Jump to content
2024 Houston Open WITB Photos ×

Field Strength -- Facts Versus Rosy Memories


Brock Savage

Recommended Posts

The top guys in the world have always teed of on the first day of most tournaments.

Scoring records still stand from decades ago, when the quality of golf balls was far less consistent. The fairways of today are better than the fringes of greens were. Tee areas today are better than greens used to be. Bunkers today on tour are all built to identical specs with identical sand-like material in them, so players use the exact same fell under the exact same conditions week after week. The final rounds used to 36 holes for many tournaments.

Persimmon woods were finicky and not manufactured with computer controlled precision. When your driver cracked, you had a hard time finding something that played similar to it.

My memory is rosy. I remember 40 years ago better than I remember what I had for lunch yesterday.

Come play me using persimmon, old muscle back irons and a blade putter. And bring some cash. :)

Saying the fields are better now is like saying rap music is better than classic rock. You gotta be kidding me... :)

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 2

bought out by private equity.

capitalization, grammar and reasoning slashed as a cost reduction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Soloman1' timestamp='1396260719' post='8985115']
The top guys in the world have always teed of on the first day of most tournaments.

Scoring records still stand from decades ago, when the quality of golf balls was far less consistent. The fairways of today are better than the fringes of greens were. Tee areas today are better than greens used to be. Bunkers today on tour are all built to identical specs with identical sand-like material in them, so players use the exact same fell under the exact same conditions week after week. The final rounds used to 36 holes for many tournaments.

Persimmon woods were finicky and not manufactured with computer controlled precision. When your driver cracked, you had a hard time finding something that played similar to it.[/quote]

Your first sentence is simply false. It's a matter of record that there were exactly zero American touring pros in the field when Gary Player won his first major in 1959, and the Big Three combined won five British Opens before 1970, all with less than a dozen Americans in the field, even counting amateurs, seniors, and club pros. There was a similar lack of international players in the three American majors, let alone regular PGA tour events.

The rest is mostly correct, but so what? The players of 50 years ago all used the same equipment on the same courses, so they weren't at any disadvantage from either factor. The scoring hasn't dropped dramatically because the courses have evolved to compensate for technology. It's ridiculously easy to manipulate the score, even on the same course in the same year. 28 players finished under par at the 2008 Buick Invitational at Torrey Pines; only one player finished under par there less than five months later, in the 2008 US Open. Do you think the field for the Buick was that much stronger than the field for the US Open?

The 1930 Chicago Bears had flimsy leather helmets without cages, and had to take a bus to all their games, and they still scored a lot of points. If they got kicked in the head, they shook it off and kept playing, usually both sides of the ball. Does any of that mean that they could beat a pampered NFL team of today that flies first class, has high-tech pads and helmets, and has a doctor on the field every time someone stubs his toe?

The worst team in the NFL today would beat them 100-0, under any rules and conditions you named. That's not a claim that the worst golfer today would beat Bobby Jones, it's just an assertion that your logic is faulty.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1396270414' post='8985563']
[quote name='Soloman1' timestamp='1396260719' post='8985115']
The top guys in the world have always teed of on the first day of [b]most[/b] tournaments.

Scoring records still stand from decades ago, when the quality of golf balls was far less consistent. The fairways of today are better than the fringes of greens were. Tee areas today are better than greens used to be. Bunkers today on tour are all built to identical specs with identical sand-like material in them, so players use the exact same fell under the exact same conditions week after week. The final rounds used to 36 holes for many tournaments.

Persimmon woods were finicky and not manufactured with computer controlled precision. When your driver cracked, you had a hard time finding something that played similar to it.[/quote]

Your first sentence is simply false. It's a matter of record that there were exactly zero American touring pros in the field when Gary Player won his first major in 1959, and the Big Three combined won five British Opens before 1970, all with less than a dozen Americans in the field, even counting amateurs, seniors, and club pros. There was a similar lack of international players in the three American majors, let alone regular PGA tour events.

