• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2019 Masters Thread

Shorty said:
Highly debatable. Particularly the 2000s.
Click to expand...

Agreed. There were several other greats who came and went during Nicklaus' prime (Palmer, Player, Watson, Weiskopf, Miller and Casper). But the 2000-2009 decade was not nearly as loaded as the 2010-2019 decade. You had Tiger, Vijay and Phil. Occasionally an Els, Goosen or Furyk. And you had guys named Beem, Micheel, Yang, Curtis, Immelman and Weir winning majors. It's a lot rarer for guys with names like that to win majors these days because the chalk is so much deeper now than it has ever been.
 
In 2000, Tiger Woods had a record scoring average of 67.79 almost 1.5 strokes better than 2nd place Phil Mickelson, but there were 102 other golfers with a scoring average within 2 of Mickelson.
 
Shorty said:
Two strokes difference in scoring average is huge on the PGA Tour. Would mean millions of dollars over the course of a season.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Competing in a field where there are 35-40 players within that level as compared to 100 is a big difference. Easy to see why there would be more dominant players in the former than latter.
 
Last edited:
No one is waxing. Of course players are better today. But two thoughts:

First, as far as scoring average is concerned, course conditions and equipment play a huge part. A few years ago, I played the club my dad was a member at in the 60s and 70s. Fairways weren’t cut to 3/8” back then like they are now. I hadn’t played it in over 30 years. At age 58, I hit wedges into holes I hit 7-irons into when I was 20.

Second, talent is relative to the talent of the time. A 60s-70s list of great players includes Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, Casper, Trevino, Irwin, Watson, Floyd, Miller, and Nelson. A 1997-2008 list looks nothing like that. And players of that era have had enough time to accumulate wins and majors.
 
BiffTannen said:
LOL. Jack is the greatest and it's really not a competition.
Click to expand...

True. Mainly because of one of the most incredible statistics in the history of sports: Jack’s number of second place finishes in majors. We saw how hard that is today, when nobody seemed able to press Tiger late, including Koepka who got the yips on those putts he has not been missing for like 20 months.

Jack: 18
Second place: 19

Tiger: 15
Second place: 6

I do think this comeback was absolutely amazing and I shed a tear when he hugged his mom. Trying to read her lips, I thought I saw her say “so proud...” it was real.

Incredible performance and Tiger will get another 2-5 majors presuming his back holds up.

I’m surprised this board is not concentrating on Tiger’s meh girlfriend. Those young guns have smokeshows for Wags.
 
Shorty said:
No one is waxing. Of course players are better today. But two thoughts:

First, as far as scoring average is concerned, course conditions and equipment play a huge part. A few years ago, I played the club my dad was a member at in the 60s and 70s. Fairways weren’t cut to 3/8” back then like they are now. I hadn’t played it in over 30 years. At age 58, I hit wedges into holes I hit 7-irons into when I was 20.

Second, talent is relative to the talent of the time. A 60s-70s list of great players includes Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, Casper, Trevino, Irwin, Watson, Floyd, Miller, and Nelson. A 1997-2008 list looks nothing like that. And players of that era have had enough time to accumulate wins and majors.
Click to expand...

Those players numbers were elevated due to a lack of depth in the field. It is much easier to win 6 or 7 majors when there are only 40 players within 2 stroke average vs today when there are 55 players within 1 stroke average.
 
Season long stroke average means nothing over the course of a four day major. Absolutely nothing. Plenty of players shoot 20 under at the John Deere Classic but fall apart in the US Open. If they’re even qualified to play in the US Open.
 
Shorty said:
Season long stroke average means nothing over the course of a four day major. Absolutely nothing. Plenty of players shoot 20 under at the John Deere Classic but fall apart in the US Open. If they’re even qualified to play in the US Open.
Click to expand...

Season stroke averages tell you how many legitimate competitors you have in the field. And this is just in the PGA tour. Now you have tons of talented overseas players competing compared to 50 years ago.

And it makes sense. 50 years ago, you couldn't even hardly support yourself if you finished 40th on the PGA tour. Now if you finish 40th, you are a .1%er. Of course, this is going to bring in much more talent, much better training techniques, etc. Of course, that is going to make it harder for the best players to win multiple major and finish in the top 3 in multiple majors, because the tournament field for majors is so much deeper now than then.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Season stroke averages tell you how many legitimate competitors you have in the field. And this is just in the PGA tour. Now you have tons of talented overseas players competing compared to 50 years ago.

And it makes sense. 50 years ago, you couldn't even hardly support yourself if you finished 40th on the PGA tour. Now if you finish 40th, you are a .1%er. Of course, this is going to bring in much more talent, much better training techniques, etc. Of course, that is going to make it harder for the best players to win multiple major and finish in the top 3 in multiple majors, because the tournament field for majors is so much deeper now than then.
Click to expand...

Completely disagree with your first sentence. Season long stroke average tells you nothing about how many legitimate contenders you have in a major field. Season long stroke average doesn’t tell you anything about how a player handles the pressures of a major.

I do agree that there is much more competition now, though.
 
Shorty said:
Completely disagree with your first sentence. Season long stroke average tells you nothing about how many legitimate contenders you have in a major field. Season long stroke average doesn’t tell you anything about how a player handles the pressures of a major.
Click to expand...

RJ take over your account with this blatant disrespect of statistics take?
 
I'll take the guy with the 2 stroke better average over 4 rounds vs the guy with guts or moxie or intestinal fortitude.
 
palmab03 said:
RJ take over your account with this blatant disrespect of statistics take?
Click to expand...


So how far down the scoring list do you go to determine “legitimate contenders”? Right now, Jim Furyk is number three on the list. Would you have taken him? Lucas Glover and Taylor Gooch are in the top 20. Would you have taken them?

The best example of my point is Charles Howell III. He is currently number 23 on the scoring list. Would any of you pick him to win any major? Despite his season long scoring average, he has demonstrated during the course of his career that he doesn’t win. Anywhere. Much less at a major.
 
I enjoyed watching Tiger win again. Great performance.

The only real measure for GOAT is the measure Tiger set for himself. His goal was/is to win more majors than Jack Nicklaus. He is not there yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top