Jack Nicklaus "major" record

[LabattBlue]

In 1986, he became the oldest player to ever win The Masters. In all, he had 48 top-3 finishes in majors, including 19 second places and nine thirds, 56 top-5 finishes and 73 top-10 finishes. In 1998, at the age of 58 he finished an impressive sixth in The Masters.

 

I'm sure this could be looked upon as "why didn't he win more majors when he was that close". Instead, I look at these stats and am amazed that he could be that competive in the most pressure filled tourneys each and every year.

 

 

WOW!!

[R. Rich]

I'd say it's pretty impressive to place so well in so many tournaments. Those who don't know squat about sports may think that he fell short, but those who do know, especially those who really know golf (which certainly is not me), will realize just how dominant a stat that is.

[Ennjay]

Last Thursday, at the age of 65, he shot a 75 on that course.

 

Yes, I know, he didn't make the cut.

 

But last Thursday, at the age of 65, he shot a 75 on that course.

 

I mean . . . !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[plenzmd1]

In 1986, he became the oldest player to ever win The Masters. In all, he had 48 top-3 finishes in majors, including 19 second places and nine thirds, 56 top-5 finishes and 73 top-10 finishes. In 1998, at the age of 58 he finished an impressive sixth in The Masters.

 

I'm sure this could be looked upon as "why didn't he win more majors when he was that close".  Instead, I look at these stats and am amazed that he could be that competive in the most pressure filled tourneys each and every year.

WOW!!

384111[/snapback]

 

Actually, that is the stat that many feel seperates him from Tiger, even if Tiger is to catch is win total in the majors. Whtas funny is Jack is on record as saying that he won many of his major titles as people succumbed to the pressure of the Golden Bear on the leader board, more than him playing well. Same thing happens today with Tigert

[BRH]

The one thing with which I disagree is when people say that Nicklaus had better competition in his day. Last night I was listening to someone say on the radio that back in Jack's day "it was blood and guts out there every week" and that one week it was Trevino, the next week Watson, the next Player, the next Floyd, and so on. The guy said there isn't anyone today who can measure up to Jack's old competition and so Tiger has an easier time of it.

 

I think that's a lot of crap. For one thing, top to bottom, 1 to 125, the Tour is MUCH better now than it was back then. Golfers are better athletes now, they train incessantly, they use weights and biomechanical exercises, etc., and improved equipment also narrows the difference between the best and the not-so-best players. Not that the Watsons et. al. weren't great players, but they seemed even better back then because they didn't really have to worry about the Beems, the Curtises, the Micheels and the Hamiltons.

[Sound_n_Fury]

Last Thursday, at the age of 65, he shot a 75 on that course.

 

Yes, I know, he didn't make the cut.

 

But last Thursday, at the age of 65, he shot a 75 on that course.

 

I mean . . . !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

384156[/snapback]

 

Don't forget he shot 72 on Friday.

[Adam]

In 1986, he became the oldest player to ever win The Masters. In all, he had 48 top-3 finishes in majors, including 19 second places and nine thirds, 56 top-5 finishes and 73 top-10 finishes. In 1998, at the age of 58 he finished an impressive sixth in The Masters.

 

I'm sure this could be looked upon as "why didn't he win more majors when he was that close".  Instead, I look at these stats and am amazed that he could be that competive in the most pressure filled tourneys each and every year.

WOW!!

384111[/snapback]

Greatest ever- never to be surpassed.....the Babe Ruth of golf

[Ennjay]

Don't forget he shot 72 on Friday.

384182[/snapback]

 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[shrader]

I'd love to see a list of the people who won those tourneys that Jack finished 2nd or 3rd in. I'm guessing you'd see names like Palmer, Player, and Watson a bunch of times.

[Mike in Syracuse]

The one thing with which I disagree is when people say that Nicklaus had better competition in his day.  Last night I was listening to someone say on the radio that back in Jack's day "it was blood and guts out there every week" and that one week it was Trevino, the next week Watson, the next Player, the next Floyd, and so on.  The guy said there isn't anyone today who can measure up to Jack's old competition and so Tiger has an easier time of it.

