Lanny Wadkins firing a SHOT!

[Anchor44]

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)

Not sure it's normal to let a 23 year old kid get in your head that much....especially when only two other players in history have won ten tournaments before age 24.

[ode1]

It's a cheap shot....if he thinks his gen is all that cool, but it's a back handed compliment which they don't need and a slight on the current players that wasnt necessary. IMO the comment has no relevance!

 

And if people had listened to all of his comments you would see that was not the case. He was simply being honest and it should be refreshing. Nick Price said years ago that if the players of today had to use the same equipment he and those ahead of him had to use that half of them wouldn't be on tour because their ball striking is lacking.

 

Lol, yes, there literally would be no tour then.....that's silly talk.

[forgedforever]

If Lanny Watkins complains in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does he still mention Billy Ray?

 

Let's stick to the important questions guys, c'mon.

 

You possess good listening skills. Well done!

[soap1984]

Yes you had to win tournaments to make enough money back then, then again the only reason the money was so bad was because no one played golf at that time and thus, there were almost no good players. Sure the guys make more now, they are also undeniably better and it is, roughly, 100x harder to win because of the competition. These old guys were mediocre athletes; no good athlete played golf then and there was almost no international competition. The old guys were the left overs who weren't athletic enough or tough enough to play football. Again, like lanny, just my opinion.

 

Everyone thinks their era is the greatest, I heard lannys comment and literally never thought about it again until I saw this thread lol. He's an old whiner like the majority of them. For all the "tough" talk I sure hear a lot of whining out of old guys about how "hard" things were when they played.

[EKELLY]

Yes you had to win tournaments to make enough money back then, then again the only reason the money was so bad was because no one played golf at that time and thus, there were almost no good players. Sure the guys make more now, they are also undeniably better and it is, roughly, 100x harder to win because of the competition. These old guys were mediocre athletes; no good athlete played golf then and there was almost no international competition. The old guys were the left overs who weren't athletic enough or tough enough to play football. Again, like lanny, just my opinion.

 

Everyone thinks their era is the greatest, I heard lannys comment and literally never thought about it again until I saw this thread lol. He's an old whiner like the majority of them. For all the "tough" talk I sure hear a lot of whining out of old guys about how "hard" things were when they played.

If you really look at the #'s, the scores haven't changed much. You have to shoot the #'s, regardless of how many guys CAN shoot the #'s.....You also didn't have the exempt 125 back then, it was like 60......Different world. Hell, even Jack said with the equipment of today, Watson and Miller would have put up Tiger numbers......Ali was the only guy before 75 making any money......LOL

[PGArox]

Yes you had to win tournaments to make enough money back then ...

 

Someone brought up a good point earlier in this thread, and it's worth mentioning again.

 

Jack Nicklaus pocketed $1,450 for finishing tied 18th at the 1972 Atlanta Golf Classic. That tournament was pretty much a middle of the pack kind of tournament in the early and mid 70's.

 

If a PGA TOUR guy played 27 tournaments in 1972, and averaged $1,450 per start, he certainly would not have been "lightin' it up" by any stretch of the imagination. He also would've earned $39,150 from TOUR earnings alone.

 

To put that in some kind of perspective, my dearly departed father bought his first home in Torrance, California in 1966 for $29,600. That home had four bedrooms and a two car garage, and it sat on a corner lot in a very good neighborhood. Today, that house is valued at approximately $800,000.

 

By 1972 my father had become the airfreight manager at a major carrier at Los Angeles International Airport, and was making $35,000 a year. Most people thought he was doing pretty good for himself.

 

So when I heard Lanny Wadkins say that guys in his day had to win just to pay the bills, well ... :)

[deadsolid...shank]

Yea, Gretzky wouldn't be scoring 90 goals a season, but he would absolutely easily still be an all-star mentioned in the same breath with Crosby and Ovechkin if he played today. The game may be much tougher now but he'd still be bagging 40+ goals, 60+ assists every year, maybe more. Gretzky was scoring 25 goals, assisting 70 in the late 90s when he was in his late 30s.

 

Second liner? That's easily the craziest thing said on this thread so far. Jaromir Jagr was 44 two years ago and he notched 66 pts. Gretzky's skills were bonkers. Just because he dominated a soft era in the game, doesn't mean he wouldn't succeed today.

