Jump to content

d1bound

Advanced Members
  • Posts

    163
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

d1bound's Achievements

9

Reputation

  1. Not gonna lie, the first 3 words of the thread title made me a little worried about where this was heading
  2. What's harder? Brain surgery or rocket science?
  3. 9 is a multiple of 3 so they must be banking on some luck
  4. Add no caddies and they won't break 85. Tour players these days just don't know how to play golf. ;)
  5. I'd like to see the Olympics be run like a college or high school event. Teams of 4 and you can either do match play or stroke play. But what they have right now is boring and part of the reason why no one wants to play it. There are some things I like about golf in the Olympics but it doesn't make sense for a tour pro. Its in a weird spot on the schedule, the format isn't any different from the norm, the field isn't that strong, there isn't high money involved, a trip to Japan seems exhausting in the middle of the season, and there's not really any huge honor in the golf world to winning a gold medal. At least, I feel like winning the Fed-Ex cup or Memorial has more prestige than a gold medal. If I was DJ, I wouldn't go either.
  6. What I’m saying is that this comparison/argument is tiring and childish. It deals in hypotheticals. And it reminds me of 8th graders arguing who’s sports are the best. The fact remains that Brooks didn’t try for the MLB or NFL or NHL or WNBA. So we do not know if he would be able to have the skills to succeed. Just like we don’t have any idea if Deshaun Watson would be dominating the PGA Tour because he never tried it.
  7. Man I love these conversations. I think it should be pointed out that athletes train their bodies for their respective sports. JJ Watt is huge and a stud at defensive end, but would probably look very clumsy and un-athletic playing golf when placed next to Brooks. Brooks doesn’t look like a linebacker , or running back, or wide receiver or any position because he doesn’t train for it. Brooks does not spend his hours training for football, he is training for golf. Just as JJ Watt spends his time training for football and not golf. Athletes work to develop a body that fits their sport and it gets tiring to hear grown men compare themselves to other grown men and have aforementioned grown men explain that Brooks is actually the size of a professional dart thrower and would get pummeled on the football field. Yes, Brooks would get pummeled on the football field but he would also beat the pants off of any other professional athlete that went out for a round with him.
  8. Save Europe for later in life when you’re retired and not worried providing for yourself (and family). Focus on the PGA tour and focus on being successful and getting money. Then after you are retired and your kids have moved out you can spend as much time traveling as you want to.
  9. Pretty sure Xanax abuse is for soundcloud rappers... (For you older folks that’s Lil Xan ;) It’s crazy who the famous people are these days.) I personally don’t think that’s a road most would take for a performance advantages. I feel like the pros should be smarter but what the heck do I know... (Not much. I don’t know very much)
  10. http://youtu.be/cS9qCre_sv8Im sorry but i had to
  11. > @bscinstnct said: > > @LICC said: > > > @pinhigh27 said: > > > > @LICC said: > > > > > @"b.helts" said: > > > > > Hey > @LICC said: > > > > > > > @pinhigh27 said: > > > > > > > > @MtlJeff said: > > > > > > > > > @LICC said: > > > > > > > > > > @MtlJeff said: > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @MtlJeff said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @MtlJeff said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @MtlJeff said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have made this argument before and even wrote an article for this site about 7-8 years ago on the subject. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think progressing towards parity is inevitable in a sport like golf , especially the more it becomes capitalized due to higher wages combined with the fact that you cannot play defense on your opponent. I definitely believe there is wayyyy more talent on the PGA tour than ever before (ease of europeans and asians to play on it, ease of travel, higher wages leading to more people pursuing it etc....). So you combine all these things with a sport where you can't physically stop your opponent from doing something....you get more parity. Brooks Koepka can't go out and guarantee that some guy ranked 43rd won't have a career day and shoot 62 on Sunday. It's not like Tennis where Roger Federer can return your shots. Golf is like a souped up version of an NBA 3-pt contest, except if there were 125 participants. Steph Curry is the best shooter in the world but he wouldn't win every time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There will always be guys who come along and differentiate themselves. But i think it will become rarer, and the norm will be more what we see now, guys getting hot for short stretches. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another comparable "sport" would probably be Poker. Pre-Rounders, you saw the same names a lot. But once online poker started, once poker became cool, you had guys no one had ever heard of winning the world series every year. The best guys were just the guys who won a bit and finished 15th most years. It's similar in that you can do everything right and just lose because your opponent caught a crazy hand that day > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing in what you said that wouldn’t be the same 20, 30, and 40 years ago. Human beings don’t evolve that quickly. The top 50-70 players in the world at any given time period once a sport reaches maturity are extraordinarily skilled. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I definitely believe the top 50-70 players in the world are more skilled now than they were 40yrs ago owing to capitalization. 