 

I think that's a lot of crap.  For one thing, top to bottom, 1 to 125, the Tour is MUCH better now than it was back then.  Golfers are better athletes now, they train incessantly, they use weights and biomechanical exercises, etc., and improved equipment also narrows the difference between the best and the not-so-best players.  Not that the Watsons et. al. weren't great players, but they seemed even better back then because they didn't really have to worry about the Beems, the Curtises, the Micheels and the Hamiltons.

384175[/snapback]

 

 

I agree with you on this point. During the prime of his career there were only about a dozen serious competitors to Jack at any given point. The tour was in a major transition where the field was not entirely made up of the societal elite. At one point, either your dad was a pro, you came from a filthy rich family or you snuck in because you were simply too talented (ala Arnie). Today professionals are coming from everywhere, even Fiji!! PGA players are emerging from all over the globe. The collective talent pool has exploded and college golf is enhancing the talent development.

 

Jack's major record may not ever be equalled but Tiger faces greater competition.

[R. Rich]

I agree with you on this point.  During the prime of his career there were only about a dozen serious competitors to Jack at any given point.  The tour was in a major transition where the field was not entirely made up of the societal elite.  At one point, either your dad was a pro, you came from a filthy rich family or you snuck in because you were simply too talented (ala Arnie).  Today professionals are coming from everywhere, even Fiji!!  PGA players are emerging from all over the globe.  The collective talent pool has exploded and college golf is enhancing the talent development. 

 

Jack's major record may not ever be equalled but Tiger faces greater competition.

384248[/snapback]

 

 

That's a pretty good summary.

[todd]

Last Thursday, at the age of 65, he shot a 75 on that course.

 

Yes, I know, he didn't make the cut.

 

But last Thursday, at the age of 65, he shot a 75 on that course.

 

I mean . . . !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

384156[/snapback]

 

On Friday he shot a 72!

[Reuben Gant]

He is the best ever. Hands down.

[shrader]

He is the best ever. Hands down.

384512[/snapback]

 

As of today, yes. 10 years from now, maybe not.

[Reuben Gant]

As of today, yes.  10 years from now, maybe not.

384531[/snapback]

I would take Jack 30 years younger with todays equipment against

anybody, Tiger too.

[smokinandjokin]

I can't speak for Jack here because his prime was before my time, but Tiger has done this: He's raised the level of play on the entire tour. Every player has been forced to work tirelessly on their game because Tiger has raised the bar that high. They saw the types of shots he could hit, and they new they were at a disadvantage unless they could hit those shots also.

Additionally, Tiger has made a lot of people rich. The purses on the PGA Tour have reached near-rediculous heights ($15K for making the cut and finishing last on the weekend), thanks to the interest and sponsors Tiger has brought to the game.

[Reuben Gant]

On the US Ryder cup team in 1975:

 

• Bob Murphy

• Johnny Miller

• Lee Trevino

• Hale Irwin

• Gene Littler

• Billy Casper

• Tom Weiskopf

• Jack Nicklaus

• Ray Floyd

• J.C. Snead,

• Al Geiberger

• Lou Graham

 

I think most of these guys in their prime could still make

most modern pros look silly.

[lawnboy1977]

In 1986, he became the oldest player to ever win The Masters. In all, he had 48 top-3 finishes in majors, including 19 second places and nine thirds, 56 top-5 finishes and 73 top-10 finishes. In 1998, at the age of 58 he finished an impressive sixth in The Masters.

 

I'm sure this could be looked upon as "why didn't he win more majors when he was that close".  Instead, I look at these stats and am amazed that he could be that competive in the most pressure filled tourneys each and every year.

WOW!!

384111[/snapback]

 

Those are the stats that will stand the test of time. Noone will ever ever accomplish that task ever ever again!!

 

I have immense respect for Tiger Woods as a player and, really,as an ambassador of the game of golf, and he could very well win 20 majors, but he will not come close to the stats Jack put up. Amazing!

