffee room discussion this morning, Tiger Jones' name
came up, along with several interesting claims about his
accomplishments. The one I'm most interested in has to do
with the possibility of his winning "three in a row" of some
championship. Can anyone help me with info on what the title
is that he is competing for, and verification that by winning
this year, he will have a "three-peat"? "
- Wayne Newberry (8/11/93)
-----------------
"Anyone who's ever been down in a match just got a new role model in
Tiger Woods and his come from behind win in the US Am. What a GREAT
match! We may have entered a new era with a player who will be with us
for some time. I hope so. The game can use some new exciting players,
and Tiger is certainly all of that!"
-Bill McDonald (8/28/94)

[Was this really a sockpuppet of Ken Pitts?]

Date: 11 Mar 2007 08:15:14
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:

: Ergo, there's more talent in golf today than in previous decades.

Is there more talent in the presidency today than in previous decades?
If golfers have gotten ster over the years, then surely so have
our politicians, right?

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 10 Mar 2007 22:18:43
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 10, 6:52 pm, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
> :>
> : I don't recall anyone making those claims prior to Tiger when guys
> : like Norman, Ballesteros, Faldo, Floyd, Kite, Couples, Leonard,
> : Olazabal, Lehman, Love, Strange & Langer were battling it out.
>
> I suggest you get to googling. I used to have knockdown dragouts
> with a guy named AZDav about Norman.

I'll bet there were guys in 1965 sitting around card tables in the
men's grill saying, "There hasn't been any real competition on the PGA
Tour since Jones, Nelson and Hogan retired. Now THOSE guys were
champions!"

My point is that if the argument is being made now it could have been
made at any time in the past 50-100 years. And it sounds as silly now
as it did 40 years ago. Bobby Jones wasn't just being modest when he
said that Nicklaus played a "game which I am unfamiliar." He
correctly recognized that golfers, like most any other athletes,
improve over time.
The only difference between golf and some other sports is that we
don't have a stopwatch to prove it.

Date: 11 Mar 2007 08:14:07
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
: On 10, 6:52 pm, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
: > :>
: > : I don't recall anyone making those claims prior to Tiger when guys
: > : like Norman, Ballesteros, Faldo, Floyd, Kite, Couples, Leonard,
: > : Olazabal, Lehman, Love, Strange & Langer were battling it out.
: >
: > I suggest you get to googling. I used to have knockdown dragouts
: > with a guy named AZDav about Norman.
:
: I'll bet there were guys in 1965 sitting around card tables in the
: men's grill saying, "There hasn't been any real competition on the PGA
: Tour since Jones, Nelson and Hogan retired. Now THOSE guys were
: champions!"

Maybe, but it doesn't change the fact that today's non-Tiger
players tend to be gag artists, especially when Tiger is playing
well.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 10 Mar 2007 13:43:26
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 10, 11:39 am, John van der Pflum >

> I think that is probably the biggest factor in why people argue that
> today's fields are weaker compared to years past.
> --
>
I don't recall anyone making those claims prior to Tiger when guys
like Norman, Ballesteros, Faldo, Floyd, Kite, Couples, Leonard,
Olazabal, Lehman, Love, Strange & Langer were battling it out. Even
back then I can remember thinking how it was the Tour's best era.
But if you believe the Tiger-bashers, everybody on tour suddenly got
worse and forgot how to win once Tiger put his peg in the ground.

Date: 10 Mar 2007 23:52:40
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
: On 10, 11:39 am, John van der Pflum >
:
: > I think that is probably the biggest factor in why people argue that
: > today's fields are weaker compared to years past.
: > --
: >
: I don't recall anyone making those claims prior to Tiger when guys
: like Norman, Ballesteros, Faldo, Floyd, Kite, Couples, Leonard,
: Olazabal, Lehman, Love, Strange & Langer were battling it out.

I suggest you get to googling. I used to have knockdown dragouts
with a guy named AZDav about Norman.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 07 Mar 2007 12:46:11
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Wed, 07 2007 20:38:04 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:

>One hundred different golfers winning one
>tournamet definitely does not prove depth of field to me.

Interesting. That's the very definition of a deep field to me.

> A pack of golfers consistently vying for the top spot does, however.

Interesting. That's the very definition of a shallow field to me.

Date: 07 Mar 2007 21:02:02
From: David
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Wed, 07 2007 12:46:11 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>On Wed, 07 2007 20:38:04 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>>One hundred different golfers winning one
>>tournamet definitely does not prove depth of field to me.
>
>Interesting. That's the very definition of a deep field to me.
>
>> A pack of golfers consistently vying for the top spot does, however.
>
>Interesting. That's the very definition of a shallow field to me.

How does a group of 100 golfers who only win one tournament in their
careers prove that there is depth of field? It only show that even a
blind dog finds a bone, once in a while.

By the way, add to the list of players during Jack's era names such
as, Ben Crenshaw, Bruce Litzke, Bruce Crampton, Gay Brewer, Don
January, Miller Barber, Bruce Devlin, Gene Littler, Gil Morgan, and I
can find at least 20 more names that most people who are old enough
would recognize.

Suddenly, the depth of field is creeping toward the 40 k of
golfers who realistically had a chance to win on any given weekend.
The thing is, the top ten of this list waxed everyone's collective
asses.

There was plenty depth of field during the 60's and 70's. In five
years, Mickelson will have been playing for 20 years, Singh will have
been playing the PGA Tour for 20 years (18 of his wins came after he
turned 40--a lot to be said for the quality of the rest of the field),
Els will have been playing for 20 years. None of them will come close
to the biggest names during Jack's career. Not because the field is so
deep today, but because they are not as good.

David

Date: 07 Mar 2007 16:21:14
From: multi
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Wed, 07 2007 21:02:02 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:
>Suddenly, the depth of field is creeping toward the 40 k of
>golfers who realistically had a chance to win on any given weekend.

That sounds about right for Jack's era. Today, it's more like 400, as
Ben Curtis proved.

Date: 10 Mar 2007 13:33:33
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 10, 3:28 pm, David <dgold1...@yahoo.de > wrote:
> >I agree that his duel with Bob May was a classic.
>
> So, there was one classic finish in the last 11 years that involved
> Woods. Big deal.

Yeah, if you don't count Masters playoffs or the other finishes that
others have already mentioned.

Date: 09 Mar 2007 16:51:24
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
: On Wed, 07 2007 21:02:02 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:
: >Suddenly, the depth of field is creeping toward the 40 k of
: >golfers who realistically had a chance to win on any given weekend.
:
: That sounds about right for Jack's era. Today, it's more like 400, as
: Ben Curtis proved.

Oh, I get it now.

When mediocre players won majors in Nicklaus' era, that was evidence
of the mediocrity of the fields at the time.

But when mediocre player win majors today, that's evidence of the
depth of the fields in Tiger's era.

Thanks for setting that straight.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 09 Mar 2007 16:07:50
From: multi
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Fri, 09 2007 16:51:24 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:

>multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>: On Wed, 07 2007 21:02:02 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
>:>Suddenly, the depth of field is creeping toward the 40 k of
>:>golfers who realistically had a chance to win on any given weekend.
>:
>: That sounds about right for Jack's era. Today, it's more like 400, as
>: Ben Curtis proved.
>
>Oh, I get it now.
>
>When mediocre players won majors in Nicklaus' era, that was evidence
>of the mediocrity of the fields at the time.
>
>But when mediocre player win majors today, that's evidence of the
>depth of the fields in Tiger's era.
>
>Thanks for setting that straight.

Well, you've got the sarcasm down cold, now you just need to work on
your facts. Show me where I made that argument about Jack's
competition. In fact, show me where I've ever said Jack's competition
was mediocre for any reason. What I *have* been saying is Tiger's
competition is not a bunch of lazy chokers.

I wouldn't call anyone who won a major a mediocre player, although
some have mediocre records. As David has so masterfully shown, Jack's
competition was actually better than he was, they just had much
shorter peaks.

Date: 10 Mar 2007 15:00:38
From: David
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Fri, 09 2007 16:07:50 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:

<snipped >

>I wouldn't call anyone who won a major a mediocre player, although
>some have mediocre records. As David has so masterfully shown, Jack's
>competition was actually better than he was, they just had much
>shorter peaks.

I think that there have been some "mediocre" players, by tour
standards, who have won a major. Anyone can get a hot putter and play
above his head for four days, and it has happened repeatedly.

What makes Jack's record over 20 years so impressive, is that he
dealt with golfers who got hot over years, yet, Jack was still getting
himself in position to win and defnining himself as "the guy" to beat.

As Woods now, Jack was amazingly consistent during his career. The
players playing against him had to elevate their games nose-bleed
heights to beat him. The thing is, they did just that. If one
golfer is winning 7, or 8 times in one year, there is not too much
left for another player to win, especially if you are playing a
limited schedule.

While Singh was wrapping up nine victories in 2004, he was prvoving
tha it is possible to set one's self apart from the rest of the field.
Since Woods plays a limited schedule, it should be possible for a
couple of the more talented players to do the same and it simply does
not happen.

Saying that anyone can win does not say much when everyone is
winning one event. A player like Sergio Garcia has the talent to
dominate fields in tournaments that Woods is not playing in, as does
Phil.

Yet, Phil has won 30 times in since 1991, putting his career average
at two wins per season. He had three seasons with no victories, at
all. Granted, if Phil had the mindset of Woods, or Nicklaus, he would
have won many more tournaments. He does not, however, and that is
what sets the legends apart from the rest of the field. A player with
as much raw talent as he has should be decimating the field when Woods
is not there and pushing Woods everytime they tee it up at the same
event.

