Geez, I guess you really mean it. That’s just sad.
I agree that citing Crampton’s record against Jack as proof that Tiger is better than Jack would be stupid and ridiculous, but I didn’t do that. I cited Crampton’s record against Jack to show how good Crampton was, in the context of responding to DiFool’s assertion that the international players had no game.
Hope that helps.
I have a lot on my plate this week, I’ve said my piece, I’m done. And yes I believe I was clear, and have in fact been clear going back many posts, that today’s fields are better, overall, and had the honesty to do a 5 hour study which showed that without file-drawering it, so contending that I haven’t been and am still stubbornly sticking to my guns on this issue is a misrepresentation. I simply think that once you approach the far right slice of the bell curve, you don’t know how many truly great players you will get in any given era (or how great they will be), and I think that the best players of the 70’s had higher peaks then than the best players of the 90’s/00’s (well those not named Jack or Eldrick that is), and would still have higher peaks now despite the improved field depth.
In other words today things aren’t that deeper, not enough to knock half of the majors off of the records of the likes of Watson, Trevino, or Player-much less Jack himself. A great golfer at the top of his game will still be better enough than the field to prevail a solid amount of time-heck Tiger himself is probably proof of that. Mickelson probably has had the 2nd-best peak in the last 20 years, but overall Trevino and Watson impressed me more (and most importantly had better mental approaches than Mick did).
[My study mainly indicated how deep fields were overall more than anything else, but it might not, so much, indicate how much more likely a player ranked say #50 today (by the Almighty) could actually win, vs. a player ranked #50 40 years ago. Note that the average # of strokes behind the leader for the top 10 dropped much less, at least in percentage terms, than did the SD-i.e. the winner still typically beat the competition by a healthy level, it just that the competition tended to exist in a larger lump 3-7 strokes behind him.]
[If you wish to take the “modern players are better simply because of improvements in sports medicine, training, and theory”, well, not much else I can say about that, other than that it is unfair to the older players who didn’t have the opportunity to benefit from these advances-i.e. I assume in any such “time machining” that a given player is bequeathed all of the advantages, or disadvantages, of the era into which he has been transported. If, like I said, you wish to go there.]
I thank you for the debate. Unlike certain people I could mention, you have written thoughtful and detailed posts, have addressed what I actually wrote, and IMO have done about as well as anyone could do with what little objective data there is that supports your opinion.
One thing I wanted to clarify, though…
I agree, but that’s the point.
I don’t say modern players are better “simply” because of better coaching, training, etc., but that’s certainly a component (I think a larger factor is the much larger base of players now than then). And OF COURSE the players of Jack’s generation would have been a lot better if they had had the same advantages. But they didn’t.
If your fields are selected from the 500 best players out of a worldwide talent pool of 10 million (just pulling numbers out of the air), and maybe 10% of those 500 were lucky enough to find their optimal swings through trial and error like a Hogan or a Trevino, you are not very likely to have fields as strong as if you select them from the 500 best players out of a talent pool of 100 million, and 90% of them find their optimal swings through modern coaching, video analysis, and computer measurement of swing speed, spin, launch angle, etc.
Like I said, I just made up the numbers, and I’m not claiming there are 9 times as many great players now as then, or that the fields are 9 times as strong. But if it’s even twice as many great players that have to divide wins and majors among them, or twice as many potential one-time winners in the pack than there were a generation ago, then that would explain the disparity in win totals for the top golfers of each era.
None of that proves you are wrong. But IMO it is very solid evidence, and I don’t see any solid evidence to oppose it.
The growth of golf’s popularity, the increased international participation, the explosive increase in prize money, and the availability of sophisticated coaching and training, as well as the general improvement of athletes in every sport where direct comparison of generations is possible, are all verifiable, and in most cases they are even measurable.
The genetic fluke of more golfing geniuses just happening to be playing in the 60’s than today is not verifiable, and IMO not especially likely. But you have made the case for it very eloquently, and I thank you again for the debate.
I just noticed that notfrommensa had already made a lot of my points for me (esp. post # 6)-I can’t post from work, at all. Anyway, he’s right; to conclude, based on timelining the improvement of field depth to that extent, that Mickelson is actually the 6th-best golfer ever is too much of a reductio ad absurdum for me to swallow.
Once the PGA is in the books I’ll toss a poll up.