The rest is mostly correct, but so what? The players of 50 years ago all used the same equipment on the same courses, so they weren't at any disadvantage from either factor. The scoring hasn't dropped dramatically because the courses have evolved to compensate for technology. It's ridiculously easy to manipulate the score, even on the same course in the same year. 28 players finished under par at the 2008 Buick Invitational at Torrey Pines; only one player finished under par there less than five months later, in the 2008 US Open. Do you think the field for the Buick was that much stronger than the field for the US Open?

[/quote]
You gave a few examples. But are you saying that his use of "most" not "all," is simply false?
That's a huge claim requiring a lot of numbers to refute "most." Particularly, as your claim is subjective.

Driver Callaway Razr Fit Xtreme
Callaway X Hot Pro 13.5* and 17* FW
Callaway Razr X Tour 21* Hybrid
Callaway Apex Pro 5-PW, Mizuno JPX 50*,
Mizuno MPT-11 54*, Vokey SM4 60/10,
Scotty Cameron Circa 62 #2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did choose the word "most" intentionally. I don't try to make everything I write or say continuous declarative sentences as if they are the words of God.

You know, I'm not sure anymore that any comparison is reasonable. It's a different game played with different equipment on a different field. Maybe only the name is the same?

bought out by private equity.

capitalization, grammar and reasoning slashed as a cost reduction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Original post is phenomenal, evolution dictates that things invariably get better over time get over it. That doesn't mean that if Nicklaus was born 50 years later he wouldn't dominate the same way, but it does mean he'd have deeper fields to beat, the evidence is overwhelming and irrefutable. As far as the classic rock vs rap that's totally subjective, Mozart and Bach would scoff and laugh at your "classic" rock, lol.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, "What If?" threads...

What if we just looked at the numbers for what they are?

Palmer, Player, Snead, Hogan, Watson, Trevino > Mickelson, Els, Singh...who else?

Titleist Tsi3 9/Tensei White 65x

Titleist Tsi2 16.5/Tensei White 75x

Titleist 818 h2 21/Tensei White 95x

Mizuno Mp-20 mb 4-Pw/Dynamic Gold 120x

Mizuno T22 50, 54, 58/Dynamic Gold s400

Bettinardi Studio Stock #8

Titleist ProV1x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, "What If?" threads...

 

What if we just looked at the numbers for what they are?

 

Palmer, Player, Snead, Hogan, Watson, Trevino > Mickelson, Els, Singh...who else?

See, we can't predict how the old guys would play today.

BUT we can see how today's guys would play under the conditions of the old guys.

 

I remember a few years ago, this took place. A few players played around with some VERY old equipment.

gwsl01_zurich.jpg

I also remember Golf Magazine doing this with Paddy Harrington.

Harrington-chart2_790x213_0.jpg

 

SO, set up a few courses to 60s-70s tournament conditions a few times and have tour players play those with equipment to spec from the era. After a while, you can compare scores and stats.

It would be an awesome thing to have introduced somewhere in the season. Kind of like throw back jerseys.

Driver Callaway Razr Fit Xtreme
Callaway X Hot Pro 13.5* and 17* FW
Callaway Razr X Tour 21* Hybrid
Callaway Apex Pro 5-PW, Mizuno JPX 50*,
Mizuno MPT-11 54*, Vokey SM4 60/10,
Scotty Cameron Circa 62 #2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='monkeynaut' timestamp='1396270905' post='8985607']
[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1396270414' post='8985563']
[quote name='Soloman1' timestamp='1396260719' post='8985115']
The top guys in the world have always teed of on the first day of [b]most[/b] tournaments.

Scoring records still stand from decades ago, when the quality of golf balls was far less consistent. The fairways of today are better than the fringes of greens were. Tee areas today are better than greens used to be. Bunkers today on tour are all built to identical specs with identical sand-like material in them, so players use the exact same fell under the exact same conditions week after week. The final rounds used to 36 holes for many tournaments.