[Kelly the Dog]

Just an opinion, and no way of really knowing, but... Frankly, I think if you transported Jack Nicklaus in his prime, to now, and he played Tiger, in match-play, Tiger would win 6 or 7 out of 10 rounds. Tiger hits the ball a lot farther, with just as much accuracy, and does everything else as well as Jack did. He would also not be intimidated. I watched Nicklaus a lot, too, and he was truly great. Tiger is just a better athlete, and better trained, and is just as good a player.

[Reuben Gant]

Just an opinion, and no way of really knowing, but... Frankly, I think if you transported Jack Nicklaus in his prime, to now, and he played Tiger, in match-play, Tiger would win 6 or 7 out of 10 rounds. Tiger hits the ball a lot farther, with just as much accuracy, and does everything else as well as Jack did. He would also not be intimidated. I watched Nicklaus a lot, too, and he was truly great. Tiger is just a better athlete, and better trained, and is just as good a player.

384755[/snapback]

I think Jack Nicklaus was the best pressure putter of all time. I think they may split in match play- but in my opinion, Nicklaus would win out on the greens.

 

Found this too:

 

From Golf Digest-

 

Nicklaus won 18 professional majors, including four U.S. Opens 1962, '67, '72, '80), five PGA Championships (1963, '71, '73, '75, '80) six Masters (1963, '65, '66, '72, '75, '86) and three British Opens (1966, '70, '78). Won the U.S. Amateurs twice (1959, '61). Won 70 tournaments on the PGA Tour and was leading money winner eight times. Played on six U.S. Ryder Cup teams.

[Sound_n_Fury]

I would take Jack 30 years younger with todays equipment against

anybody, Tiger too.

384537[/snapback]

 

Same here. Take a look at the distance gap between Jack and Tiger.

 

http://www.eigca.org/articles10.php

 

The power game is changing the way tournament golf is played and many of the old courses can't keep up. I admire Tiger, but it's a lot easier to hit wedge shots into greens than the 7 irons needed back in Jack's day.

[Kelly the Dog]

I think Jack Nicklaus was the best pressure putter of all time. I think they may split in match play- but in my opinion, Nicklaus would win out on the greens.

 

Found this too:

 

From Golf Digest-

 

Nicklaus won 18 professional majors, including four U.S. Opens 1962, '67, '72, '80), five PGA Championships (1963, '71, '73, '75, '80) six Masters (1963, '65, '66, '72, '75, '86) and three British Opens (1966, '70, '78). Won the U.S. Amateurs twice (1959, '61). Won 70 tournaments on the PGA Tour and was leading money winner eight times. Played on six U.S. Ryder Cup teams.

384761[/snapback]

Again, tough to say. And you're right, Jack was a great pressure putter. Tiger has, however, won the US Junior Amatuer three times as well as the Us Amatuer three times. Tiger is tied for or owns outright the lowest score under par for all four majors. By 24, Nicklaus had won 12 PGA Tour victories and 17 overall. Which was friggin' amazing. Except compared to Tiger, who won 15 Tour victories and 21 overall by the age of 23.

 

In his third full season as a professional, 1999, Woods won eight times on the PGA TOUR, including the PGA Championship, and earned $6,616,585. He had a margin of $2,974,679 over runnerup David Duval, a figure greater than the previous single-year PGA TOUR record.

 

His dominance was such that Woods won 52 percent of all the prize money he could have won. He won 81.7 percent more than the runnerup, the highest margin since Byron Nelson in 1945 (87.2 percent) and Hogan in 1946 (85 percent). He was the first to have as many as eight PGA TOUR victories in one year since Johnny Miller won eight in 1974.

 

I think he's already been leading money winner in 6 years and this year will make his 7th, although I am not sure about that. I do know he won it 4 years in a row from 1999-2002, plus I think 2003, 2004.

 

His adjusted scoring average in 2000 of 67.79 strokes was the lowest ever – breaking his record of 68.43 in 1999. He also had an actual scoring average in 2000 of 68.17 strokes, breaking Nelson’s record of 68.33 strokes in 1945.