Nicklaus had to play against guys who were doing just that. Take
whichever half of the first 20 years of Jack's career and add up the
numbers. No one can convince me that there are equals on the tour
today to Palmer, Casper, Player, Trevino, Miller, Watson, Ballesteros,
Floyd, Irwin, to name a few. If you think that the US took a terrible
beating in the Ryder Cup, the beating would be just as bad, if not
worse, if there could some how be a Ryder Cup format consisting of the
twelve best golfers of today versus the twelve best of Jack's career.

David

Date: 10 Mar 2007 00:45:00
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
: On Fri, 09 2007 16:51:24 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
:
: >multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
: >: On Wed, 07 2007 21:02:02 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
: >:>Suddenly, the depth of field is creeping toward the 40 k of
: >:>golfers who realistically had a chance to win on any given weekend.
: >:
: >: That sounds about right for Jack's era. Today, it's more like 400, as
: >: Ben Curtis proved.
: >
: >Oh, I get it now.
: >
: >When mediocre players won majors in Nicklaus' era, that was evidence
: >of the mediocrity of the fields at the time.
: >
: >But when mediocre player win majors today, that's evidence of the
: >depth of the fields in Tiger's era.
: >
: >Thanks for setting that straight.
:
: Well, you've got the sarcasm down cold, now you just need to work on
: your facts. Show me where I made that argument about Jack's
: competition. In fact, show me where I've ever said Jack's competition
: was mediocre for any reason. What I *have* been saying is Tiger's
: competition is not a bunch of lazy chokers.

Sorry, Multi, you're right. My apologies for the false imputation.
The point remains but shouldn't have been directed at you.

: I wouldn't call anyone who won a major a mediocre player, although
: some have mediocre records. As David has so masterfully shown, Jack's
: competition was actually better than he was, they just had much
: shorter peaks.

See my longer post elsewhere.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 09 Mar 2007 10:16:47
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Fri, 09 2007 16:51:24 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:

>Oh, I get it now.
>
>When mediocre players won majors in Nicklaus' era, that was evidence
>of the mediocrity of the fields at the time.

How do you define "mediocre"? Anybody who wins a major has to be
damn good.

In any era.

>But when mediocre player win majors today, that's evidence of the
>depth of the fields in Tiger's era.
>
>Thanks for setting that straight.

When the 396th best player in the world wins a major, it means that
the depth of the field is such that the 396th best player is good
enough to be competitive. Good enough to win a major.

In any era.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 11:29:26
From: David
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Wed, 07 2007 16:21:14 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:

>On Wed, 07 2007 21:02:02 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>Suddenly, the depth of field is creeping toward the 40 k of
>>golfers who realistically had a chance to win on any given weekend.
>
>That sounds about right for Jack's era. Today, it's more like 400, as
>Ben Curtis proved.

That is ridiculous. There are not 400, or even 100 golfers in the
field who have realistic chances of winning today. The other golfers
that I mentioned during Jack's era were all multiple winners on the
tour. There were many more who won one tournament and were never
heard from again.

So far, no one has taken the challenge and come up with a list of
golfers playing today to compare against the listof golfers that I
came up with during the 60's and 70's. Please, if you want to prove
me wrong, then do it with some facts and not some lame statement that
the field is deeper today and therefore it is more difficult to win.

In forty years, will you remember the other golfers of this era?
There may be five that you will be able to name. Now, 40 years later,
the names that I listed are known by everyone.

David

Date: 08 Mar 2007 15:38:37
From: multi
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Thu, 08 2007 11:29:26 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:
><multi wrote:>
>>That sounds about right for Jack's era. Today, it's more like 400, as
>>Ben Curtis proved.
>
> That is ridiculous. There are not 400, or even 100 golfers in the
>field who have realistic chances of winning today.

Ben Curtis was ranked 396 in the world the week he won the Open.

>The other golfers
>that I mentioned during Jack's era were all multiple winners on the
>tour.

Ben won twice in 2006.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 08:40:13
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Thu, 08 2007 11:29:26 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:

> So far, no one has taken the challenge and come up with a list of
>golfers playing today to compare against the listof golfers that I
>came up with during the 60's and 70's.

You named some golfers that you say are incomparably better than
Tiger's competition. We can say "are not", but unless we have some
way to resolve such a disagreement, that would be pointless.

Date: 08 Mar 2007 09:40:16
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

David wrote:
> On Wed, 07 2007 16:21:14 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 2007 21:02:02 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>> Suddenly, the depth of field is creeping toward the 40 k of
>>> golfers who realistically had a chance to win on any given weekend.
>> That sounds about right for Jack's era. Today, it's more like 400, as
>> Ben Curtis proved.
>
> That is ridiculous. There are not 400, or even 100 golfers in the
> field who have realistic chances of winning today. The other golfers
> that I mentioned during Jack's era were all multiple winners on the
> tour. There were many more who won one tournament and were never
> heard from again.
>
> So far, no one has taken the challenge and come up with a list of
> golfers playing today to compare against the listof golfers that I
> came up with during the 60's and 70's. Please, if you want to prove
> me wrong, then do it with some facts and not some lame statement that
> the field is deeper today and therefore it is more difficult to win.
>
> In forty years, will you remember the other golfers of this era?
> There may be five that you will be able to name. Now, 40 years later,
> the names that I listed are known by everyone.
>
> David

The real question here is how you determine how deep a field is. It's a
tough question because you can't assume that the best players of any era
played against each other the same number of times. That is, if Jack
won a tournament in which, say, Palmer, Player, Trevino, et. al, weren't
entered in, then he hasn't beaten them. Same thing with the others--if
Player won a tournament in which Nicklaus wasn't entered, what does it
mean, really?

I don't have the numbers on this nor do I know where to get them, but
one way to determine, in general, if fields are deeper today is to look
at the range of scoring average among the top 30 scorers, and top 100
scorers, back then and now. It's not a perfect measure by any means
(you can have a low scoring average if you only play on bunny courses),
but it would show at least something about how close the players were to
each other in each era.

If you've ever read any Stephen Jay Gould (his article on why no one
hits .400 any more is classic), then you'll already know this: The
earlier you are in a sport's history, the easier it is for the better
player to exploit edges that give them an advantage. As time goes on,
these edges become apparent to everyone, and everyone exploits them,
thus reducing the difference between players' performances.

Would Babe Ruth be the star today that he was in the 20s? I have my
doubts--he stood out against his peers, but there were far fewer peers
to compare him against (meaning he was the best of the best at the time,
but that doesn't mean he'd be that today, which I doubt). Babe Ruth
never faced a split-fingered fastball, a slider, or a bevy of relief
pitchers with specialty pitches.

Are the differences between the best players less today than they were?
It defies logic to argue that players today are less capable than 30
and 40 years ago. The population is twice what it was (meaning there
are twice as many potential golfers from which to draw the top tier),
equipment is more uniform (we know much more about how to make excellent
equipment than we used to), players are generally in much better shape
(ignoring John Daly :), sports psychologists like Bob Rotella are
helping players with the mental game, and so on and so forth.

What makes Tiger so great, IMO, is that he stands out so much from a
group of peers that must be more capable and more uniform as a group
than what players faced 30 and 40 years ago. That is, that Tiger is
able to do what he's done against players that must be better than in
Jack's time is what makes him so amazing.

We're witnessing something rekable; rather than denigrate his
competition, we should recognize that Tiger's competition is far better
than previous generations faced, and *still* he dominates the sport.

If ever there were a definition of superhuman, that's it.

Mike

--
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdoctor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2007: June 22-24----Lawsonia!
Website: http://clubdoctor.com/rsgwis2007

Date: 09 Mar 2007 19:57:18
From: David
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Thu, 08 2007 09:40:16 -0600, Mike Dalecki
<mike@removeclubdoctor.com > wrote:

<snipped >

>What makes Tiger so great, IMO, is that he stands out so much from a
>group of peers that must be more capable and more uniform as a group
>than what players faced 30 and 40 years ago. That is, that Tiger is
>able to do what he's done against players that must be better than in
>Jack's time is what makes him so amazing.

Once again, someone makes the claim that the players today are better
than the players during Jack's era and I call a big bullshit on that.
Name the players today who are better than the palyers during the 60's
and 70's.

>We're witnessing something rekable; rather than denigrate his
>competition, we should recognize that Tiger's competition is far better
>than previous generations faced, and *still* he dominates the sport.

Prove the claim, please!

>If ever there were a definition of superhuman, that's it.
>>Mike

David

Date: 09 Mar 2007 20:56:35
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

David wrote:
> On Thu, 08 2007 09:40:16 -0600, Mike Dalecki
> <mike@removeclubdoctor.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
>> What makes Tiger so great, IMO, is that he stands out so much from a
>> group of peers that must be more capable and more uniform as a group
>> than what players faced 30 and 40 years ago. That is, that Tiger is
>> able to do what he's done against players that must be better than in
>> Jack's time is what makes him so amazing.
>
> Once again, someone makes the claim that the players today are better
> than the players during Jack's era and I call a big bullshit on that.
> Name the players today who are better than the palyers during the 60's
> and 70's.

Well, um, just about everybody. Lessee: Mickelson, Furyk, Els, Davis
Love III, some guy named Woods, there's a whole lot of them.

Players today are in far better shape than players of yore (with perhaps
the exception of Gary Player, who was about the first guy to ever
really, really care about being in shape), they know more about the
psychology of sport than players then did, and on and on.

It defies all kinds of logic to argue the players back then were better.
Sorry, they weren't.