Persimmon woods were finicky and not manufactured with computer controlled precision. When your driver cracked, you had a hard time finding something that played similar to it.[/quote]

Your first sentence is simply false. It's a matter of record that there were exactly zero American touring pros in the field when Gary Player won his first major in 1959, and the Big Three combined won five British Opens before 1970, all with less than a dozen Americans in the field, even counting amateurs, seniors, and club pros. There was a similar lack of international players in the three American majors, let alone regular PGA tour events.

The rest is mostly correct, but so what? The players of 50 years ago all used the same equipment on the same courses, so they weren't at any disadvantage from either factor. The scoring hasn't dropped dramatically because the courses have evolved to compensate for technology. It's ridiculously easy to manipulate the score, even on the same course in the same year. 28 players finished under par at the 2008 Buick Invitational at Torrey Pines; only one player finished under par there less than five months later, in the 2008 US Open. Do you think the field for the Buick was that much stronger than the field for the US Open?

[/quote]
You gave a few examples. But are you saying that his use of "most" not "all," is simply false?
That's a huge claim requiring a lot of numbers to refute "most." Particularly, as your claim is subjective.
[/quote]

I'm saying his use of "always" is simply false, and it doesn't take much research to show it, even interpreting his meaning in the most generous way possible, namely "majors" instead of just "tournaments," since the majors are where the best players are most likely to show up.

Note that I'm in no way implying that he's lying -- he's just repeating a very common misconception.

The US Open was founded in 1895. For the next 20 years or so, the top players in the world were Vardon, Taylor, and Braid, aka the Great Triumvirate. Five-time Open winner Braid never played the US Open; five-time Open winner Taylor played it just twice, finishing second to Vardon in 1900; and Vardon himself, 7-time Open champ, played the US Open 3 times, winning in 1900, and finishing second in 1913 and 1920. Vardon's pal Ted Ray, who was competitive in majors for over 30 years, also played the US Open just three times, placing first and third in two of them.

In the 20's, Jones and Hagen were the top players in the world. Not counting the Masters, Jones competed in majors for 15 years, but played the Open just four times. Hagen was competitive in majors for almost 30 years, and won the Open four times, but actually only entered it ten times, just one year in three.

The top Americans after Hagen were Hogan, Nelson, and Snead, and none of them played the Open more than once in their primes. Conversely, few international players competed in the US majors. As I noted in my OP, the US Open required them to take a month off to go through qualifying, and the PGA made it next to impossible for any non-PGA member to play. The Masters invited a few, but only a few, and most of them declined.

Peter Alliss was one of the best players in Europe for nearly 20 years. He won the Order of Merit twice, and beat the biggest American stars like Palmer, Venturi, and Casper in his Ryder Cup matches, but he was invited to the Masters only five times, and he only accepted twice. Too far to travel, he said.

His Ryder Cup partner, Christy O'Connor, also won the OOM twice. He never played an American major in his entire career.

In fact, of ALL the Order of Merit winners from 1955 to 1975, whether by choice or by exclusionary policies, not a single one of them played in the US Open or PGA Championship before 1975. I don't mean the year they won the OOM, I mean any year before 1975. And as noted in the OP, there were never even a dozen Americans in the Opens of the 60's, and zero American touring pros in the 1959 Open that Player won.

So it's only been about the last 40 years that most of the top players have crossed the oceans to play majors, and that's a long way from "always."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Frostfield' timestamp='1396279466' post='8986637']
Anyone with an IQ over 70 can plainly see that the best players from the 50s, 60s, and 70s, had much weaker overall fields to compete against. Its not an opinion. It is a fact.
[/quote]

It is only fact if there are numbers to back it up. Then again, my IQ could be low...

Titleist Tsi3 9/Tensei White 65x

Titleist Tsi2 16.5/Tensei White 75x

Titleist 818 h2 21/Tensei White 95x

Mizuno Mp-20 mb 4-Pw/Dynamic Gold 120x

Mizuno T22 50, 54, 58/Dynamic Gold s400

Bettinardi Studio Stock #8

Titleist ProV1x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Frostfield' timestamp='1396279466' post='8986637']
Anyone with an IQ over 70 can plainly see that the best players from the 50s, 60s, and 70s, had much weaker overall fields to compete against. Its not an opinion. It is a fact.
[/quote]
Can you submit certified documentation that your IQ is over 70?
I've found that the majority of people have never actually taken an IQ test, but estimate their own.

