OT The Open - Tiger

[mauconnfan]

nicklaus won his majors against player(9 majors), watson(8 majors), palmer(7 majors) and trevino(6 majors). the quality of top players that woods has won his majors against does not begin to compare to those gentlemen.

Does not begin to compare? I think you answered that one with your own argument........48 majors among 5 guys? Not too many others were playing in those days now were there? They beat each other but there were very few who had the balls or game to compete - not like that anymore with the players from overseas and our own......sorry to me it's not close that Tiger has faced a much deeper and talented group of golfers many of whom are capable of stepping up on a given weekend to challenge the field. Wasn't like that back then for sure!

 

[VAUConnFan]

nicklaus won his majors against player(9 majors), watson(8 majors), palmer(7 majors) and trevino(6 majors). the quality of top players that woods has won his majors against does not begin to compare to those gentlemen.

Those players from yesteryear are certainly more famous and won more than their share of majors. Which is the whole point of today's deeper fields. Today, there are many, many more golfers capable of winning a major. Back in the day, the four you listed and a few more. The reason for today's deeper fields may have a lot to do with more prize money and greater access to the game. Let's face it, golf is, basically, a country club sport for which participation is on a pay per play basis. Clubs are expensive, balls are expensive, lessons are expensive, and it is very time consuming.

 

[uconnfan68]

Those players from yesteryear are certainly more famous and won more than their share of majors. Which is the whole point of today's deeper fields. Today, there are many, many more golfers capable of winning a major. Back in the day, the four you listed and a few more. The reason for today's deeper fields may have a lot to do with more prize money and greater access to the game. Let's face it, golf is, basically, a country club sport for which participation is on a pay per play basis. Clubs are expensive, balls are expensive, lessons are expensive, and it is very time consuming.

No more expensive than skiing, owning a boat, or many other hobbies. But you're correct that increased prize money has made the difference in the number of people attracted to the game at the highest level. Same in tennis and bass fishing. It's a nice way to make a living if you can do it.

 

[boontonbomber]

Does not begin to compare? I think you answered that one with your own argument........48 majors among 5 guys? Not too many others were playing in those days now were there? They beat each other but there were very few who had the balls or game to compete - not like that anymore with the players from overseas and our own......sorry to me it's not close that Tiger has faced a much deeper and talented group of golfers many of whom are capable of stepping up on a given weekend to challenge the field. Wasn't like that back then for sure!

not too many others playing in those days? either your memory fails you , or you're too young to be aware of them. a look at the results of the majors from one year, 1975, shows the names of 7 hall of famers other than the 5 mentioned above : crenshaw, irwin, miller, casper, kite, green, and floyd. and other players such as weiskopf, crampton, and north. any of those names ring a bell? to win a major in those days these are the top quality players that had to be beaten.these players had the courage and the game, and they showed up most every week. there are very few players today with the game and courage to show up every week. the fact that so many players can win on a given weekend these days does not indicate great depth of talent to me. rather it indicates to me that a level of mediocrity exists , one lacking in players of the kind that nicklaus had to contend with.

 

[mauconnfan]

not too many others playing in those days? either your memory fails you , or you're too young to be aware of them. a look at the results of the majors from one year, 1975, shows the names of 7 hall of famers other than the 5 mentioned above : crenshaw, irwin, miller, casper, kite, green, and floyd. and other players such as weiskopf, crampton, and north. any of those names ring a bell? to win a major in those days these are the top quality players that had to be beaten.these players had the courage and the game, and they showed up most every week. there are very few players today with the game and courage to show up every week. the fact that so many players can win on a given weekend these days does not indicate great depth of talent to me. rather it indicates to me that a level of mediocrity exists , one lacking in players of the kind that nicklaus had to contend with.

Far from too young (born in the 50's)......many good players mentioned. A few who won some majors as a matter of fact and did have the balls, agreed. But the fact anyone would even say there are "very few players" nowadays is either real old and bias or just is a Tiger hater, which there are many of. Appreciate the list, some real good ones, some not so good. But I don't think we have time to list the players who are better than the Kite's, Green's, Crampton's, North's and such from now. There are so many better quality players it's not funny....but I respect your opinion and it is just that. As is mine!