This is the Stephen Jay Gould thing again: When the variance from best
to worst shrinks, it's harder and harder for players to distinguish
themselves. This is why what Tiger has done is so amazing.

>> We're witnessing something rekable; rather than denigrate his
>> competition, we should recognize that Tiger's competition is far better
>> than previous generations faced, and *still* he dominates the sport.
>
> Prove the claim, please!

Well, what claim? That he dominates the sport?

The competition *is* better. I pointed out a number of reasons why in
my previous post, but one of the best reasons is the number of players
in the population is far greater than what it was. There are many more
international players, and all-in-all, there's far better performance.

If you want an analogy, ask yourself whether athletes in any sport are
better today than 35 years ago; the answer is yes. Look at what happens
to records in swimming, track, any kind of sport in which there is an
objective standard.

You can't hardly argue that golfers aren't better as well.

--
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdoctor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2007: June 22-24----Lawsonia!
Website: http://clubdoctor.com/rsgwis2007

Date: 10 Mar 2007 15:18:39
From: David
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Fri, 09 2007 20:56:35 -0600, Mike Dalecki
<mike@removeclubdoctor.com > wrote:

<snipped >

>It defies all kinds of logic to argue the players back then were better.
> Sorry, they weren't.

Based on what?

>This is the Stephen Jay Gould thing again: When the variance from best
>to worst shrinks, it's harder and harder for players to distinguish
>themselves. This is why what Tiger has done is so amazing.

Yet, read the claim that Singh was able to do just that. He did it
the old-fashioned way--he worked his ass off, physically and
technically. At 40 years of age, he dominated the rest of the field.
Do you want to tell me that the younger players simply are not is as
good physical shape as Singh?

>>> We're witnessing something rekable; rather than denigrate his
>>> competition, we should recognize that Tiger's competition is far better
>>> than previous generations faced, and *still* he dominates the sport.
>>
>> Prove the claim, please!
>
>Well, what claim? That he dominates the sport?

The claim that the competition is better than the competition of
previous generations. As I said, if I was coming on to the tour today,
I would have only one golfer in my sights--Woods. The rest would be
tiny little blips on the radar screen.

If I was coming on during Jack's reign, I have to set my sights on
Jack and I would have still have to worry about how I am going to get
by the other great players of that era.

>The competition *is* better. I pointed out a number of reasons why in
>my previous post, but one of the best reasons is the number of players
>in the population is far greater than what it was. There are many more
>international players, and all-in-all, there's far better performance.

>If you want an analogy, ask yourself whether athletes in any sport are
>better today than 35 years ago; the answer is yes. Look at what happens
>to records in swimming, track, any kind of sport in which there is an
>objective standard.

>You can't hardly argue that golfers aren't better as well.

Are the winning score better today than 35 years ago? Hardly. Is
everyone today shooting 65, or better, every round that they play?
Hardly. The fact is, the scoring has not seen great improvements,
although there have been such great improvements in equipment. The
argument that the courses are longer today and that is why the scores
are not better does not hold water. When players today are hitting
driver, 5 iron to a 525 yard par five, that would mean that the
courses are not difficult enough. When players are conistently able
to hit balls out of three inch rough, that is also a reflection of the
equipment.

The part that you left out of your analogy is desire. It can easily
be argued that there is less desire today on the all-exempt tour.
Players today openly state that they are playing for second place when
Woods tees it up and you want to tell me that they are better golfers
today?

The sports that you mention above are sports which require strength
and stamina. The argument that better diets and better training are
producing better athletes physically is certainly true; these are not,
however, overriding factors in getting the ball in the hole.

Tennis is a good example of a similar argument to what has been
presented in this thread. The over-sized rackets changed the game
significantly. There is plenty depth of field in the sport of tennis,
yet, going in to an event there are arguably 5 guys who have a chance
to beat Federer. Is Federer a better tennis player than Connors,
McEnroe, Borg, Becker,, Newcombe, Smith, Ashe, etc..., who played
prior to the equipment improvement?

David

Date: 10 Mar 2007 11:49:20
From: multi
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Sat, 10 2007 15:18:39 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:
>Players today openly state that they are playing for second place when
>Woods tees it up

Not very many of them. You named Boo Weekley, but big deal.

I guess you'd never catch the guys Jack battled, like Casper and
Watson, saying they were playing for second, would you?

Oops, here's Billy Casper, saying he was playing for second:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,835890,00.html

and here's Tom Watson, in fourth place at the 1997 Masters, with a
full round to play:
http://www.sportinglife.com/golf/major_archive/masters_story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=American_Football/99/03/22/manual_151557.html&YEAR=1997
"I will try and play my best golf tomorrow, but it looks as though I
am playing for second place."

Date: 10 Mar 2007 22:08:53
From: David
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Sat, 10 2007 11:49:20 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:

>On Sat, 10 2007 15:18:39 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>Players today openly state that they are playing for second place when
>>Woods tees it up
>
>Not very many of them. You named Boo Weekley, but big deal.
>
>I guess you'd never catch the guys Jack battled, like Casper and
>Watson, saying they were playing for second, would you?
>
>Oops, here's Billy Casper, saying he was playing for second:
>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,835890,00.html

Okay, I read the article. He said that he was playing for second
because Palmer had a seven stroke lead with nine to go and never
expected that Palmer could blow it so badly. He never made the claim
that he was playing for second place his entire career. Had he played
for second place his entire career, he never would have won as many
tournaments as he did--51 times. POY in 1966 and 1970, tour money
winner in 1968 and 1970, five time Vardon Trophy winner during the
60's, with 2 US Opens and a Master's victory to round out a damned
fine career. So, when was he playing for second place?

Date: 10 Mar 2007 23:54:53
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:
: On Sat, 10 2007 11:49:20 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
:
: >On Sat, 10 2007 15:18:39 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
: >>Players today openly state that they are playing for second place when
: >>Woods tees it up
: >
: >Not very many of them. You named Boo Weekley, but big deal.
: >
: >I guess you'd never catch the guys Jack battled, like Casper and
: >Watson, saying they were playing for second, would you?
: >
: >Oops, here's Billy Casper, saying he was playing for second:
: >http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,835890,00.html
:
: Okay, I read the article. He said that he was playing for second
: because Palmer had a seven stroke lead with nine to go and never
: expected that Palmer could blow it so badly.

IOW, he didn't expect to throw up a pretty 29 on his way in
at a U.S. Open at Olympic? What a coward. ;)

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 10 Mar 2007 21:58:01
From: David
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Sat, 10 2007 11:49:20 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:

>On Sat, 10 2007 15:18:39 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>Players today openly state that they are playing for second place when
>>Woods tees it up
>
>Not very many of them. You named Boo Weekley, but big deal.
>
>I guess you'd never catch the guys Jack battled, like Casper and
>Watson, saying they were playing for second, would you?
>
>Oops, here's Billy Casper, saying he was playing for second:
>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,835890,00.html
>
>and here's Tom Watson, in fourth place at the 1997 Masters, with a
>full round to play:
>http://www.sportinglife.com/golf/major_archive/masters_story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=American_Football/99/03/22/manual_151557.html&YEAR=1997
>"I will try and play my best golf tomorrow, but it looks as though I
>am playing for second place."

Weekly is definitely not the only player in the last ten years to
say that they were playing for second place. Besides, Weekly said
that a tournament that Woods was not even playing in.

Then you bring up Watson in the 1997 Masters. That is funny. He
had already been on the tour for 26 years and was the tournament that
Woods set the total scoring record and won by 12 strokes. What could
Watson have said?

David

Date: 10 Mar 2007 19:47:40
From: multi
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Sat, 10 2007 21:58:01 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:

>What could Watson have said?

Since you have now gone completely off the rails, upping your claim to
now say that ALL golfers say they are playing for second against
Tiger, and making lame excuses when confronted with losing attitudes
from the guys you said would never play for second, I will answer
accordingly. It's fun to be crazy.

If he were a real man, instead of a lazy choker, he could have said he
would beat Tiger by ten shots, and then rip off his head and piss down
his neck. A real man doesn't consider the odds.

When I was in basic, and we were crawling through the mud, the DI
would yell in our ear, "What would you do if you were out of ammo and
surrounded by 30 VC?" The correct answer was, "Kill them, sir!"

Date: 11 Mar 2007 15:55:55
From: David
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Sat, 10 2007 19:47:40 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:

>On Sat, 10 2007 21:58:01 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>>What could Watson have said?
>
>Since you have now gone completely off the rails, upping your claim to
>now say that ALL golfers say they are playing for second against
>Tiger, and making lame excuses when confronted with losing attitudes
>from the guys you said would never play for second, I will answer
>accordingly. It's fun to be crazy.
>
>If he were a real man, instead of a lazy choker, he could have said he
>would beat Tiger by ten shots, and then rip off his head and piss down
>his neck. A real man doesn't consider the odds.
>
>When I was in basic, and we were crawling through the mud, the DI
>would yell in our ear, "What would you do if you were out of ammo and
>surrounded by 30 VC?" The correct answer was, "Kill them, sir!"

I was in the army, and if someone did not answer that way, he was in
for a very long day. I suppose we will never hear Woods say that he
his playing for second place ifhe finds himself 7 strokes back with
nine to play, or 10 strokes back to start a round, when the person who
has the lead is a future legend and Woods is around 45 years old.
Please.

You have taken what was said in two circumstances so totally out of
context and formed them in to an argument to support your weak claims.
There have been many instances of the field today saying that they
were playing for second place with Woods in the field even before they
hit their first tee shots.