Driver Callaway Razr Fit Xtreme
Callaway X Hot Pro 13.5* and 17* FW
Callaway Razr X Tour 21* Hybrid
Callaway Apex Pro 5-PW, Mizuno JPX 50*,
Mizuno MPT-11 54*, Vokey SM4 60/10,
Scotty Cameron Circa 62 #2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1396278469' post='8986485']
I'm saying his use of "always" is simply false, and it doesn't take much research to show it, even interpreting his meaning in the most generous way possible, namely "majors" instead of just "tournaments," since the majors are where the best players are most likely to show up.

Note that I'm in no way implying that he's lying -- he's just repeating a very common misconception.

The US Open was founded in [b]1895[/b]. For the next [b]20[/b] years or so, the top players in the world were Vardon, Taylor, and Braid, aka the Great [b]Triumvirate[/b]. [b]Five[/b]-time Open winner Braid [b]never[/b] played the US Open; [b]five[/b]-time Open winner Taylor played it just [b]twice[/b], finishing [b]second[/b] to Vardon in [b]1900[/b]; and Vardon himself, [b]7[/b]-time Open champ, played the US Open [b]3[/b] times, winning in [b]1900[/b], and finishing [b]second[/b] in [b]1913[/b] and [b]1920[/b]. Vardon's pal Ted Ray, who was competitive in majors for over [b]30[/b] years, also played the US Open just [b]three[/b] times, placing [b]first [/b]and [b]third[/b] in [b]two[/b] of them.

In the [b]20's[/b], Jones and Hagen were the top players in the world. Not counting the Masters, Jones competed in majors for [b]15[/b] years, but played the Open just [b]four[/b] times. Hagen was competitive in majors for almost [b]30[/b] years, and won the Open[b] four [/b]times, but actually only entered it [b]ten[/b] times, just [b]one[/b] year in [b]three[/b].

The top Americans after Hagen were Hogan, Nelson, and Snead, and [b]none[/b] of them played the Open more than[b] once [/b]in their primes. Conversely,[b] few [/b]international players competed in the US majors. As I noted in my OP, the US Open required them to take a month off to go through qualifying, and the PGA made it next to impossible for any non-PGA member to play. The Masters invited a [b]few[/b], but only a [b]few[/b], and [b]most[/b] of them declined.

Peter Alliss was [b]one[/b] of the best players in Europe for nearly[b] 20 [/b]years. He won the Order of Merit [b]twice[/b], and beat the biggest American stars like Palmer, Venturi, and Casper in his Ryder Cup matches, but he was invited to the Masters only[b] five [/b]times, and he only accepted [b]twice[/b]. Too far to travel, he said.

His Ryder Cup partner, Christy O'Connor, also won the OOM [b]twice[/b]. He [b]never[/b] played an American major in his entire career.

In fact, of [b]ALL[/b] the Order of Merit winners from [b]1955[/b] to [b]1975[/b], whether by choice or by exclusionary policies, not a [b]single one [/b]of them played in the US Open or PGA Championship before[b] 1975[/b]. I don't mean the year they won the OOM, I mean any year before [b]1975[/b]. And as noted in the OP, there were [b]never[/b] even a [b]dozen[/b] Americans in the Opens of the [b]60's[/b], and [b]zero[/b] American touring pros in the [b]1959[/b] Open that Player won.

So it's only been about the last [b]40[/b] years that [b]most [/b]of the top players have crossed the oceans to play majors, and that's a long way from "always."
[/quote]

I bolded all of the "numbers". It was a lot of work. You're welcome.

