Yes, but not as many as there used to be. US Open field is about 160 or so. Today 100 of those COULD win. Yes only 30ish are legit contenders, but over half the field could win. That opens up the door for short term variance and who just happens to run good that week on the greens. Look at Phil's win last week. He won the tournament for sure, but he ran soooo hot the final round. Yes that was Phil, but it could have been any one of 100 guys that luckbox the putts that entire final round.

I just totally disagree with the concept of "had to survive" and that made them some sort of Gladiator tough as nails combatant. The guys today have such a better skillset and mental game there just is no comparison. You look at a guy like Lanny Wadkins and think "there is a grinder who won't choke". But if a guy acts like that today they are deemed *******s. Lanny is a dick. I know him well as he is a member at my club. Being a dick is often looked at as being tough, not the case. The players today are so much more prepared from a psychology point of view that they just don't show the emotion like Lanny and everyone else did back then.

Hunter Mahan would be a perfect example. 3 wins and 37 top tens in 235 events. People would say he is soft and just sits back and enjoys his $18M + endorsements and doesn't care to be the best. I watched him in the gym everyday for a couple of years and trust me, that guy burns inside to get better. He works his ass off on his game, his mind, his diet, his strength, and just about anything else you can think of. But, you would look at him and think he should be better. The problem is I could make a list of 30 guys that should be better. Well, there are only about 35 events a year to win. Everybody can't win 3 events a year if there are only 35 events to win total. There are 30+ guys I could name that COULD win 3 events a year now, but name me 30 guys back in the day that could.

The fields are deeper, hungrier, better, and any other word you can think of now.

Yes, Jack had more seconds, but he wasn't playing anyone. 160 guys in an Open field then and only about 30 had the game to actually win.

For a guy like you maybe you are just wanting and chasing money. But the normal guys on Tour aren't playing for a paycheck. They are playing to win. I have taken time away from a job over the last few years to chase the dream. It has cost me a ton of money in opportunity costs. But I did it because I want to compete with the best. Same goes for the guys on Tour. You could pay most, not all, of them 50% of what they make now and not a single one would change professions. People don't choke in The Masters or Open because of the money, they choke because of how much they want to win. You know, that burning desire everyone thinks nobody has anymore.

Sure you have guys like Anthony Kim who are probably a little consumed by the money and glitter, but most of those wake up and realize eventually that money only takes you so far in life on the road of happiness. They then recommit and improve eventually.

Lanny's biggest crime isn't being a dick. It's being only marginally better as a replacement than the senile Ken Venturi. Johnny may or may not be a dick behind the scenes but he is also the GOAT so he gets a pass.

My guess is leoslayer's game of choice is Live 3/6 Limit Hold Em.

@ ship lanny! does he even do the little side to side head waggle around your club? my only lanny story at the ggo hes going out in one of the first groups on sunday.turns to his caddy " is the plane gassed up? good i want a drink ready as soon as i get on. lets get the hell outta here."

ship look in reality i know tiger is a great player on a grand scale. you yourself compared to most people are an immortal.

yes i agree that the fields are deeper and anybody can get hot. but guys like trevino watson player palmer and on and on they didnt have as weak a finishing games as these guys these days. mickelson was on his way to becoming the biggest choker of all time till his gift.

yes again overall field is deeper but the top 10 top5 guys were tougher during jacks era

@ship you are a player. come on you know that a lot of guys that get in the position to win a major just cant handle it. somebody there might push(over try) or they might get extra tight.

its a big difference if you are tiger when the guys around you havent won anything. its a bigger deal if your facing a guy with 4 wins and multiple seconds which jack had to do a lot.
if you will look at the stats i published.

Like BO did, you can say this all you want but that doesn't make it true.

To start, I'll ask a simple question. Is there any other sport where you think guys from the 60's and 70's are better than their counterparts today?

Golf is more accessible than it has ever been, more people are playing than ever before, including guys who might have played a different sport than golf 30 years ago.

It's ludicrous to think that a group of 30 white guys (the relative depth of the Tour) in the 60's just happened to include the 10 GOAT competitors.

What is more likely is that that group of players had the cream more often rise to the top because of the lack of depth. Like, if you took the top 10 players in the world today, and had them play their careers against the Hooters Tour, what do you think would happen? They would win a ton, and have careers that look a lot like your heroes from the 60's.

To sum that up;

this:
only appears to be the case because of the lack of depth.

Actually I think Leo has some valid points. One thing to remember about the Ship/Bo argument above is that back then the same fewer players had a chance to contend more often so when they got there it was much more familiar to them.

Ship unless you were a top 10 golfer back then money was an issue. The type of pressure to feed your family is 10 fold that of any pressure on a PGA tour player now. It just doesn't matter that Hunter Mahan wants it bad in this context.

No they weren't. A better explanation is the top guys in Jacks era were good but everyone else sucked so they just spread the wealth around the top. Look at scoring averages, nowadaya they are MUCH tighter, meaning more guys have a chance to win each week. The best scoring averages on Tour have been the same for decades, yet the average score drops almost yearly.

yes there are lots of guys from 30 years ago that could compete today in several sports if given same access to technology and off field stuff.

lets see ted williams comes to mind off the bat. pete rose.

are any of these players capable of winning if they are playing their best golf yes! but most dont have the head for it. lots of million dollar swings with 10cent heads.