David

Date: 11 Mar 2007 12:20:51
From: multi
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Sun, 11 2007 15:55:55 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:
> I was in the army, and if someone did not answer that way, he was in
>for a very long day. I suppose we will never hear Woods say that he
>his playing for second place ifhe finds himself 7 strokes back with
>nine to play, or 10 strokes back to start a round, when the person who
>has the lead is a future legend and Woods is around 45 years old.
>Please.

Please is right. Tiger was certainly a future legend, but nobody knew
it then, as he had zero majors at the time, and his career record at
the Masters was T41-MC. Even Colin Montgomerie, a zero-time winner on
the PGA tour to this day, was confident he could overtake Tiger's lead
on Moving Day at that event.

So you have come full circle. You began the week saying a statement
like that proves that a player is a loser. Now you say even Tiger
would say it under similar circumstances.

In 1998, not his best year, Tiger was 11 back of future Hall of Famer
Ernie Els at the Johnnie Walker Classic after two rounds. He
predicted he would win. He was still eight back after three rounds.
He won in a playoff.

Tiger has entered the fourth round ten back on dozens of occasions.
He is the most interviewed player in golf, so you should have no
trouble finding a direct quote to support your theory.

> You have taken what was said in two circumstances so totally out of
>context and formed them in to an argument to support your weak claims.
>There have been many instances of the field today saying that they
>were playing for second place with Woods in the field even before they
>hit their first tee shots.

Oddly enough, I do remember one big name saying (approximately) that
the other guys were playing for second all the time with Tiger, but
again, it was Tom Watson, this time in 2000. But among top players
today, the only quotes I can recall were in the same context as
Casper, i.e. when they were already well behind late in the
tournament.

I recall Mickelson saying he enjoyed dueling with Tiger when Tiger was
playing his best. I recall Vijay never admitting that Tiger had
anything on him, and beating him head to head to take over the world
number one ranking. I recall Ernie Els, now fairly late in his career
and coming off an injury and a winless year on the tour, saying he is
determined to take the crown from Tiger. I recall even nancy-boy Luke
Donald, after Tiger whipped him at the PGA last year, saying he would
learn from it and come back stronger.

You have been yammering for a week about how today's golfers are
pussies, but you have yet to give a specific example, other than Boo
Weekley, who was famous for five minutes. But when I give quotes,
with citations, from the guys you (correctly) named as Jack's toughest
competition, you make excuses for them, and start hemming and hawing
about the context, and move the goalposts.

So put up or shut up. If I could search for 30 seconds and find a
Billy Casper quote from 40 years ago, surely you can find somebody
like Vijay or Sergio, saying they are afraid of Tiger. Just stick to
your own moved goalposts --- we're now talking about someone saying he
is playing for second whenever Tiger tees it up, rather than saying he
is playing for second when Tiger has a big lead. Direct quotes with
citations, please.

Date: 10 Mar 2007 08:54:41
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

David wrote:
> On Fri, 09 2007 20:56:35 -0600, Mike Dalecki
> <mike@removeclubdoctor.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
>> It defies all kinds of logic to argue the players back then were better.
>> Sorry, they weren't.
>
> Based on what?

Are you reading anything I've written, David? Or are you just adopting
the LLLarry stance that repeating something incorrect will somehow make
it correct?

>> This is the Stephen Jay Gould thing again: When the variance from best
>> to worst shrinks, it's harder and harder for players to distinguish
>> themselves. This is why what Tiger has done is so amazing.
>
> Yet, read the claim that Singh was able to do just that.

What? When did Vijay win his events? Was it during a period of Tiger
reconstructing his swing?

Nothing I've said should take away from Vijay, who is one hell of a
golfer. The fact that he did some of this at 40 doesn't mean anything;
and yes, the man is in shape.

Further, your argument, below the surface, assumes some sort of
homogeneity of the golfing community, as if they're all somehow the
same. They're not, there are still differences. The differences are
less than they used to be, overall.

And even if Vijay did win most of his tournaments while Tiger was on his
game (I simply don't know, dont' know where to find this information
offhand), there's no reason why you can't have a really dominant player
in an era (Tiger) and someone else who is also darned good (Vijay).

What will prevent Vijay from being talked about in the same breath as
other greats of the game is that Vijay's career hasn't been as long.
He's similar, in some ways, to Johnny Miller: Great, but for a
relatively short period of time.

>He did it
> the old-fashioned way--he worked his ass off, physically and
> technically.

So? What's your point? This refutes nothing, it's simply an observation.

> At 40 years of age, he dominated the rest of the field.
> Do you want to tell me that the younger players simply are not is as
> good physical shape as Singh?

While I was born at night, it wasn't last night.

You've shifted the argument from quality of field to quality of Vijay.
Tell me, just how did he dominate the field, and for how long? And how
many of those wins came when Tiger was doing swing reconstruction?

And, as anyone who has *ever* played golf knows, physical shape is but
one aspect of the game. Players got in better shape because they
realized they needed more distance to compete with Tiger. Vijay has
that distance as well, but his game is far more than that.

Do you even play golf, David? These arguments are very strange, almost
as if you've never played.

>>>> We're witnessing something rekable; rather than denigrate his
>>>> competition, we should recognize that Tiger's competition is far better
>>>> than previous generations faced, and *still* he dominates the sport.
>>> Prove the claim, please!
>> Well, what claim? That he dominates the sport?
>
> The claim that the competition is better than the competition of
> previous generations. As I said, if I was coming on to the tour today,
> I would have only one golfer in my sights--Woods. The rest would be
> tiny little blips on the radar screen.

The field is tighter, and at a much higher level than in previous eras.

And it's good that you'd have Tiger in your sights--excellent way to set
a high target and try to achieve it. How does that make you different
from other players?

Further, some players undoubtedly know they're not as good as Tiger.
They work to get the best out of the talent God gave them, and if it's
not good enough to beat Tiger, it's not. Is Fred Funk going to be able
to go Toe to Toe with Tiger? On his best day, when Tiger has the flue.

Heck, you could stick me out there playing Tiger, and it doesn't matter
one whit how much I want to beat him, how hard I try--I don't have the
skillset to compete with him.

You imply that the game comes down to what's in the head and the heart.
If this were true, I'd have 10 majors myself.

> If I was coming on during Jack's reign, I have to set my sights on
> Jack and I would have still have to worry about how I am going to get
> by the other great players of that era.

I'm not saying this isn't a good approach. It is. But it's not got
anything to do with the depth of field today.

>
>> The competition *is* better. I pointed out a number of reasons why in
>> my previous post, but one of the best reasons is the number of players
>> in the population is far greater than what it was. There are many more
>> international players, and all-in-all, there's far better performance.
>
>
>
>> If you want an analogy, ask yourself whether athletes in any sport are
>> better today than 35 years ago; the answer is yes. Look at what happens
>> to records in swimming, track, any kind of sport in which there is an
>> objective standard.
>
>
>
>> You can't hardly argue that golfers aren't better as well.
>
> Are the winning score better today than 35 years ago? Hardly.

Geez. The courses are, of course, exactly the same as in year's past.
The greens are the same (yeah, they were stimping 40 years ago just the
same as they are today, right?), the rough is equal (ever hear of US
Open rough?), the length is equal. Sure, everything's exactly the same,
so you can compare scores, right?

There's a reason I haven't referred even once to scores of players,
because between eras they can't be compared.

> Is
> everyone today shooting 65, or better, every round that they play?
> Hardly. The fact is, the scoring has not seen great improvements,
> although there have been such great improvements in equipment. The
> argument that the courses are longer today and that is why the scores
> are not better does not hold water. When players today are hitting
> driver, 5 iron to a 525 yard par five, that would mean that the
> courses are not difficult enough. When players are conistently able
> to hit balls out of three inch rough, that is also a reflection of the
> equipment.

Refuted above.

>
> The part that you left out of your analogy is desire. It can easily
> be argued that there is less desire today on the all-exempt tour.
> Players today openly state that they are playing for second place when
> Woods tees it up and you want to tell me that they are better golfers
> today?

Wow. That's an incredibly fallacious argument, David. If *I* teed it
up, knowing that I cannot beat Woods, what would that mean? It would
mean he's better, that's all.

That they accept his dominance (if they do--that's not been
demonstrated, and even if a few golfers have said what you say above,
that's not all golfers saying it), says absolutely *nothing* about
whether they're better or not.

David, by your logic, if players today were shooting 61s each time out,
but Tiger was shooting 57s, the players today would not be better than
in years past. Obviously that wouldn't be the case.

> The sports that you mention above are sports which require strength
> and stamina.

And golf is devoid of that? Yeah, sure.

> The argument that better diets and better training are
> producing better athletes physically is certainly true; these are not,
> however, overriding factors in getting the ball in the hole.

Says who? You? Golf is a multifaceted game, and as I have noted
before, it's not only golfers being in better shape (which means their
ability to execute is better), but they have better mental games, short
games are better, everything's better.

>
> Tennis is a good example of a similar argument to what has been
> presented in this thread. The over-sized rackets changed the game
> significantly. There is plenty depth of field in the sport of tennis,
> yet, going in to an event there are arguably 5 guys who have a chance
> to beat Federer. Is Federer a better tennis player than Connors,
> McEnroe, Borg, Becker,, Newcombe, Smith, Ashe, etc..., who played
> prior to the equipment improvement?

I know next to nothing about Tennis; boring game IMO. But do you think
that the best athletes in Tennis today would be at a disadvantage to
guys like McEnroe? Sheesh. I'd take today's players in a heartbeat.