 

At 29, he's already won 45 PGA Tour events and 15 other professional events.

[erynthered]

Just an opinion, and no way of really knowing, but... Frankly, I think if you transported Jack Nicklaus in his prime, to now, and he played Tiger, in match-play, Tiger would win 6 or 7 out of 10 rounds. Tiger hits the ball a lot farther, with just as much accuracy, and does everything else as well as Jack did. He would also not be intimidated. I watched Nicklaus a lot, too, and he was truly great. Tiger is just a better athlete, and better trained, and is just as good a player.

384755[/snapback]

 

 

You still have to putt. Please dont make me site other players who dont have the distance that TW has, and kicked his ass. Its all about putting. THATS where the game is won and lost. I could drive a 250 yard drive ona 400 yard par 4. Another guy could drive a 300 yard drive. I'm tight with a 9 iron to the green at 150 yards. So the other guy's got a wedge to the green. Guess what? We're both on the green in two. Who gives a sh*t about distance for the most part. Its about putting, same thing on short 5's, so dont give me that sh*t either. The game is the same. the players and the equipment has changed. So to compare the two is stupid, IMO. Both are great palyers, thats a given.

[Ralonzo]

I think he's already been leading money winner in 6 years and this year will make his 7th, although I am not sure about that. I do know he won it 4 years in a row from 1999-2002, plus I think 2003, 2004.

384772[/snapback]

 

I thought Vijay was #1 last year, coinciding with his taking over as #1 in world rankings.

[Kelly the Dog]

You still have to putt. Please dont make me site other players who dont have the distance that TW has, and kicked his ass. Its all about putting. THATS where the game is won and lost. I could drive a 250 yard drive ona 400 yard par 4. Another guy could drive a 300 yard drive. I'm tight with a 9 iron to the green at 150 yards. So the other guy's got a wedge to the green. Guess what? We're both on the green in two.  Who gives a sh*t about distance for the most part.  Its about putting, same thing on short 5's, so dont give me that sh*t either. The game is the same. the players and the equipment has changed. So to compare the two is stupid, IMO. Both are great palyers, thats a given.

384775[/snapback]

Tiger can putt. And his short game is tremendous. The point is only that he can do all the things that Nicklaus could do equally as well, AND can hit it a lot farther, which changes a lot of holes. That was evidenced in his win on Sunday. He had a somewhat off day putting and he still walked away from the entire field. I have rarely seen anyone knock down that many second shots.

[Kelly the Dog]

I thought Vijay was #1 last year, coinciding with his taking over as #1 in world rankings.

384776[/snapback]

I just looked it up. You're right. Vijay won it 2003 and 2004. Tiger has won it five times already (not six), including four in a row, and this year will be his sixth, which he is almost sure to win.

[erynthered]

The point is only that he can do all the things that Nicklaus could do equally as well, AND can hit it a lot farther, which changes a lot of holes. That was evidenced in his win on Sunday. He had a somewhat off day putting and he still walked away from the entire field. I have rarely seen anyone knock down that many second shots.

384779[/snapback]

 

Do you Play? I beat plenty of players that hit longer than I, and vise, versa... I grew up watching JN, he is arguably the best of all time. I guess I find it difficult to messure players from different era's against other players from other era's. Alawys good for a good fight though. O.J vs Joe Cribbs, or Thurman? Moulds vs Bobby Chandler? Ali vs Tyson, Unitis vs Montana. See my point?

 

DRIVE FOR SHOW, PUT FOR DOUGH.........

[Kelly the Dog]

Do you Play? I beat plenty of players that hit longer than I, and vise, versa... I grew up watching JN, he is arguably the best of all time. I guess I find it difficult to messure players from different era's against other players from other era's. Alawys good for a good fight though. O.J vs Joe Cribbs, or Thurman? Moulds vs Bobby Chandler? Ali vs Tyson, Unitis vs Montana. See my point?

 

DRIVE FOR SHOW, PUT FOR DOUGH.........