If you take the top 10 guys from the past decade, and then go back and add 1 shot/round to every other player(that is the difference between 2011 scoring average and 1980 the farthest back I could find the data) guess what the last 10 years will look like?

I'll give you a hint. It will look like the 60s and 70s. Phil, Ernie, Vijay, Duval, Furyk, Padraig, Love III, and Retief would mirror the greats of those decades.

im sorry nxt but you are a little misinformed.

how many ways do you want me to show you? cause i could type a whole page here.

leo, show somebody something. All you have done so far is assert your way to...nothing.

ok boss. i know scores are lower now. and i admit i may have misread nxts last post in hindsight.

you cant use scores to compare the eras. just the technology leap in grass alone is huge without getting into the other 20 to 30 advantages the current players have.

the only way you can look at it is the mental toughness and ability to close from player pools that have equal access to the same technology. just name some great major championship players tigers had to face.

see there is a huge diff between regular events and majors. just like between regular season and playoffs in every other sport.

So because they had to be top 10 to make money, they were better players?
I think the opposite.
More guys are able to afford to pursue the profession today, have the opportunity to practice, play, get quality instruction, ....
They have more information and incentive to eat right, exercise, train their mind...

Yesteryear's players, as a whole, spent more time drinking in bars, driving in cars to the next tourney, less time practicing, working out.
How could they be better?

If, in your profession, if you thought only the top 10 guys would make a living, would you pursue that profession, or would you find another one?

If you knew that hundreds of guys would be multi-millionaires, wouldn't it motivate you more to do all the things required to be your best?

As to the depth of the fields today compared to years ago (if anyone truly believes that this is in dispute),
one way to compare is to look at the spread of scores today to yesteryear.
Look at the difference in scores from 5th to 50th, or 3rd to 30th, or whatever (I wouldn't use 1st so that it takes out the random outlier score).

I'm too lazy to do the work myself, but I'm sure you'd see quite a difference in today vs. 50 years ago. Today's scores will be much tighter.

Part of this can be attributed to equipment bringing players closer together, but the majority of it is because there are so many more people pursuing pro golf than 50 years ago.
It only stands to reason the players are better.

I agree with the premise that the more you're in the hunt, the better you get at closing the deal. And on that point, yes, the best players had an edge.
But that edge alone does not make them better or tougher than modern players.

And by the same token, many players from the sixties, if put up against the competition of today would practice more, drink less, exercise more, etc. (similar to the effect Tiger had on the next generation taking it to the next level)
They'd have to.

edit: Looked up last year's US Open vs. 1964 US Open at Congressional.

Last year, the difference between 3rd and 30th was 8 shots. In '64, it was 14 shots.
Last year, the difference between 5th and 50th was 11 shots. In '64, it was 22 shots.

Compare the scores of the top ten from the 60's to the field average. Compare the scores of the top ten from the 00's to the field average.

What does that tell you?

do you not understand what i said. i said tougher competition. yes they didnt lift weights no sports really did. and im not talking just 60s jack had to beat best players in 70s and half the 80s. they didnt know anything about nutrition.

yes technology brings players way closer together now. you can tune a ball shaft and head. adjustable drivers. lunch monitors for putters and on and on.

you take player pool A with their equal technology and look how top guys competed.

then take pool B with a different set of equal technology and look how top guys competed.


then you compare how hard the guys competed in A vs how hard they competed in B

All that matters is the Jack is still the GOAT. Of course that could change in time.

BO

ok boss i just pulled up 2 masters to make my point jack and tiger posted the same score.

now you tell me who had more greats pushing him jack or tiger.

http://www.augusta.com/masters/histo...derboard.shtml

http://www.augusta.com/masters/histo...derboard.shtml

go down to 13th place gg tiger fan boys

So Jack had several players chasing him in that tournament who had multiple majors, whereas Tiger had several that each had a single major (at that point).

Is that a testament to fields being deeper and the skill distribution flatter in 2005 (anyone can win any given week mantra), or does it mean that there were more legendary players playing in '75 so the bulk of majors titles were held by a select few?

fyp

loooool trout that is funny! like chris dimarco isnt just a complete punk? a lot of those guys didnt have a major at that time and goosen the closest semi legitimate player was 7 shots back and out of contention at that point.

god the top 13s in those 2 fields isnt even close

I guarantee you Dimarco is tougher (grittier, more WIM) than Weiskopf ever dreamed.

You know who else is a punk? Arnold Palmer.

Dude had two epic choke jobs worse than anything any of the TW era "great" players have done. 61 Masters and 66 US Open.

His 8 majors mean nothing due to those two chokes. So weak minded, definitely not tough as nails.

lol ok lets look at 2 runner up finishes by tiger and jack and compare who they lost to and the top 14 shall we?

http://www.augusta.com/masters/histo...derboard.shtml

http://www.augusta.com/masters/histo...derboard.shtml

im about to pee my pants laughing