golfrewind.com

Why are the courses tougher? I think it has to do with the tech more so then the golfers.

The professional courses are tougher now than they were 10-15 years ago. They've tried to eliminate the consistency gains achieved through the technical achievements of the golfing industry. In doing so, many courses that are "newer" courses have made scoring in the low 80's quite an achievement for us mere mortals when playing from the Championship Tees.
IMO, playing a tight course that makes you think before you step up and hammer away has the same effect though. When the fairway narrows to 20 yards in the landing area, with OB to either side, it's time to put away your pride, pick a club you know you can put in the fairway, and "sweet-swing" it. Yes, hitting that driver 270 down the middle looks great if you pull it off, but if I hit my hybrid 220 into the fairway while you're hitting 3 on the tee box, I'm probably going to win the hole, and gain stroke advantage.
Brains are irreplaceable.

I am trying to subjectively compare Jack Nicklaus's competitors with Tiger Woods competitors. The hard part is we are looking back at Tom Watson's full career, but only looking at Adam Scott's first 5 - 10 years. I think being completely subjective, that Jack had better competition. Just my opinion. You can't compare major wins or even victories, because we are not comparing apples to apples.

I am not saying Jack was better than Tiger. I am only saying he faced stiffer competition. This is certainly not Tiger's fault.

As for courses getting tougher today. I believe there are pluses and minuses to this argument that make it "wash out" as a factor. The course's and specifically the greens are so much better maintained today than 30 years ago. Soft spikes is a positive for today's greens. The fairways the tour plays are in much better shape due to better equipment and drainage. The bunker sand is uniform year round in today's PGA tour.

The tour has also moved away from some of the tougher venues in the past (Sawgrass and Starr Pass are course examples that come to mind). The TPC courses are usually designed for their respective tour event, but are not usually difficult, because the players influence the designers of these courses significantly (more so today, than in the past).

These guys are spoiled by the $$. Why work hard when you can make millions just be mediocre?

I read an article in the 2007 year end edition of Golf World concerning that Tiger uses a golf ball with more spin than most of the other pros. I wonder if that also impacts his dominance factor.

This could be the argument of having a standard golf golf ball for everyone.

with all of jack's majors and 2nd place finishes its kinda hard to play the "back when jack played the competition was better" card.

It's actually a pretty easy card to play. Jack, like Tiger, was just that much better than everyone else.
Unlike the present day though, Jack's competitors fought for everything. It's the only way they could earn a good living playing golf. There weren't 80+ pros making $1M+ at the end of the year. There were no purses where the winner won $1M. You played hard, had good finishes, or you went home and started a new career.
I think that's how it should be now. Unfortunately, I'm in the minority. I think they should stop paying big money to competitors that aren't competitive. I don't want to see someone that is perfectly happy being #80 in the world because he's a millionaire.
I want to see some golfers that are hungry. I guess that's why I enjoy watching the Nationwide tour so much.

I agree totally with this!

Well the hungry golfer argument also works against Jack ...

Many excellent golfers didn't even attempt a pro career simply because they knew they would probably make more money with a regular job. (especially since most pro-caliber golfers, then more than now, tend to come from wealthy families).

Excellent point...what was it that sparked the current crazy interest in golf? When arguing Tiger vs. Jack, it's valid to compare scores on the same course, even considering equipment differences, imo...but when it comes to measuring them against the competition, however... You've rightfully pointed out that, back in the day, many of the best golfers were not pros and never played against Jack...less likely today. If you're that good today, you can hardly go unrecognized...unless you really, really choose to. can't imagine that.

Shade

Here's my top ten list of players during Jack's era (Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson, Miller, Irwin, Ballesteros, Kite, Crenshaw, Weiskopf). I am probably forgetting some, but that is a pretty darn good list. Much of Palmer's career was accomplished before Nicklaus really started winning.

Try to list 10 players that come close to the quality of Jack's list (Mickelson, Els, Goosen, Furyk, Garcia, Scott, Singh, Love, Price, Duval).

I admit is a little unfair, because Jack's competition is from their full career and Tiger's list is mostly active. For example, Adam Scott can turn into a great golfer in the next 5 - 10 years.

I think when you subjectively compare the players, in my opinion, Jack faced better competition from other top players at the majors. Tiger faces more competition from the depth of the field.

BTW...from earlier posts...golf has not really grown significantly since Tiger started playing.

Well I tend to agree with you to some extent but I think Phil is doing just fine this year even though he lost in a playoff to J.B. in Arizona . He did not play well at Pebble Beach but as everyone knows he came back strong in Los Angeles . I am starting to wonder when my man Vijay is going to get his act together .

The world of golf hasn't seen domination on Tiger's scale, ever. period.

Jack used to say he could win with his B game.

Tiger can win with his C game.

The competition is trying but Tiger is just that good.

I guess i believe you couldn't be more wrong.

If you read my statements throughout this thread, I am not comparing Tiger with Jack. I am comparing the upper level of competition in their respective era's. I tend to agree that the number of "players" is more today than in the past.

If you think I couldn't be more wrong, please name your list of ten players from today's era that are better than Jack's era (Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson, Miller, Irwin, Ballesteros, Kite, Crenshaw, Weiskopf)?

Here's the best that I could come up with from today's era (Mickelson, Els, Goosen, Furyk, Garcia, Scott, Singh, Love, Price, Duval during his peak).

I just don't see it.

I agree.

Tiger isn't just winning majors, he's winning them handily. Of his 13 majors, two were won in playoffs one was won by a single stroke, the remaining 10 majors he one by 2 or more strokes. If tiger was never born we'd be talking about how much parity there is in golf currently.
No, the competition isn't choking Tiger is just that good.