384786[/snapback]

Yeah, I play a bit. Used to play a lot. Best ever was a 79 at a good course. Now I barely break 100 (ironically because I can't putt, ha). Watched Jack Nicklaus play more than I have Tiger. The drive for show putt for dough theory doesn't apply here. Tiger can putt great, too.

 

You're right, it's difficult to compare players from different eras. And I am not suggesting that Tiger is way better than Jack. I think he is slightly better than Jack after watching them both time and time and time again. Tiger gets on amazing rolls where he just nails shot after shot after shot. I rarely have seen Nicklaus do that the way Tiger does, nor as often. And I think it is evidenced by the fact I mentioned earlier, that Tiger is tied for or holds the record for the lowest score in all four majors. And he's barely 30. He probably hasn't hit his prime.

[Sound_n_Fury]

Tiger gets on amazing rolls where he just nails shot after shot after shot. I rarely have seen Nicklaus do that the way Tiger does, nor as often.

384789[/snapback]

 

http://www.nicklaus.com/nicklaus_facts/pgatour.php

 

Look at that scoring average year-by-year over 40 years. Tiger will never have that kind of consistency. He may win more majors, but he's a much streakier player than JN, who's greatest strength was the fact he was at the top of the leader board week after week after week after....

[Kelly the Dog]

http://www.nicklaus.com/nicklaus_facts/pgatour.php

 

Look at that scoring average year-by-year over 40 years.  Tiger will never have that kind of consistency.  He may win more majors, but he's a much streakier player than JN, who's greatest strength was the fact he was at the top of the leader board week after week after week after....

384793[/snapback]

Those are amazing stats. Except Tiger's are clearly better and just as if not more consistent. Since he started, here are his actual scoring averages:

 

1996: 69.41

1997: 69.75

1998: 70.10

1999: 69.56

2000: 68.17

2001: 68.87

2002: 69.00

2003: 69.38

2004: 69.68

2005: 69.44

[Like A Mofo]

Just a general question about Jack vs Tiger:

 

Was Jack able to "take the small tourneys off" meaning Tiger getting rest for the major championships? I plead ignorace when it comes to Jack's overall career, did Jack skip tourneys to rest for the majors?

[Kelly the Dog]

Just a general question about Jack vs Tiger:

 

Was Jack able to "take the small tourneys off" meaning Tiger getting rest for the major championships?  I plead ignorace when it comes to Jack's overall career, did Jack skip tourneys to rest for the majors?

384809[/snapback]

As far as I recall, Jack didn't take as many weeks off the regular tour that Tiger does but in his time there weren't as many tournaments and the season wasn't as long. If you look at their stats, they both played approximately the same amount of tournaments, in the low 20s each year. Some a little higher, some a little lower.

[Sound_n_Fury]

Those are amazing stats. Except Tiger's are clearly better and just as if not more consistent. Since he started, here are his actual scoring averages:

 

1996: 69.41

1997: 69.75

1998: 70.10

1999: 69.56

2000: 68.17

2001: 68.87

2002: 69.00

2003: 69.38

2004: 69.68

2005: 69.44

384805[/snapback]

 

 

.................... Jack..............................................Tiger

 

1962_____ 70.80______________1996_____69.41

1963_____ 70.42______________1997_____69.75

1964_____ 69.96______________1998_____70.10

1965_____ 70.09______________1999_____69.56

1966_____ 70.58______________2000_____68.17

1967_____ 70.23______________2001_____68.87

1968_____ 69.97______________2002_____69.00

1969_____ 71.06______________2003_____69.38

1970_____ 70.75______________2004_____69.68

1971_____ 70.08______________2005_____69.44

 

Average__ 70.394______________________69.336

 

 

ONE stroke difference. I wonder what Tiger's scoring average would have been if he was using 1960s-era equipment and balls?