TaylorMade SLDR 430 9* with Project X 7C3 6.0
Callaway X Hot Pro 3Deep 13* with Aldila ProtoPYPE 80 S
TaylorMade UDI 1-iron 16* with Dynamic Gold X100
Cleveland 588TT 4-PW with KBS C-Taper X
Scratch 47, 51, and 56 wedges with Dynamic Gold X7 8-iron shafts
Odyssey Metal-X 7 Mid 385g cut to 38" and counterbalanced
TaylorMade Lethal / TaylorMade Tour Preferred X

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1396281764' post='8986933']
[quote name='Frostfield' timestamp='1396279466' post='8986637']
Anyone with an IQ over 70 can plainly see that the best players from the 50s, 60s, and 70s, had much weaker overall fields to compete against. Its not an opinion. It is a fact.
[/quote]

It is only fact if there are numbers to back it up. Then again, my IQ could be low...
[/quote]

I agree with entirely with your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One fact the OP seems to forget is that players can make a very lucrative living now without winning, or even coming close. Purses are higher and there are more endorsement opportunities so players are more likely to take it easy after a good run of play.

Anyone who gets on tour and keeps his card is going make a lucrative living. Last season the guy in 125th place made $650k. Back in the old days purses were far smaller and only the top 60 were exempt. Like the saying goes necessity is the mother of invention. Players had to excel in order to make big money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='rlynham' timestamp='1396283887' post='8987209']
One fact the OP seems to forget is that players can make a very lucrative living now without winning, or even coming close. Purses are higher and there are more endorsement opportunities so players are more likely to take it easy after a good run of play.

Anyone who gets on tour and keeps his card is going make a lucrative living. Last season the guy in 125th place made $650k. Back in the old days purses were far smaller and only the top 60 were exempt. Like the saying goes necessity is the mother of invention. Players had to excel in order to make big money.
[/quote]

You're a little late with that insight.

"I don't think it's a good idea for our young players to compete without any real financial incentive, which is what happens when you have a sponsor. These kids don't know what it is like to have to win in order to survive. They know they don't need to win to make a lot of money—more money than they ever dreamed of." --- Arnold Palmer, 1965

[url="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1077470/index.htm"]http://sportsillustr...77470/index.htm[/url]

By the way, if you follow the link, you'll see that a couple of paragraphs before the quote, Mark McCormack laments that "Peter Thomson of Australia won the British Open against the [b]strongest field of Americans ever entered in that event[/b]."

That strongest ever American field comprised 9 players. Two of them were amateurs, one was a marginal player whose only pro win was a 1992 Senior Tour event, and one was 53-year old Sam Snead. So this strongest ever American contingent comprised just five legitimate contenders, and even two of that five missed the cut. Arnie and Jack finished out of the top ten, but in the top 20. Christy O'Connor, whom I mentioned in my previous post as never having played a US major, finished second.

For comparison, there were 49 Americans in the field when Tiger won his first Open, and there were 15 in the top 20.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1396284987' post='8987377']
[quote name='rlynham' timestamp='1396283887' post='8987209']
One fact the OP seems to forget is that players can make a very lucrative living now without winning, or even coming close. Purses are higher and there are more endorsement opportunities so players are more likely to take it easy after a good run of play.

Anyone who gets on tour and keeps his card is going make a lucrative living. Last season the guy in 125th place made $650k. Back in the old days purses were far smaller and only the top 60 were exempt. Like the saying goes necessity is the mother of invention. Players had to excel in order to make big money.
[/quote]

You're a little late with that insight.

"I don't think it's a good idea for our young players to compete without any real financial incentive, which is what happens when you have a sponsor. These kids don't know what it is like to have to win in order to survive. They know they don't need to win to make a lot of money—more money than they ever dreamed of." --- Arnold Palmer, 1965

[url="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1077470/index.htm"]http://sportsillustr...77470/index.htm[/url]

By the way, if you follow the link, you'll see that a couple of paragraphs before the quote, Mark McCormack laments that "Peter Thomson of Australia won the British Open against the [b]strongest field of Americans ever entered in that event[/b]."