Mike

--
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdoctor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2007: June 22-24----Lawsonia!
Website: http://clubdoctor.com/rsgwis2007

Date: 10 Mar 2007 21:53:54
From: David
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Sat, 10 2007 08:54:41 -0600, Mike Dalecki
<mike@removeclubdoctor.com > wrote:

Mike, Vijay Singh is a golfer who decided to make an earnest effort
at reaching the pinnacle of golf. That he make such a concerted
effort at the age of 40 and was able to blow away the field--that
Woods was not "at the top of his game" is a non-entity. Woods won't
always be "on his game" and 2004 was certainly not the only year that
he wasn't.

In 2003, before Woods had "lost his form," Singh won as many events
as Woods did. In 2004, when Woods was reconstructing his swing and
winning only one time, Singh won nine times. In 2005, after Woods
rediscovered his game and won six times, Singh won four more
tournaments. All of this after he turned 40. If it is possible for a
golfer to step up his game at that age and compete with Woods, then it
sure as heck should be possible for the young guns, if they are
supposedly so good and so fit.

Your post was about the better fitness of the players today than 40
years ago and I say it has nothing to do with the mental side of the
game which, in the end, will separate true champions from players who
may be gifted in the technical aspect but cannot find the inner will
to get the ball in the hole when it really counts.

David

Date: 10 Mar 2007 02:18:02
From: multi
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Fri, 09 2007 20:56:35 -0600, Mike Dalecki
<mike@removeclubdoctor.com > wrote:
>If you want an analogy, ask yourself whether athletes in any sport are
>better today than 35 years ago; the answer is yes. Look at what happens
>to records in swimming, track, any kind of sport in which there is an
>objective standard.

Jesse Owens set the world record for the 100m dash at the Berlin
Olympics in 1936, a hand-timed 10.20 seconds. "Set the world record"
means that in the entire history of track and field, nobody had ever
run that fast before. His record stood for 20 years.

At the 2006 NCAA Outdoor Track championships, guys qualified for the
100m by posting official times in previous races that year. A dozen
guys posted better than 10.2 --- and that's just American college
students. But wait, Jesse's k was hand-timed, and the NCAA was
using electronic time. The standard adjustment is to add .24 seconds
to a hand-timed k. If you do that, 56 American college students
ran faster than Jesse.

Must be the new aerodynamic jock straps.

Date: 10 Mar 2007 08:37:22
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

Mike Dalecki <mike@removeclubdoctor.com > wrote:
: David wrote:
: > On Thu, 08 2007 09:40:16 -0600, Mike Dalecki
: > <mike@removeclubdoctor.com> wrote:
: >
: > <snipped>
: >
: >> What makes Tiger so great, IMO, is that he stands out so much from a
: >> group of peers that must be more capable and more uniform as a group
: >> than what players faced 30 and 40 years ago. That is, that Tiger is
: >> able to do what he's done against players that must be better than in
: >> Jack's time is what makes him so amazing.
: >
: > Once again, someone makes the claim that the players today are better
: > than the players during Jack's era and I call a big bullshit on that.
: > Name the players today who are better than the palyers during the 60's
: > and 70's.
:
: Well, um, just about everybody. Lessee: Mickelson, Furyk, Els, Davis
: Love III, some guy named Woods, there's a whole lot of them.

Outside of Tiger, I don't think you've named one that is any
better than Tony Lema was. But it's impossible to know for sure,
isn't it?

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 10 Mar 2007 06:38:07
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Mike Dalecki <mike@removeclubdoctor.com> wrote:
> : David wrote:
> :> On Thu, 08 2007 09:40:16 -0600, Mike Dalecki
> :> <mike@removeclubdoctor.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> <snipped>
> :>
> :>> What makes Tiger so great, IMO, is that he stands out so much from a
> :>> group of peers that must be more capable and more uniform as a group
> :>> than what players faced 30 and 40 years ago. That is, that Tiger is
> :>> able to do what he's done against players that must be better than in
> :>> Jack's time is what makes him so amazing.
> :>
> :> Once again, someone makes the claim that the players today are better
> :> than the players during Jack's era and I call a big bullshit on that.
> :> Name the players today who are better than the palyers during the 60's
> :> and 70's.
> :
> : Well, um, just about everybody. Lessee: Mickelson, Furyk, Els, Davis
> : Love III, some guy named Woods, there's a whole lot of them.
>
> Outside of Tiger, I don't think you've named one that is any
> better than Tony Lema was. But it's impossible to know for sure,
> isn't it?
>

Not if you have a direct connection to the great guru of reality.

Which, of course, I do. :)

--
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdoctor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2007: June 22-24----Lawsonia!
Website: http://clubdoctor.com/rsgwis2007

Date: 10 Mar 2007 16:42:48
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

Mike Dalecki <mike@removeclubdoctor.com > wrote:
: Chris Bellomy wrote:
: > Mike Dalecki <mike@removeclubdoctor.com> wrote:
: > : David wrote:
: > :> On Thu, 08 2007 09:40:16 -0600, Mike Dalecki
: > :> <mike@removeclubdoctor.com> wrote:
: > :>
: > :> <snipped>
: > :>
: > :>> What makes Tiger so great, IMO, is that he stands out so much from a
: > :>> group of peers that must be more capable and more uniform as a group
: > :>> than what players faced 30 and 40 years ago. That is, that Tiger is
: > :>> able to do what he's done against players that must be better than in
: > :>> Jack's time is what makes him so amazing.
: > :>
: > :> Once again, someone makes the claim that the players today are better
: > :> than the players during Jack's era and I call a big bullshit on that.
: > :> Name the players today who are better than the palyers during the 60's
: > :> and 70's.
: > :
: > : Well, um, just about everybody. Lessee: Mickelson, Furyk, Els, Davis
: > : Love III, some guy named Woods, there's a whole lot of them.
: >
: > Outside of Tiger, I don't think you've named one that is any
: > better than Tony Lema was. But it's impossible to know for sure,
: > isn't it?
:
: Not if you have a direct connection to the great guru of reality.
:
: Which, of course, I do. :)

Yeah, but he just told you that none of those are any better than
Tony Lema was! :)

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 09 Mar 2007 20:49:31
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:
: On Thu, 08 2007 09:40:16 -0600, Mike Dalecki
: <mike@removeclubdoctor.com > wrote:
:
: <snipped >
:
: >What makes Tiger so great, IMO, is that he stands out so much from a
: >group of peers that must be more capable and more uniform as a group
: >than what players faced 30 and 40 years ago. That is, that Tiger is
: >able to do what he's done against players that must be better than in
: >Jack's time is what makes him so amazing.
:
: Once again, someone makes the claim that the players today are better
: than the players during Jack's era and I call a big bullshit on that.
: Name the players today who are better than the palyers during the 60's
: and 70's.

All of them. Today's players have to shoot in the 50's to win. Duh.

</sarcasm >

Seriously, any argument that tries to demonstrates differences in
field is specious because it's simply not possible to compare them
in any direct way. You can't look at score average because yesterday's
courses were shorter and largely easier, and because today's equipment
shortens courses, mitigates the effect of errors, and renders most
rough largely irrelevant. You can't compare fields because they can
never play each other in their primes with the same equipment on
the same courses, and because, as noted elsewhere, you can point to
the Charles Coodys and Tommy Aarons of Nicklaus' era as examples of
mediocrity while simultaneously pointing to Ben Curtis and Rich Beem
as examples of today's amazing depth. But of course you'd be trying
to have it both ways if you did.

Nicklaus was fkn amazing. Tiger is fkn amazing. Nelson, Hogan
and Snead were all fkn amazing. Deciding who the best among them
is a subjective exercise, there's no objective way to settle it.
Though I will say this: if Hogan had been able to putt like Tiger
and had never had the car accident, we wouldn't be having this
conversation. But he couldn't and he did, so it is what it is.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 08 Mar 2007 15:34:48
From: multi
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Thu, 08 2007 09:40:16 -0600, Mike Dalecki
<mike@removeclubdoctor.com > wrote:

>If you've ever read any Stephen Jay Gould (his article on why no one
>hits .400 any more is classic),

Excellent reference.

> then you'll already know this: The
>earlier you are in a sport's history, the easier it is for the better
>player to exploit edges that give them an advantage. As time goes on,
>these edges become apparent to everyone, and everyone exploits them,
>thus reducing the difference between players' performances.

And there is no better example of this than golf's majors. Jack was
not only the first golfer to specially prepare for them, he was the
first golfer to play all four each year. Nobody is even sure when the
Masters and the PGA became majors, because other events like the
Western Open had more prestige in the old days. American golfers
mostly ignored the British Open, because they lost money playing it,
even if they won. That's why Snead, Nelson, and Hogan only played it
once each in their primes.

Although, sadly, Jack is now claiming that he didn't take the majors
seriously enough, his own autobiography (published just before Tiger
won his first major) contradicts this. He talks about how he built
his season around the majors, visiting the courses weeks in advance to
prepare. He was just about the only golfer who did this, and it gave
him a tremendous advantage over his peers. Today, all the top pros
concentrate on the majors, and so Tiger has no advantage over them ---
at least in that respect.

>Would Babe Ruth be the star today that he was in the 20s? I have my
>doubts--he stood out against his peers, but there were far fewer peers
>to compare him against (meaning he was the best of the best at the time,
>but that doesn't mean he'd be that today, which I doubt). Babe Ruth
>never faced a split-fingered fastball, a slider, or a bevy of relief
>pitchers with specialty pitches.

Any sports records, whether in baseball, basketball, boxing, or golf,
should have a big fat asterisk if they were set during an era when
participation was restricted to white Americans.