[Kelly the Dog]

.................... Jack..............................................Tiger

 

1962_____ 70.80______________1996_____69.41

1963_____ 70.42______________1997_____69.75

1964_____ 69.96______________1998_____70.10

1965_____ 70.09______________1999_____69.56

1966_____ 70.58______________2000_____68.17

1967_____ 70.23______________2001_____68.87

1968_____ 69.97______________2002_____69.00

1969_____ 71.06______________2003_____69.38

1970_____ 70.75______________2004_____69.68

1971_____ 70.08______________2005_____69.44

   

Average__ 70.394______________________69.336

ONE stroke difference.  I wonder what Tiger's scoring average would have been if he was using 1960s-era equipment and balls?

384825[/snapback]

Probably one full stroke better than Jack's. I don't think the scoring averages for the tournaments overall are significantly lower for the entire field than they were in the 1960s. They make the holes and greens and rough and hazards tougher and longer to compensate for the new equipment and talent. The Masters is a good example because it is basically the same course, they just make it tougher and tougher. Nicklaus won by 17 strokes with a 271 in 1965. That record lasted for about 40 years until Tiger won by 18 with a 270. The record for the low front nine is still held by two guys, one of them Jack, in the early 60s.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

The discussion raises two thoughts for me.

 

1. In addition to considering the fantasy of how Nicklaus would do if he were at his prime in the modern world with today's golfing technology, diet and exercise is to also consider how Tiger would do if he was transported into the past with the technological penalties, dietary liimitations and workout knowledge of the past.

 

Leavng aside the point that if it was the past Tiger would be relegated to being a ball-boy at best as the comments like those of Fuzzy Zoeller after Tiger's first Master's victory would be the rule and action of the day (this was society's failing rather than a failing of the rules of golf) I think Tiger Woods would have still been a great player if he were allowed to play in the past.

 

One of the most impressive things to me about Woods' career is that while conditioning is a key to his strength and game, it is a personal commitment and he would still be the best conditioned athlete in golf in 1955 or 2005. As far as technology Tiger has really just switched to learning and using the longest driving clubs and a lot of the cutting edge technology because he could outdrive opponents still using clubs that gave him the best accuracy at a sacrfice of distance.

 

The fact he has pretty drasticlly overhauled his game not once but twice with the result being that he far outpaced his competition I think is a pretty good indicator that even if it were the old days he would adapt his game to outpace all exceot maybe but probably Nucklaus as well.

 

While there is a reasonable argument that Tiger vs. Nicklaus in his prime would see Nicklaus at least hold his own, my guess is that Nicklaus might still win 19 majors but the massive number of second place finishes would now be thirds as he finished behind Trevino, Plamer, Watson or whoever was beating him that week and Woods who would finish first at an unprecedented level.

 

The second thought it brings to mind for me is regarding the actual subject of TSW, the Bills. It strikes me that the same attitude which only judges Nicklaus by the 18 wins and not the massive number of 2nd place finishes at majors he accumulated is the same thinking that does not understand that the four consecutive SB losses by the Bills was really a phenomenal achievement.

 

Being second is not being first and their is great glory in winning. However, there is no shame at all in finishing second in the NFL or at a major. Doing this so many times over a career as Nicklaus did was outstanding and doing this four years in a row as the Bills did was outstanding as well.

[Sound_n_Fury]

The Masters is a good example because it is basically the same course, they just make it tougher and tougher.

384827[/snapback]

 

http://www.augusta.com/masters/stories/040...w_3810722.shtml

 

Technology is definitely a topic on the club's radar.

 

"We will do what is necessary to protect the integrity of our golf course and the heritage of our tournament," Augusta National Golf Club and Masters Chairman Hootie Johnson said in a statement. "Going to our own ball is not something we want to do, and we remain hopeful that the new testing procedures implemented by the USGA will curtail further growth in distance, making such a move unnecessary."

 

Six-time Masters winner Jack Nicklaus agrees with the worry.

 

"The only place that's powerful enough to take that position is Augusta," Nicklaus told The Augusta Chronicle in early March. "They could say 'Here's the golf ball. You play it or you don't play Augusta.'"

 

His feelings run so deep, Nicklaus said he would be willing to test a uniform ball for his tournament, The Memorial.

 

"If the PGA Tour asked if we'd do an experimental tournament, I'd do it in a heartbeat," Nicklaus said.