 

The game changed, defense has changed, goalies are better and players are better skaters. That said Gretzky would still be a top player if he played on teams with comparable talent to what he did in the years he played.

 

One BIG difference Gretzky today would face, is he would get hit, a lot more. More guys could catch him, and there is much less hands off of stars these days IMO

Gretzky has stated several times on record that he'd get KILLED in the league today. Still score frequently, but get beat up, career much shorter

 

But if Gretzky played today, he would have had access to all the better training and equipment that the current players have. Isn't it reasonable to expect that he would have also been fitter and faster too. And maybe even better than he was.

 

If we project past athletes into current times, we have to consider that they would be able to take advantage of some of today's advancements too.

[Matt J]

And if a dog wore pants...

 

until someone invents a time machine comparing players of different generations is a waste of time and energy.

 

Ask Sam Snead what he thinks of Lanny's career earnings.

 

Bloated blow hard blows hot air in an attempt to improve flailing ratings. Old story new day.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Yes you had to win tournaments to make enough money back then, then again the only reason the money was so bad was because no one played golf at that time and thus, there were almost no good players. Sure the guys make more now, they are also undeniably better and it is, roughly, 100x harder to win because of the competition. These old guys were mediocre athletes; no good athlete played golf then and there was almost no international competition. The old guys were the left overs who weren't athletic enough or tough enough to play football. Again, like lanny, just my opinion.

 

Everyone thinks their era is the greatest, I heard lannys comment and literally never thought about it again until I saw this thread lol. He's an old whiner like the majority of them. For all the "tough" talk I sure hear a lot of whining out of old guys about how "hard" things were when they played.

If you really look at the #'s, the scores haven't changed much. You have to shoot the #'s, regardless of how many guys CAN shoot the #'s.....You also didn't have the exempt 125 back then, it was like 60......Different world. Hell, even Jack said with the equipment of today, Watson and Miller would have put up Tiger numbers......Ali was the only guy before 75 making any money......LOL

 

Who said that? Oh, yeah, that's right.

[Terry Gold]

Yes you had to win tournaments to make enough money back then, then again the only reason the money was so bad was because no one played golf at that time and thus, there were almost no good players. Sure the guys make more now, they are also undeniably better and it is, roughly, 100x harder to win because of the competition. These old guys were mediocre athletes; no good athlete played golf then and there was almost no international competition. The old guys were the left overs who weren't athletic enough or tough enough to play football. Again, like lanny, just my opinion.

 

Everyone thinks their era is the greatest, I heard lannys comment and literally never thought about it again until I saw this thread lol. He's an old whiner like the majority of them. For all the "tough" talk I sure hear a lot of whining out of old guys about how "hard" things were when they played.

 

Your ignorant perspective, flawed logic, and hyper-generalizations could be excused because it was Canada Day around the time you posted this.

"Lack of athleticism and toughness are what kept those guys out of football".

(Personal insult redacted)

Sincerely,

Hale Irwin.

[MattyO1984]

Yes you had to win tournaments to make enough money back then ...

 

Someone brought up a good point earlier in this thread, and it's worth mentioning again.

 

Jack Nicklaus pocketed $1,450 for finishing tied 18th at the 1972 Atlanta Golf Classic. That tournament was pretty much a middle of the pack kind of tournament in the early and mid 70's.

 

If a PGA TOUR guy played 27 tournaments in 1972, and averaged $1,450 per start, he certainly would not have been "lightin' it up" by any stretch of the imagination. He also would've earned $39,150 from TOUR earnings alone.

 

To put that in some kind of perspective, my dearly departed father bought his first home in Torrance, California in 1966 for $29,600. That home had four bedrooms and a two car garage, and it sat on a corner lot in a very good neighborhood. Today, that house is valued at approximately $800,000.

 

By 1972 my father had become the airfreight manager at a major carrier at Los Angeles International Airport, and was making $35,000 a year. Most people thought he was doing pretty good for himself.

 

So when I heard Lanny Wadkins say that guys in his day had to win just to pay the bills, well ... :)

 

Well said PGA. Sure the money the guys make now, is way beyond the average salary but this notion that the guys in the 60's and 70's were struggling to make ends meat without winning is wrong.

[ExTrumpet]

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)

 

Sorry, been out of pocket and late to this party. Not gonna lie, I just chortled some coffee through my nose laughing at this!