>Are the differences between the best players less today than they were?
> It defies logic to argue that players today are less capable than 30
>and 40 years ago. The population is twice what it was (meaning there
>are twice as many potential golfers from which to draw the top tier),

More like thirty times as many, because most of the top golfers today
are from outside the US. Only a handful of non-US players were on the
tour before the 80's. In fact, except for the 1970 US Open victory by
Jacklin, Gary Player is the only non-US player to win a US major
between 1947 and 1979. Compare that with the modern era --- other
than 2002, when Els won the British Open, the last year that Americans
won all three US majors was 1987.

Date: 07 Mar 2007 16:19:22
From: multi
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Wed, 07 2007 21:02:02 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:
> How does a group of 100 golfers who only win one tournament in their
>careers prove that there is depth of field? It only show that even a
>blind dog finds a bone, once in a while.

I guess it depends on whether you think winning a PGA event is all
luck, rather than there being some skill involved as well. And even
if you believe it is pure luck, you still have to account for all but
a couple of Jack's competitors being Americans, while today the rest
of the world is so strong that there are only three Americans in the
top 14, and we get annihilated at the Ryder Cup.

Date: 07 Mar 2007 14:35:49
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Wed, 07 2007 21:02:02 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:

> How does a group of 100 golfers who only win one tournament in their
>careers prove that there is depth of field?

Because that's what the term means. Nothing more, nothing less.

> There was plenty depth of field during the 60's and 70's. In five
>years, Mickelson will have been playing for 20 years, Singh will have
>been playing the PGA Tour for 20 years (18 of his wins came after he
>turned 40--a lot to be said for the quality of the rest of the field),
>Els will have been playing for 20 years. None of them will come close
>to the biggest names during Jack's career. Not because the field is so
>deep today, but because they are not as good.

This argument is saying "they aren't as good because they aren't as
good". The counter argument is "they are better because they are
better".

It's similar to the argument that Tiger's not as good as Jack because
Tiger's competition doesn't win as often.

Date: 07 Mar 2007 21:04:50
From: David
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Wed, 07 2007 21:02:02 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:

>On Wed, 07 2007 12:46:11 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 07 2007 20:38:04 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>
>>>One hundred different golfers winning one
>>>tournamet definitely does not prove depth of field to me.
>>
>>Interesting. That's the very definition of a deep field to me.
>>
>>> A pack of golfers consistently vying for the top spot does, however.
>>
>>Interesting. That's the very definition of a shallow field to me.
>
>
> How does a group of 100 golfers who only win one tournament in their
>careers prove that there is depth of field? It only show that even a
>blind dog finds a bone, once in a while.
>
> By the way, add to the list of players during Jack's era names such
>as, Ben Crenshaw, Bruce Litzke, Bruce Crampton, Gay Brewer, Don
>January, Miller Barber, Bruce Devlin, Gene Littler, Gil Morgan, and I
>can find at least 20 more names that most people who are old enough
>would recognize.
>
> Suddenly, the depth of field is creeping toward the 40 k of
>golfers who realistically had a chance to win on any given weekend.
>The thing is, the top ten of this list waxed everyone's collective
>asses.
>
> There was plenty depth of field during the 60's and 70's. In five
>years, Mickelson will have been playing for 20 years, Singh will have
>been playing the PGA Tour for 20 years (18 of his wins came after he
>turned 40--a lot to be said for the quality of the rest of the field),
>Els will have been playing for 20 years. None of them will come close
>to the biggest names during Jack's career. Not because the field is so
>deep today, but because they are not as good.

Also, lest we forget, there was a thing called the Monday Qualifier.
The top 75 had entries and the rest had to earn their spots. A pack
of 150 golfers with automatic entries in to tournaments is the only
thing guaranteeing them the "opportunity" to win on any given weekend.

>David

Date: 06 Mar 2007 16:53:12
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 6, 1:51 pm, "Alan Murphy" <afm...@btinternet.com > wrote:
>
> In 1964 when he won the B. Open at Muirfield Nicklaus
> was streets ahead of his peers. He was much, much longer,
> taking wedges and 9 irons for his second shots while they
> were taking long irons and woods. Technically there was
> a much bigger gap between him and the rest than there is
> now between Woods and his fellow competitors. He really
> was in a class of his own.

Wow, he must've won 10-15 times that year, huh?
Let's check:
Phoenix Open
Tournament of Champions
Whitesh Open
Portland Open

Oops, that's it. Four wins plus a Major.
Now let's pick a year for Tiger. Last year will do.
Eight wins including two Majors.
Yeah, Jack was more dominant.

Date: 07 Mar 2007 10:19:03
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

"annika1980" <annika...@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1173228791.979480.268360@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> On 6, 1:51 pm, "Alan Murphy" <afm...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> In 1964 when he won the B. Open at Muirfield Nicklaus
>> was streets ahead of his peers. He was much, much longer,
>> taking wedges and 9 irons for his second shots while they
>> were taking long irons and woods. Technically there was
>> a much bigger gap between him and the rest than there is
>> now between Woods and his fellow competitors. He really
>> was in a class of his own.
>
> Wow, he must've won 10-15 times that year, huh?
> Let's check:
> Phoenix Open
> Tournament of Champions
> Whitesh Open
> Portland Open
>
> Oops, that's it. Four wins plus a Major.
> Now let's pick a year for Tiger. Last year will do.
> Eight wins including two Majors.
> Yeah, Jack was more dominant.
>
Jack used to concentrate on Majors more than todays
top players who have to abide by their contracts. For
example at Muirfield he turned up a week early with his
family and stayed at a hotel next door to the course. He
was much better prepared than his competition. Funnily
enough another young fellow from Columbus, Ohio did
the same when he won the Open at R.St.Georges a few
few years ago. Ben Curtis. He was the first pro to check
in at the course and played a practise round with the club
professional.

Incidentally, this is an argument for Tiger being better than
Jack, in that Tiger plays against stronger opposition and
still manages to win - although it must be said that Jack's
opposition was much hungrier than the present lot who
make millions by just turning up.

Alan

Date: 07 Mar 2007 12:09:00
From: David
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Wed, 7 2007 10:19:03 -0000, "Alan Murphy"
<afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote:

<snipped >

>Incidentally, this is an argument for Tiger being better than
>Jack, in that Tiger plays against stronger opposition and
>still manages to win - although it must be said that Jack's
>opposition was much hungrier than the present lot who
>make millions by just turning up.

I disagree. When Woods tees it up, it only needs to beat himself.
When Jack teed it up, he had to beat people that were winning a lot of
tournaments and who had the guts and determination to grind it out.
This was the point that Miller was trying to make, albeit it, in a
terrible way.

How many times has Woods stated that he won and only brought his "B"
game with him that weekend. Jack had to have his "A" game to win,
since so many other players were bringing an "A" game, as well.

The players that I mentioned in the OP, with Jack's numbers
included, combined for 69 major titles over that 20 year period. There
were only 80 majors played. If you like, we can divide that number in
half and there are nearly 35 major titles divided up between 10
players. Now, pick the 10 most prolific players over the last 10
years, inluding Woods, and tell me what number you come up with.

Wood has 12, Phil has 3, Singh has 3, Els has 1, Duval has 1, Daly
has 2, DLIII has 1. The best ten players in the majors over the last
10 years adds up to barely half, and that is only because Woods has
12.

Don't even get started on tour victories. It won't be close. Why
is it not possible that the fields just did not seem as deep during
the Jack era because ten golfers completely dominated the sport?

Perhaps the field today is a deep field of mediocrity? How often do
we here how much potential a golfer has to separate himself from the
rest of the field and challenge Woods? If these players have so much
talent, they would do just that.

All of Billy Caspers victories came during the Nicklaus era, as did
Gary Player's, and Trevino's. More than half of Arnie's victories
came during Jack's career, as well. Add up the numbers.

Deeper fields do not have to mean better fields, as is the case
here.

>Alan

David

Date: 07 Mar 2007 16:32:40
From: multi
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Wed, 07 2007 12:09:00 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:
> Don't even get started on tour victories. It won't be close.

You could have played the same game in the 11th year of Jack's career.
How many active PGA players in 1972, including Jack, could match the
victory totals of Nelson, Hogan, and Snead? I tells ya, the fields
were WAY deeper in 1945.

Date: 07 Mar 2007 15:23:56
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

"David" <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote in message
news:4p4tu25cj2kf0hiuddvur1q9375dai877v@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 7 2007 10:19:03 -0000, "Alan Murphy"
>
> <snipped>
>
> How many times has Woods stated that he won and only brought his "B"
> game with him that weekend. Jack had to have his "A" game to win,
> since so many other players were bringing an "A" game, as well.
>
> David
>
Quote from Jack Nicklaus' Playing Lessons, by Jack
Nicklaus with Ken Bowden, published in UK, 1981
by Heinemann.
"I've won a number of major championships when
playing at considerably less than my best from tee to
green, but I can't recall ever winning when driving and
approaching well but putting really badly".

Alan

Date: 06 Mar 2007 23:50:26
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

I think this is a bit like the old college football conundrum:
which conference is more difficult for the national title con-
tender, the one with one other team in the top five and six in
the bottom 40; or the one with five teams in the 20-40 range
and two 40-60?

Well, if you're team is really very solid, you should be able
to mow down all those 20-40 ranked teams without much difficulty,
even though that conference is, in theory, "tougher." Well, it's
not tougher; it's just deeper.

In comparison, as in the old Big 8, Oklahoma and Nebraska both
knew that they had one game they absolutely had to win every
year: the one against each other. And that game would be a
total deathmatch. (Discount OU's rivalry with Texas for the
purposes of this argument, please. Imagine we're just talking
about the Big 8 title if you wish.) If your team was in the
running for the national title, you were much happier knowing
that Nebraska still had OU to face, for instance, than knowing
that Miami still had games against Boston College, Georgia Tech
and Louisville.