 

 

Research says today's golfers have superior tools.

 

"We looked at a wound ball with a persimmon driver and today's modern ball with a persimmon driver in our tests," said Larry Dorman, Callaway Golf's senior vice president of global public relations. "By and large, the numbers were today's modern ball and titanium driver were 25 yards longer in terms of overall distance with carry and roll."

 

There's not much expansion room left at some courses. Merion, an old U.S. Open favorite, is obsolete now for major consideration.

 

There are signs that a different game is being played. None of the top four players in the Official World Golf Ranking is in the top 90 on the PGA Tour in driving accuracy.

 

"Phil Mickelson wins a golf tournament this year and doesn't hit a fairway the last nine holes," Gary Player said. "He hits water, hits rough and shoots 2-under par to win the tournament."

 

Vijay Singh is the only one of the four in the top 100 in driving accuracy.

 

"Accuracy in a normal tournament is not going to win," Stuart Appleby said. "No one drives it even close to straight, but what they do is they've got length. They don't care if they hit rough. They scramble. Vijay is the best. Tiger is probably second. That's why they are at the top."

 

Players drive the ball so far they end up in the rough. But the distance is so vast that wedges can be used out to get out of the rough and hold the greens.

 

...The most powerful stance from someone who played a Monday practice round belonged to Player.

 

"What a step in the right direction that would be for golf," he said of a Masters ball.

 

Player noted that today's par-5 holes don't play like the par-5s of old.

 

"There are no par-5s anymore," he said. "What's happening with the equipment is ruining professional golf. Use any brand you like, but roll them all back 40 yards in distance."

 

But what organization would be the agent of that change?

 

"Nobody has got the guts to do it," Player said. "They all know it's not right, but they are too scared to do anything because of the lawsuits that govern us. I think the change should start at Augusta."

[Kelly the Dog]

http://www.augusta.com/masters/stories/040...w_3810722.shtml

 

Technology is definitely a topic on the club's radar.

 

"We will do what is necessary to protect the integrity of our golf course and the heritage of our tournament," Augusta National Golf Club and Masters Chairman Hootie Johnson said in a statement. "Going to our own ball is not something we want to do, and we remain hopeful that the new testing procedures implemented by the USGA will curtail further growth in distance, making such a move unnecessary."

 

Six-time Masters winner Jack Nicklaus agrees with the worry.

 

"The only place that's powerful enough to take that position is Augusta," Nicklaus told The Augusta Chronicle in early March. "They could say 'Here's the golf ball. You play it or you don't play Augusta.'"

 

His feelings run so deep, Nicklaus said he would be willing to test a uniform ball for his tournament, The Memorial.

 

"If the PGA Tour asked if we'd do an experimental tournament, I'd do it in a heartbeat," Nicklaus said.

Research says today's golfers have superior tools.

 

"We looked at a wound ball with a persimmon driver and today's modern ball with a persimmon driver in our tests," said Larry Dorman, Callaway Golf's senior vice president of global public relations. "By and large, the numbers were today's modern ball and titanium driver were 25 yards longer in terms of overall distance with carry and roll."

 

There's not much expansion room left at some courses. Merion, an old U.S. Open favorite, is obsolete now for major consideration.

 

There are signs that a different game is being played. None of the top four players in the Official World Golf Ranking is in the top 90 on the PGA Tour in driving accuracy.

 

"Phil Mickelson wins a golf tournament this year and doesn't hit a fairway the last nine holes," Gary Player said. "He hits water, hits rough and shoots 2-under par to win the tournament."

 

Vijay Singh is the only one of the four in the top 100 in driving accuracy.

 

"Accuracy in a normal tournament is not going to win," Stuart Appleby said. "No one drives it even close to straight, but what they do is they've got length. They don't care if they hit rough. They scramble. Vijay is the best. Tiger is probably second. That's why they are at the top."

 

Players drive the ball so far they end up in the rough. But the distance is so vast that wedges can be used out to get out of the rough and hold the greens.

