Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

csh19792001's Achievements



  1. https://twitter.com/LouStagner/status/1483199755664728064?s=20
  2. Yes it did. And the game has never been remotely the same since:
  3. Agreed. Calvin Peete did incredibly well in the 80's hitting it 250, with 80+% accuracy for an entire decade. https://www.golfchannel.com/article/golf-central-blog/numbers-calvin-peetes-career https://twitter.com/LukeKerrDineen/status/1244252139884621825?s=20
  4. Even when people agree with you, you're still a ****head? And for no reason? Real nice, happy person you must be.
  5. Join in, here! Your thoughts are greatly welcomed and will be appreciated!
  6. Note: This is NOT about field strength. That's already (pretty much) been decided. This was prompted by this post from the 15 year long, 7000+ post Tiger vs. Jack Thread. Look at the equipment differences between 1980 and today. People who never played persimmon woods, forged player irons with minimal forgiveness, balata balls, and non-frequency matched iron shafts have no idea how much harder it was to hit the ball without an excellent, repeating swing. Sweet spot a size of a dime, no more than a nickel. Pretty hard to take when a shot was off the sweet spot. A drive being 40-50 yards short just by being 1/2 an inch off. Comparing 2020-2021 to 1980 is like comparing a 1956 Corvette to a 2021 Corvette. Simply a different machine that’s incomparable. Also, tour course conditions were not as good back in 1980 as they are today. Greens weren’t as smooth then, bunker sand was not as fine and consistent, fairways were softer. Totally different game back then compared to today. I agree with all of this. I'll also add that the balata ball flew distinctly shorter (and more crooked) than the non wound composite balls of later (Pro V1 was introduced in early 2000, if memory serves). Truly changed the game forever. I've been watching a ton of old Masters Final Rounds, thanks to someone who uploaded every single year 1968-2020 on Youtube. My thinking is this- no personal trainers, no personal entourages for each player, no dieticians/nutritionists, no sports medicine, no kinesiology, no weight training, no advanced technologies to aid them/their analysis, a lot of driving to tournaments, drastically smaller prize pools/less luxury or even comfort/financial security (etc etc)........all for players before the 2000's, I'd estimate. To varying degrees, but most of these things in the 21st Century that are a given, simply weren't in Jack Nicklaus' era. My other thing is basically when that poster said in the above post. Nick Price said in 1999 that "We simply couldn't swing 100% like today's guys; it was an entirely losing proposition." Today's players can all swing 100% on every swing, and rarely make a massive mistake or lose a ton of distance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_(golf)#/media/File:Golf_drivers_old_and_new.jpg Watching those old Masters, I see players (on a drastically shorter Augusta National) consistently hitting 3 clubs more, or irons from the same length of shot, and see players (yes, even Nicklaus) hitting woods and 1 irons into par 5's, long irons into par 4's, etc. etc. I thought the discussion here might be, something like, how much harder was golf for old time PGA Tour Pros versus today's players? If, at all? Or was it easier to play at the highest levels, then?
  7. What's more important the field strength and quality of opposition over the course of an entire career?
  8. It isn't that dramatically different from 2000, but Woods was so overwhelmingly better than Rahm in his prime that of course it isn't even close between the two through age 27 seasons. The difference between today and 1980, however, is massive.
  9. Tiger>>>Jack. 40 players were within 2 shots of the PGA Tour lead in 1980. In 2021, that number was 130.
  10. In 1980, 40 players finished within 2 strokes or more of the leader in scoring average. In 2021, 130 players finished within 2 strokes or more the leader in scoring average. In 2000, it was 103. Game. Set. Match.. Tiger Woods>>>Jack Nicklaus.
  11. https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=94452816#p94452816
  12. "Coaches and GMs who either overtly disliked/hated and/or totally mismanaged Wilt.Neil JohnstonEd GottliebFrank McGuireBob FeerickDolph SchayesButch Van Breda KolffFred SchausCoaches who understood him well, treated him well, and used him properly/to his full potential:Alex HannumBill SharmanIn 14 years he only had two coaches that ever understood him, and that he could count on. That's only 5.5 of his 14 seasons.Here are his team’s records those years, under great coaches:68-13 (set the all time record for wins)62-2069-13 (again, set the all time record for wins, AND with a different team)60-22That's a .792 winning percentage. With great coaches, a team strategy that utilized (rather than abused/used him), and...(finally) great teammates around him. Instead of generally awful ones.To wit: Bill Russell had all of those things for basically every single season of his career. And the greatest owner/coach ever, arguably, who treated him like a son and deferred to him, constantly." Have you read these, just out of curiosity? https://www.amazon.com/Wilt-Larger-Than-Robert-Cherry/dp/1572439157/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=wilt+larger+than+life&qid=1636753636&sr=8-2 https://www.amazon.com/Rivalry-Russell-Chamberlain-Golden-Basketball-ebook/dp/B000FCKGSY/ref=sr_1_fkmr3_2?keywords=wilt+chamberlain+versus+bill+russell+the+rivalry+book&qid=1636753691&sr=8-2-fkmr3 https://www.amazon.com/Wilt-1962-Night-Points-Dawn-ebook/dp/B003FCVDR4/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=wilt+1962+book&qid=1636753714&sr=8-3 IF you had read these books, you wouldn't be making the kind of statements about Wilt as a teammate and person versus Russell as a teammate (and person).
  13. Re: Wilt's "dropoff" in the playoffs: See Post 85 here. It was because he faced the greatest defenses, ever, by far, in his prime. https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=94677924#p94677924 Here's the entire discussion: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1836300#p75049872 And re: Wilt and Russell's teammates, see this article, here: https://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/index4f3e.html?p=4229 In fact, according to career Win Shares per minute, Russell's teammates were worth 8.10 WS/3000 MP over his career, while Chamberlain's were worth 6.06. So if both men played 3,300 minutes per season, with a schedule of 80 games and 48.3 MPG (the NBA's all-time average), that gives roughly 16,000 minutes to each center's teammates in total for each year: ((8.10 - 6.06) / 3000) * 16000 = 10.88 In other words, Russell's teammates alone were worth approximately 11 more wins than Chamberlain's per regular season... And in the playoffs since 1957, teams with 10-12 more regular-season wins than their opponent won 71 of 85 series (83.5%). So should it have been any surprise that Russell and the C's were coming out ahead of Chamberlain's Warriors & Sixers?
  14. Anybody have any information on this? It would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!!! -Chris
  15. I don't disagree with you at all here. What is a counterpoint, of course, however, is.....how did an Era where fields were drastically deeper and stronger than the past allow someone to win well over 30% of his starts, for over a decade?
  • Create New...