Lanny Wadkins firing a SHOT!

Lanny just stated that playing with the same equipment, the Top 10-12 from his era would "eat em up and spit em out" if playing against the Top 10-12 of the current Tour. Let the games begin!!!.......

Isn't Lanny short, like a troll?

Of course they would. And in a one off, no preparation time, event with the new stuff the new guys would kill them. Nothing new imo. Tell Lanny if he and his group went and played Jones, Hagen and the boys with hickory the old guys would win.

If Lanny meant with either equipment he's completely delusional.

Meh, TV commentators say a lot of things to fill the dead air.

No Bobby Riggs is Lanny.

Nicklaus, Player, Trevino, Weiskopf, Miller, Watson, Wadkins, Irwin, Floyd, and Hubert Green. In a Ryder Cup type event, I think they win!!

Good ol' Lanny also said the guys in his day were tougher competitors because they were playing to win. He said the only way you could pay the bills was by winning tournaments.

Ya whatever ... Like George Mikan would school Kevin Durant

Times changes and so do the games

Nicklaus, Player, Trevino, Weiskopf, Miller, Watson, Wadkins, Irwin, Floyd, and Hubert Green. In a Ryder Cup type event, I think they win!!

Nicklaus, Player, Trevino, Weiskopf, Miller, Watson, Wadkins, Irwin, Floyd, and Hubert Green. In a Ryder Cup type event, I think they win!!

I'd take the old guys in a bar fight over the new ones.

Except Cabrera.

Nicklaus would bore the modern player to death with his painfully deliberate play ... man was he slow ( except Spieth who is slower)

Player would annoy the modern players to death ( except Spieth who is more annoying)

Trevino would talk the modern player to death ( except Spieth who can't shut up)

Weiskopf would piss off the modern player to death because he is Weiskopf ( especially Spieth)

Miller would trap draw the modern player to death ( especially Spieth who slices)

Watson would beat the modern player to death because he is Tom Watson ( even Spieth)

Watkins would get pummeled to death by the modern player because he sucks ( even Spieth )

Irwin would out slice the modern player to death ( except Spieth who cannot be outsliced)

Floyd would stare the modern player to death ( except Spieth who wouldn't notice because he is slow ,annoying ,talks too much ,and would be looking for his slice in the woods)

Could Underdog beat today's Superman. AbsolutelyF'inCorrect.

Oh of course, lets extend this out and say that in 2o years the top players will be even worse than todays dudes

I totally agree with Lanny Wadkins. The players from his era, and previous eras, were generally much better ball-strikers than the majority of todays players.

Try hitting a persimmon (or laminate) driver from the 80's or before. It requires a considerably more precise technique than often seen today.

Also, yes, they had to actually win tournaments to be able to live on tour, 20th place just wouldn't earn enough money.

It's just like the argument of this Warrior's team beating Jordan's Bulls. Of course Lanny is partial, but we'll never know............

I totally agree with Lanny Wadkins. The players from his era, and previous eras, were generally much better ball-strikers than the majority of todays players.

Try hitting a persimmon (or laminate) driver from the 80's or before. It requires a considerably more precise technique than often seen today.

Also, yes, they had to actually win tournaments to be able to live on tour, 20th place just wouldn't earn enough money.

Nicklaus, Player, Trevino, Weiskopf, Miller, Watson, Wadkins, Irwin, Floyd, and Hubert Green. In a Ryder Cup type event, I think they win!!

Billy Casper belongs on that list more than any other players not named Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer.

I'm kind of shocked there's even a debate about this. It's a subject I've been pondering for several weeks now. All I ever hear about is the depth on tour, but look at the FedEx Cup rankings. Are you kidding me? Daniel friggin Berger is like number seven or eight this year. Hideki Matsuyama is number two. NUMBER TWO!

So by depth, do poeple mean that the 150th ranked player in the world now is better than the 150th ranked player in the world from say 1970? Maybe, maybe not, but who really gives a crap is what I'd like to know. Lanny is dead right and I for one was glad to hear him say it. About time if you ask me.

