For_The_U
All ACC
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2018
- Messages
- 5,766
Fair enough, and very well said. I still stand behind my point that the field Tiger faced on Sunday was much more difficult to win against than the usual field Jack faced at Augusta. But like you ended with, this is a purely subjective debate with no way to come to a concrete answer. We're splitting hairs between, hands down, the two all-time greats.listen, you make all the good points that show how difficult it is to compare across eras, particularly when the changes and adaptations have been so dramatic in such a short period of time.
but I will say this:
the depth of the field in jack's day was just as strong. in fact, had a great conversation once with a great tour player about that from the jack era. he said the field was just as competitive, but the difference was/is actually at the tail. Yes, 20 players could win the Masters next year, but so could 20 players in 1969. The difference is not players 1-20 he said, it's players from 40 on up. There's more depth at the tail, not at the top. the top 20 today equals top 20 from yesterday, but at the tail? the depth is more evenly dispersed, and that has to do with the expansion of the game, particularly internationally, and the training and physical development that gives guys more chances to be good for longer periods of time.
his other point was that there was no way to use the power game of the modern era to stay at the top in the old days. the reason, for example, is that you never were going to be able to drive a par 4 at Baltusrol in 1975. Just wasn't happening. Now? in the simply "grip it and rip it era?" a bunch of guys can do it, and it's a game changer. it means you get a least one or two holes a round that takes your short game out. as you probably know, as a golfer, that's HUGE.
the last point he made, and it's ironic, is one of the big changes in the game, is actually putter technology. it's a big factor in how players play the greens and how they can control long puts. Put a steel single blade putter in the hands of a lot of the modern era players and you'd be amazed how many "three puts" would start showing up in the scorecards. again, it's the same for Tiger vs. Mickelson, I get that. but it's not the same for tiger vs. jack
his last point had to do with course design unrelated to the modern power game.
players today ***** and moan like **** if courses are too difficult and it makes the scoring too high. so you get thinner rough, and softer greens. not always, but as a general rule guys are much more cognizant of bad shots because of the media perception. it affects their brand, even if the course is the same for everyone. google it and you'll see. guys in the old days, just shut the **** up and played, and again, it was a great equalizer.
anyway, that's another point of view.
point is, there's no definitive answer, but my gut tells me: jack 1(a) and tiger 1(b)
beyond that, it's probably just as futile arguing which is the correct religion. (Episcopalian, but that's another story!)
In terms of the court of public opinion, I think that will come down to whether he catches Jack's major record. If he does, then I'd say it'd be hard to put together a cognizant argument for Jack 1a/Tiger 1b. Though you did an admirable job above!