The fields in Nicklaus' era were not as deep as today's, no
question. But Player, Palmer, Trevino and Watson in their
prime would probably beat Mickelson, Els, Singh and Furyk (or
choose your own fourth) pretty handily, IMO.

But you know what? That ain't Tiger's fault, and it's not his
problem to solve. He's still as great as he seems.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 07 Mar 2007 00:05:14
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
: I think this is a bit like the old college football conundrum:
: which conference is more difficult for the national title con-
: tender, the one with one other team in the top five and six in
: the bottom 40; or the one with five teams in the 20-40 range
: and two 40-60?
:
: Well, if you're team is really very solid,

Geez, rsfc speling habits dye harrd. "...your team..."

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 06 Mar 2007 15:03:46
From: multi
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

Well, at least you didn't call today's golfers lazy chokers, so that's
in your favor. Apart from that, your essay reads like an argument for
creationism. Cherry-picked facts, invalid comparisons, and very fuzzy
logic.

You say golfers today don't have a winning attitude, and your proof is
one sentence from Boo Weekley, probably spoken off the cuff in his
500th interview last week, his first time in the media spotlight. No
chance he might misspeak, right? But suppose he really doesn't have a
winning attitude. Guess what, he hasn't won, so why is he even in the
discussion? Why would an honest evaluation of Tiger's toughest
competition focus on someone who hasn't even won on the Nationwide
tour?

I really don't see how anyone can say Jack had it tougher. In the
'60s, golf was mostly a sport for those who couldn't make the football
or baseball teams, and there weren't many full scholarships for
golfers. Most golfers played golf the way their dad taught them, and
the only training they did was hit balls; there were few who had swing
coaches, personal trainers, etc. The expense and difficulty of travel
insured that there were only a handful of foreign players in PGA
events. Today, 11 of the top 14 golfers in the world are from outside
the US.

The fields are so much better today that it's very hard for anyone to
compile a lot of wins, just as Jack predicted back in 1996, when he
said that the money was becoming so good that it would attract
stronger and stronger competition. The fact that Tiger takes his five
to eight wins a year off the top just makes it that much harder for
the rest of them.

> So, who's it going to be, if anyone? When I compare Nicklaus career
>to Woods career, I will always have the though in the back of my mind
>that the competition was indeed much tougher during Jack's reign.
>Until a couple of players can step up, win a bunch of tournaments (at
>least 30) and throw in a few majors, Woods' competition was simply not
>as good. As a headstart, you already have Mickelson and Singh to
>choose from. Of course, Singh had a huge headstart and Phil also had
>about a five year headstart on Woods.

I don't understand this at all. You say the only way to prove Tiger's
competition is as good as Jack's is to name two players with thirty
wins and multiple majors, and then you name them. And you are wrong
about their careers being front-loaded. Singh only had 3 wins and no
majors when Tiger turned pro; today he's at 30 wins with 3 majors.
Phil was only a little faster; he had five wins and no majors before
1996, and is also at 30 and 3 today (or 4 counting the US Am, which
you apparently included in Arnie's total). He's younger than Vijay,
so I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he winds up with 50 wins and 6
majors.

The guy who was front-loaded was Arnie; he had 30+ wins and six majors
before Jack won his first PGA event. He only won one more major after
1962, Jack's first year on tour.

Date: 06 Mar 2007 15:19:01
From: multi
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Tue, 06 2007 15:03:46 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
>Apart from that, your essay reads like an argument for
>creationism. Cherry-picked facts, invalid comparisons, and very fuzzy
>logic.

I wish to apologize to the group for bringing religion into a golf
discussion. I should have said, it reads like an argument for
invading Iraq.

Date: 06 Mar 2007 13:17:22
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 6, 2:48 pm, The World Wide Wade <aderamey.a...@comcast.net >
wrote:
> In article <1173192808.249090.93...@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com" <oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
> > You dismiss Duvall when he basically is the Johnny Miller of
> > his day.
>
> That's a ridiculous statement.

He was #1 before Tigger came along. He was one of the top for many
years, and in fact was the first of a "new breed" of golfers with a
certain "robotic" swing and mental approach to the game. And he
basically walked away from the game right smack dab in the middle of
his career, aided by injuries. He shot a 59, something Jack, Johnny,
and Tiger have not done. There's alot there to compare to Miller.

Date: 06 Mar 2007 22:16:03
From: Crispin Roche
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 6 2007 13:17:22 -0800, "oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com"
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com > wrote:

>On 6, 2:48 pm, The World Wide Wade <aderamey.a...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>> In article <1173192808.249090.93...@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> "oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com" <oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
>> > You dismiss Duvall when he basically is the Johnny Miller of
>> > his day.
>>
>> That's a ridiculous statement.
>
> He was #1 before Tigger came along. He was one of the top for many
>years, and in fact was the first of a "new breed" of golfers with a
>certain "robotic" swing and mental approach to the game. And he
>basically walked away from the game right smack dab in the middle of
>his career, aided by injuries. He shot a 59, something Jack, Johnny,
>and Tiger have not done. There's alot there to compare to Miller.

How history is rewritten. Duval's first win on the US PGA Tour was in
1997. Woods had 2 wins in 1996 and another 4 in '97.

Crispin Roche

Date: 06 Mar 2007 15:12:31
From: multi
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Tue, 06 2007 22:16:03 GMT, Crispin Roche
<crispin.roche@ntlworld.com > wrote:

>On 6 2007 13:17:22 -0800, "oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com"
><oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
>> He was #1 before Tigger came along. He was one of the top for many
>>years, and in fact was the first of a "new breed" of golfers with a
>>certain "robotic" swing and mental approach to the game. And he
>>basically walked away from the game right smack dab in the middle of
>>his career, aided by injuries. He shot a 59, something Jack, Johnny,
>>and Tiger have not done. There's alot there to compare to Miller.
>
>
>How history is rewritten. Duval's first win on the US PGA Tour was in
>1997. Woods had 2 wins in 1996 and another 4 in '97.

I'd call that an honest mistake. Tiger has been so dominant for so
long that people forget he had a "slump" in 1998.

I agree that Duval's career is reminiscent of Miller's, in that his
peak was short but spectacular. Miller's peak was one year longer
than Duval's, and he won a few here and there in the following years
to raise his career total, but Duval could do the same.

Date: 06 Mar 2007 11:30:23
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

In article <indqu2df0gnr3cs3s3im48brqhso5a5jm3@4ax.com >,
David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:

> For purposes of this demonstration, the era runs
> from 1962--though it could have started as early as 1958, had Nicklaus
> decided not to finish at university

Hey Mr. Fancy Research: Nicklaus didn't finish at Ohio State; he quit
after his sophomore year.

Date: 06 Mar 2007 18:40:59
From: greenkeeper
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

In message <indqu2df0gnr3cs3s3im48brqhso5a5jm3@4ax.com >, David
<dgold1958@yahoo.de > writes
>
> Lee Trevino joined the tour in 1967. He is the only player in
>history to hold three national championships in the same calendar year
>when, in 1971, he won the US Open, the Canadian Open and the British
>Open. He won ten times between 1971 and 1972. In 1975, he was struck
>by lightening and had injury to his back and spine and had to undergo
>surgery. He was not ever able to fully recover from this injury, yet,
>he still won 29 times on the PGA Tour, including six majors. His last
>major came in 1984, when he won the PGA Championship at the age of 44.
>His total number of victories was 49.
>

Not quite true, Langer has 4 in a year, Ballesteros has done this too,
if you count the Monte Carlo as the National Championships!! Amongst
others.

http://www.pbase.com/alancampbell/image/69904012
--
alan

Date: 06 Mar 2007 08:54:24
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 6, 6:04 am, David <dgold1...@yahoo.de > wrote:
>
> Nicklaus career has been hashed over many time and to post the
> numbers here would be redundant. All of the players mentioned played
> top quailty golf during the Nicklaus era. For Nicklaus to post his
> amazing numbers during this time should only strengten the idea that
> the competition was extremely tough.

There have always been good players and great players. Today's
players are better than yesterday's players, but that is just the
natural progression of things.

The problem with your analysis is that you are taking names from over
a long career.
At no point in his career was Jack even close to being as dominant as
Tiger.
as you pointed out, in the early 1960's Arnie owned him.
Billy Casper won more tournaments in the 60's than Jack did.
Then came Trevino who often got the best of Jack. And Watson? He
owned Nicklaus. Jack's record is built on longevity, not dominance at
any one time.
He wasn't much better than the other top golfers of his day .... he
just did it better longer.

Let's pretend there was a mythical golfer who started in 1921 and
played through 1970 wining exactly two times each season. That's 100
wins for his career against everybody from Jones to Hogan, Nelson,
Snead, Palmer, Nicklaus, Player.
Would you say this guy is the best golfer ever even though he never
won more than twice in a season?

Date: 06 Mar 2007 18:51:08
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1173200063.806835.11460@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> He wasn't much better than the other top golfers of his day .... he
> just did it better longer.
>
In 1964 when he won the B. Open at Muirfield Nicklaus
was streets ahead of his peers. He was much, much longer,
taking wedges and 9 irons for his second shots while they
were taking long irons and woods. Technically there was
a much bigger gap between him and the rest than there is
now between Woods and his fellow competitors. He really
was in a class of his own.