 

...The most powerful stance from someone who played a Monday practice round belonged to Player.

 

"What a step in the right direction that would be for golf," he said of a Masters ball.

 

Player noted that today's par-5 holes don't play like the par-5s of old.

 

"There are no par-5s anymore," he said. "What's happening with the equipment is ruining professional golf. Use any brand you like, but roll them all back 40 yards in distance."

 

But what organization would be the agent of that change?

 

"Nobody has got the guts to do it," Player said. "They all know it's not right, but they are too scared to do anything because of the lawsuits that govern us. I think the change should start at Augusta."

384844[/snapback]

Look at the leaderboard in 1965 when Jack was in his prime. This is the only year I looked at because it was when Nicklaus shot an awesome round. I assume other years will look pretty much the same. On the left in the link is the whole leaderboard. On the right is a link to this years leaderboard. The scores are very similar. Like, say, the player in place #5 in 1965 is approximately the same score as the player in 2005. The player at number 20 or 30 or 40 in 1965 is about the same score or a stroke more as the player in 2005. I contend that the one stroke more is because there are a lot more good players now than there was 40 years ago, particularly with all the European players on the PGA tour and/or the major tournaments. But it is very close either way.

 

What does that tell you? I know what it tells me. The scoring has stayed about the same over the years. The players and equipment have gotten bigger and better and golf has accomodated by making the holes harder and hazards greater to compensate. There are just more players and more good players now.

 

http://www.augusta.com/masters/history/lea...aderboard.shtml

[todd]

Jack used to pound the ball 300+ yards with a persimmon and a steel shaft. And he also had crappier, inconsistent balls. There ws nothing even close to the ProV1 or Nike balls when he played. And Jack used to hit those crappy balls with a 1 iron! Who the hell can hit a 1 iron these days?

 

Things were so different equipment and training-wise back then it's hard to compare Jack to Tiger. These days players have access to better training equipment, on-tour massage therapists and chyropractors, sports psychologists, etc. When Jack was winning his majors he dragged his family of 6 around with him everywhere he went. He didn't have the luxuries that players these days are afforded.

 

Tiger and Jack are both wonderful, classy ambassadors of the game. One of the things that makes them both reat is their respect for the history of the game, and lack of real bravado. What sets Tiger and Jack apart is their competitive nature. You would NEVER see either of them give up on a round, or a tournament. Their mental focus and ability to remain "in the now" is freaking amazing.

 

Jack Nicklaus is my favorite player of all time, but I respect Tiger more than any other touring player in the game today. We're lucky to have a player of Tiger's caliber in our lifetime.

[Kelly the Dog]

Jack used to pound the ball 300+ yards with a persimmon and a steel shaft. And he also had crappier, inconsistent balls. There ws nothing even close to the ProV1 or Nike balls when he played. And Jack used to hit those crappy balls with a 1 iron! Who the hell can hit a 1 iron these days?

 

Things were so different equipment and training-wise back then it's hard to compare Jack to Tiger. These days players have access to better training equipment, on-tour massage therapists and chyropractors, sports psychologists, etc. When Jack was winning his majors he dragged his family of 6 around with him everywhere he went. He didn't have the luxuries that players these days are afforded.

 

Tiger and Jack are both wonderful, classy ambassadors of the game. One of the things that makes them both reat is their respect for the history of the game, and lack of real bravado. What sets Tiger and Jack apart is their competitive nature. You would NEVER see either of them give up on a round, or a tournament. Their mental focus and ability to remain "in the now" is freaking amazing.

 

Jack Nicklaus is my favorite player of all time, but I respect Tiger more than any other touring player in the game today. We're lucky to have a player of Tiger's caliber in our lifetime.

384884[/snapback]

Good post, Todd. I agree with all of that despite thinking Tiger is a wee bit better.

[erynthered]

Who the hell can hit a 1 iron these days?

 

384884[/snapback]

 

I do, I cant hit a wood. So I tee off with a Ping 1 iron. It sails about 8 feet off the ground and goes about 225 to 250 down the fairway. (most of the time )