40yrs ago there wasn't the same incentive to become a pro athlete (pay is 30x+ higher which way outpaces inflation) and less countries had the ability to be represented (how many asian players on tour 40yrs ago?). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The top 50-70 players in the world are obviously always going to be super talented, but even among the very talented , there is talent gaps. And the higher a sport gets capitalized those gaps close IMO > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What gaps? There is nothing to support the notion that the top 70 players today are more skilled than the top 70 players in 1979 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure there is, larger talent pool to choose from due to higher pay for the same job , and better access to global candidates. Economists argue this all the time > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we started paying Squash players the same as NBA players, 30yrs from now itd be hard to argue squash players aren't better in 2050 than they were in 2020. Athletes in the US dont try to become pro squash players now because the pay sucks compared to other pro sports. This isn't to say the top squash players in the world suck, they'd just be better in 2050 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Name three players today that are playing the PGA Tour that otherwise wouldn’t be if the pay was relatively the same as 1979 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The guy who finished 5th on tour in 1980 made 239k. Adjusted for inflation I believe that's roughly 650k in today's dollars. If you had to be 5th in the world to make 650k in today's pro sports climate... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The 5000th best business person in the US makes more than that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It’s more like $850k in today’s dollars. Which Tour pro has the alternative to make $850k if he never pursued golf? Name three. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are framing arguments ridiculously. If you want to have a serious debate I'm happy to, but it doesn't seem so. Have a great day. In fact I'll even name 3 great days I want you to have: today, tomorrow, and Wednesday > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He does it in like every thread don't worry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Idk what's hard to believe about sports getting more competitive over time as incentive to do well increases, we learn more about the sport, how to coach and teach it and global travel is easier than ever. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > People have this weird homerism where they can't accept their guy wasn't the greatest. > > > > > > > > > > > > He theorizes squash players making tens of millions a year and my framing is ridiculous? My question is at the core of his theory. You don’t have an argument that today there is greater incentive such to materially change the skill levels from the top players of 40 years ago. That is a weird recency bias > > > > > > > > > > Well, he said the 5th ranked player made $650K or $850K in adjusted dollars. So $850K is now about 150th on tour, if I remember right. So it’s clear that the earning potential for professional golf has risen significantly! That is a strong argument for more and better candidates seeking that kind of earning power. Meaning more players of a higher caliber. > > > > > > > > $850k would be 130th now. But so what? You’re making a leap that some PGA Tour players would not be playing golf if the money were at the 1980 adjusted levels. So who are these players? What would they be doing instead? Upon what are you basing that assumption? > > > > > > ? Is this argument really beyond you? So you're saying the 130th ranked guy now makes as much as the 5th guy from 30 years ago, but you fail to see how there isn't significantly more incentive to get into the game? What does the 5th ranked pga tour player make now? It's probably like 20 million/yr with endorsements. > > > > > > Prize money is just one piece of the pie. The endorsements and ability to market yourself is obviously way higher now. > > > > > > It's not recency bias, it's logic. You don't make any points of your own, you just say " no that's not true." > > > > > > Again, say it with me. Any sport where the incentive to succeed continues to increase, will continue to evolve. Compare the athleticism of basketball players now to 40 years ago. It's barely the same game. > > > > In basketball the style has changed, not the skill level, because the rules and officiating changed. Larry Bird in his prime today would be lighting it up. > > Are you really arguing that the NBA was as good in the 50s as it is now? That the players are not better? (Yeah, I know LB did not play in the 50s but same principles and variables apply) > > Just think for a second of why the caliber of play is multiples better now. > > Larger talent pools and more incentive. > > You don’t think the same variables apply to golf over the past 60 years? > > Look as far as basketball goes, just go watch a high school warm up routine and tell me the skill level hasn't increased. And @MtlJeff , as far as skill goes, I've learned it's impossible to argue about "talent" on this website because people find it so subjective. For instance, some argue that hitting it far and straight is not a skill at all nowadays. I mean look at all the guys that hit it far and how good they are doing. Cam Champ, Trey Mullinax, and others are doing so well because it is so easy to hit it straight. In fact even I could hit it that far and straight if it weren't for my back issues that cause me to hit a 240 yard push fade. I guess my main point would be is that some things aren't even worth trying to prove because it would take too much time and I just want to play golf. Edit: I apparently can't write coherent sentences
×
×
  • Create New...