Alan

Date: 06 Mar 2007 12:12:35
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Tue, 6 2007 18:51:08 -0000, "Alan Murphy"
<afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote:

>In 1964 when he won the B. Open at Muirfield Nicklaus
>was streets ahead of his peers. He was much, much longer,
>taking wedges and 9 irons for his second shots while they
>were taking long irons and woods. Technically there was
>a much bigger gap between him and the rest than there is
>now between Woods and his fellow competitors. He really
>was in a class of his own.

So what was the scoring gap between Jack's best major and the #2
player and what was the scoring gap between Tiger's best major and the
#2 player?

The numbers could help me get a picture about what exactly "a much
bigger gap" entails.

Date: 06 Mar 2007 21:44:51
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:o3fru25uufsfiibinhmrsv382nnj3e46kh@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 2007 18:51:08 -0000, "Alan Murphy"
> <afmccl@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>In 1964 when he won the B. Open at Muirfield Nicklaus
>>was streets ahead of his peers. He was much, much longer,
>>taking wedges and 9 irons for his second shots while they
>>were taking long irons and woods. Technically there was
>>a much bigger gap between him and the rest than there is
>>now between Woods and his fellow competitors. He really
>>was in a class of his own.
>
> So what was the scoring gap between Jack's best major and the #2
> player and what was the scoring gap between Tiger's best major and the
> #2 player?
>
> The numbers could help me get a picture about what exactly "a much
> bigger gap" entails.

Scoring differentials may not give a good idea of the
difference between the dominant player of the day and
the others as it's him against the field and usually
someone gets hot that week and shoots a close score,
usually someone different each time. The top player
just wins more often.

I was really talking about the superiority of his technique
which made him appreciably longer and more accurate
than the rest. There were some funny looking swings
around in those days - now everyone on the tour has a
superb technique.

Alan

Date: 06 Mar 2007 15:14:55
From: multi
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Tue, 6 2007 21:44:51 -0000, "Alan Murphy"
<afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote:
>I was really talking about the superiority of [Jack's] technique
>which made him appreciably longer and more accurate
>than the rest. There were some funny looking swings
>around in those days - now everyone on the tour has a
>superb technique.

Which is an argument against Jack's competition being tougher. Not
only is today's talent pool much deeper, and worldwide rather than
national, but almost everyone plays to his full potential with the
benefit of modern coaching and training techniques.

Date: 07 Mar 2007 10:37:06
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

"multi" <mul..@asm.org > wrote in message
news:6ctru2tgnc94gmefma301a4o5703ruva48@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 2007 21:44:51 -0000, "Alan Murphy"
> <afmccl@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>I was really talking about the superiority of [Jack's] technique
>>which made him appreciably longer and more accurate
>>than the rest. There were some funny looking swings
>>around in those days - now everyone on the tour has a
>>superb technique.
>
> Which is an argument against Jack's competition being tougher. Not
> only is today's talent pool much deeper, and worldwide rather than
> national, but almost everyone plays to his full potential with the
> benefit of modern coaching and training techniques.

Absolutely agree. But they were perhaps mentally
tougher than todays lot. If they didn't win they didn't
earn much which made them like hungry boxers. As
techniques converge and everybody's game is closer
to perfection then the mental game is going to become
much more important. I would pick a European like
Casey or Luke Donald to have a chance against Tiger
if they get their mental game sorted. They certainly have
the technique. And the Chinese haven't even started
yet :-)

Alan

Date: 07 Mar 2007 08:01:23
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Wed, 7 2007 10:37:06 -0000, "Alan Murphy"
<afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote:

>Absolutely agree. But they were perhaps mentally
>tougher than todays lot. If they didn't win they didn't
>earn much which made them like hungry boxers.

Or maybe - if they didn't place high, they were poor - which made them
conservative.

Date: 06 Mar 2007 17:09:43
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 6 2007 08:54:24 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:

>Let's pretend there was a mythical golfer who started in 1921 and
>played through 1970 wining exactly two times each season. That's 100
>wins for his career against everybody from Jones to Hogan, Nelson,
>Snead, Palmer, Nicklaus, Player.
>Would you say this guy is the best golfer ever even though he never
>won more than twice in a season?

If he was 21 when he came on tour, I'd say that he was one stout SOB,
winning two a year after the age of 50 :-).
--
___,
\o

Date: 06 Mar 2007 08:44:39
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 6, 11:14 am, David <dgold1...@yahoo.de > wrote:
>
> I don't care if the number 100 golfer in the world today is as good
> as the 5th best. The fact is, the ten best golfers in the world
> during the 60's, 70's and beginning of the 80's were vitually
> untouchable. Today, that is simply not the case.
>
> I conclude that it was more difficult for Nicklaus than Woods
> because there were these 5, or 6 golfers who were pedal to the medal
> all of the time.

That's silly. Jeff Gordon would win a helluva lot more NASCAR races
if there were only 3 other fast cars in the race. But when you put a
whole field of fast cars in the race, it makes winning even tougher.
It is much tougher to dominate on tour today, and yet Tiger is more
dominating than Nicklaus ever was.

Date: 06 Mar 2007 08:29:16
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Tue, 06 2007 12:04:23 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:

> I begin this post with "the Nicklaus Era." I have selected the best
>golfers of his day and compiled some numbers.

I see arguments that compare the competition available to the top
players of various eras - but don't see that such comparisons lead to
the desired conclusions.

If there are 6 top competitors in one era, and 2 in another, can we
conclude that it was harder to beat the field in one era than another?

Not really. Most people believe that the 100th best golfer of today
is much closer to being as good as the 5th best golfer of today than
was the case 30 years ago. If he gets hot, he can win a major.

Date: 06 Mar 2007 17:14:49
From: David
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On Tue, 06 2007 08:29:16 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>On Tue, 06 2007 12:04:23 +0100, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>> I begin this post with "the Nicklaus Era." I have selected the best
>>golfers of his day and compiled some numbers.
>
>I see arguments that compare the competition available to the top
>players of various eras - but don't see that such comparisons lead to
>the desired conclusions.
>
>If there are 6 top competitors in one era, and 2 in another, can we
>conclude that it was harder to beat the field in one era than another?
>
>Not really. Most people believe that the 100th best golfer of today
>is much closer to being as good as the 5th best golfer of today than
>was the case 30 years ago. If he gets hot, he can win a major.

Howard, it has always been true that if any player gets hot he can
win a major. How many tournaments did Orville Moody win in his career
and how many of those were majors? Exactly, one.

I don't care if the number 100 golfer in the world today is as good
as the 5th best. The fact is, the ten best golfers in the world
during the 60's, 70's and beginning of the 80's were vitually
untouchable. Today, that is simply not the case.

I conclude that it was more difficult for Nicklaus than Woods
because there were these 5, or 6 golfers who were pedal to the medal
all of the time. Nicklaus' best two years were back-to-back 7 victory
years. He also had 4 seasons of five victories. These were at times
that his true peers were racking up victory after victory and building
careers that very few golfers will ever dream of attaining.

Today, when Woods tees it up, who do you bet on to win the
tournament? Do you bet on Wetterich? Hell, no! Woods is such a huge
odds on favorite that betting on him is hardly even worth it. Where
are the players who can win on any given day when Woods is in the
field?

During the Nicklaus era, there was not enough latitude for
lesser-known golfers to win, since the best five or six in the world
were so much better. If any of those golfers were one, or two strokes
worse than they were, the nineteen second place finishes he had in the
majors alone would have been converted to wins. Watson took two away
from him by beating him on Sunday. Who has fired a 65 to beat Woods
on a Sunday? Exactly.

David

Date: 06 Mar 2007 06:53:28
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

On 6, 6:04 am, David <dgold1...@yahoo.de > wrote:
[snip]
> The only two players who can come close to any of the golfers
> mentioned above are Mickelson and Singh. Singh, however, has been a
> professional golfer for over 20 years, although he only began playing
> the PGA Tour regularly 15 years ago.

You dismiss Duvall when he basically is the Johnny Miller of
his day. You're dismissing Ernie as well. And, as you say,
his "era" is only getting started. Limit your analysis of Jack's
history to his first 11 years and you get about 3 guys, Palmer,
Player and Casper. Some would point out that if Jack had
Tiger's winning percentage (instead of coming in second so
often) those guys wouldn't have nearly the career they did.

[snip]
> So, who's it going to be, if anyone? When I compare Nicklaus career
> to Woods career, I will always have the though in the back of my mind
> that the competition was indeed much tougher during Jack's reign.
> Until a couple of players can step up, win a bunch of tournaments (at
> least 30) and throw in a few majors, Woods' competition was simply not
> as good. As a headstart, you already have Mickelson and Singh to
> choose from. Of course, Singh had a huge headstart and Phil also had
> about a five year headstart on Woods.

One interesting exercise is to remove Woods entirely. Now look
at
various guys won loss records. How many more majors does DLIII
or Phil have? Heck, how many more tour wins do folks have? Tiger
has now been on runs which develope wins in a single year that
correspond to whole careers of some guys. That sucks the oxygen
out of the room fast. You have to balance the fact that Tiger is
THAT dominate with the fact that his dominance reduces the
success of his opponents. Add in to that the fact that it would
be harder for anyone to win as often in the deeper fields of today,
and it represents the two prime reasons people feel his competition
is weaker. You want to measure by total career wins and major
wins. But you want to ignore the effect on those numbers from
a deeper field.

Date: 06 Mar 2007 11:48:33
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

In article <1173192808.249090.93790@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com >,
"oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com" <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com > wrote:

> You dismiss Duvall when he basically is the Johnny Miller of
> his day.

That's a ridiculous statement.

Date: 06 Mar 2007 09:48:51
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: Comparison Challenge (very, very long!)

Geez Dave, over 20 paragraphs?

Most guys just play with their weiners when they're bored.