Don't you know? In the sports world evolution works backwards. People just get worse and worse over time.

I think golf is one of, if not the only sport right now that the players aren't appreciably better than previous generations. Other sports rely on speed, strength, running, jumping, contact, but not golf. Therefore, the argument that players now are stronger and "more athletic" doesn't really matter. Byron Nelson's scoring average was better than everyone right now using persimmon and a ball made of, essentially, crap.

The current group of players benefits from more players practicing harder. That being said, the elite players from each generation in golf could stand their own with similar equipment, because they all worked hard and had an affinity for the game.

I'm taking Wadkin's generation by the way. There's a huge psychological advantage for players who've won more and expect to win. It's the reason Spieth has such an advantage right now. He's far from the most skilled, but knows how to win. Its also why Europe has dominated the Ryder Cup the last couple decades. They go in there knowing they'll win and have the psychological edge.

So this is the thing now I guess. "I've got a microphone in front of me, so I'll say something to fan the flames and make sure people still talk about me."

I miss commentators like Vin Scully.

Lanny doing what all old guys must do once in a while and knock the generations which come after his - it's a tale as old as time.

My take on what he said? I don't care.

I'm kind of shocked there's even a debate about this. It's a subject I've been pondering for several weeks now. All I ever hear about is the depth on tour, but look at the FedEx Cup rankings. Are you kidding me? Daniel friggin Berger is like number seven or eight this year. Hideki Matsuyama is number two. NUMBER TWO!

 

So by depth, do poeple mean that the 150th ranked player in the world now is better than the 150th ranked player in the world from say 1970? Maybe, maybe not, but who really gives a crap is what I'd like to know. Lanny is dead right and I for one was glad to hear him say it. About time if you ask me.

These damn youngsters coming through and climbing the world rankings! Get off my lawn!

The only sport where one can kind of compare eras is baseball and even there it's problematic.

I agree with him.

The genetic material of h*** Sapiens is not likely to change much over a generation or two (or a hunded), so the capability of players to hit balls should depend on other factors, eg the number of prospects for becoming elite players, the likeliness of parents to give hikes to trainings and so on. Given the same physical training, the knowledge of swings and short play, you would expect players from then to do good now. So yes, Jack would probably have won majors now too but maybe not that many.

(edit - I like the stars above... guess we are a little less restrictive with what you can write or not over here...)

Nicklaus would bore the modern player to death with his painfully deliberate play ... man was he slow ( except Spieth who is slower)

Player would annoy the modern players to death ( except Spieth who is more annoying)

Trevino would talk the modern player to death ( except Spieth who can't shut up)

Weiskopf would piss off the modern player to death because he is Weiskopf ( especially Spieth)

Miller would trap draw the modern player to death ( especially Spieth who slices)

Watson would beat the modern player to death because he is Tom Watson ( even Spieth)

Watkins would get pummeled to death by the modern player because he sucks ( even Spieth )

Irwin would out slice the modern player to death ( except Spieth who cannot be outsliced)

Floyd would stare the modern player to death ( except Spieth who wouldn't notice because he is slow ,annoying ,talks too much ,and would be looking for his slice in the woods)

Dude, we get it. You have a hard on for Spieth. Now, go find yourself a girl and put it to some good use instead of cluttering up a golf forum. You may have to settle for someone other than the girl of your dreams because Spieth apparently stole her from you.

Someone explain to me why hitting a persimmon driver is harder than hitting a modern three or five wood.

Good ol' Lanny also said the guys in his day were tougher competitors because they were playing to win. He said the only way you could pay the bills was by winning tournaments.

Hunger has an unusual way of making someone tough.

Someone explain to me why hitting a persimmon driver is harder than hitting a modern three or five wood.

Find yourself an old balata and a driver from the era and give it a whirl.

During the 1963 PGA Championship, a long drive competition was held. Jack hit one 341.

I don't remember the tournament, but both Jack and Arnie drove a 330 yard par 4.

It was said Adam Snead could occasionally drive the ball over 300.

In any event we will never know if what Lanny said is true. All we can do is speculate, without any resolution.