That strongest ever American field comprised 9 players. Two of them were amateurs, one was a marginal player whose only pro win was a 1992 Senior Tour event, and one was 53-year old Sam Snead. So this strongest ever American contingent comprised just five legitimate contenders, and even two of that five missed the cut.

For comparison, there were 49 Americans in the field when Tiger won his first Open, and there were 15 in the top 20.
[/quote]


First of all i am not talking about the British Open, which Arnie obviously revived. Secondly their comments were correct. The effect is just magnified many times now.

Remember Kyle Stanley last year? Blew a tournament on the last hole one week, won the next. then he vanished.

Martin Kymer? He was number one in the world and then what? Probably doesn't have to work another day in his life. Cant remember the last time i saw him do anything.

Villegas? He had a big stretch and then what?

I dont' think these guys are making fields much tougher.

Anthony Kim doesn't even bother to play, just took his money and said 'hasta la vista, baby.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1396284987' post='8987377']
[quote name='rlynham' timestamp='1396283887' post='8987209']
One fact the OP seems to forget is that players can make a very lucrative living now without winning, or even coming close. Purses are higher and there are more endorsement opportunities so players are more likely to take it easy after a good run of play.

Anyone who gets on tour and keeps his card is going make a lucrative living. Last season the guy in 125th place made $650k. Back in the old days purses were far smaller and only the top 60 were exempt. Like the saying goes necessity is the mother of invention. Players had to excel in order to make big money.
[/quote]

You're a little late with that insight.

"I don't think it's a good idea for our young players to compete without any real financial incentive, which is what happens when you have a sponsor. These kids don't know what it is like to have to win in order to survive. They know they don't need to win to make a lot of money—more money than they ever dreamed of." --- Arnold Palmer, 1965

[url="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1077470/index.htm"]http://sportsillustr...77470/index.htm[/url]
[/quote]

arnie may have said that, but nicklaus has said recently and publicly that back in his day, you had to win to make a living and make a name for yourself...

http://www.nicklaus.com/design/muirfieldvillage/memorial-interview.php

I don't know that the pressure or tension is magnified because the guys today can make a living playing golf. We couldn't make a living playing golf. We had to go play golf tournaments and win golf tournaments so we had the opportunity to make a name to go make a living, and that was a little different position to be in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Frostfield' timestamp='1396283284' post='8987133']
[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1396281764' post='8986933']
[quote name='Frostfield' timestamp='1396279466' post='8986637']
Anyone with an IQ over 70 can plainly see that the best players from the 50s, 60s, and 70s, had much weaker overall fields to compete against. Its not an opinion. It is a fact.
[/quote]

It is only fact if there are numbers to back it up. Then again, my IQ could be low...
[/quote]

I agree with entirely with your post.
[/quote]

lol

Kind of walked in to that one...

Titleist Tsi3 9/Tensei White 65x

Titleist Tsi2 16.5/Tensei White 75x

Titleist 818 h2 21/Tensei White 95x

Mizuno Mp-20 mb 4-Pw/Dynamic Gold 120x

Mizuno T22 50, 54, 58/Dynamic Gold s400

Bettinardi Studio Stock #8

Titleist ProV1x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='golfcarte' timestamp='1396288501' post='8987815']
[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1396284987' post='8987377']
[quote name='rlynham' timestamp='1396283887' post='8987209']
One fact the OP seems to forget is that players can make a very lucrative living now without winning, or even coming close. Purses are higher and there are more endorsement opportunities so players are more likely to take it easy after a good run of play.

Anyone who gets on tour and keeps his card is going make a lucrative living. Last season the guy in 125th place made $650k. Back in the old days purses were far smaller and only the top 60 were exempt. Like the saying goes necessity is the mother of invention. Players had to excel in order to make big money.
[/quote]

You're a little late with that insight.

"I don't think it's a good idea for our young players to compete without any real financial incentive, which is what happens when you have a sponsor. These kids don't know what it is like to have to win in order to survive. They know they don't need to win to make a lot of money—more money than they ever dreamed of." --- Arnold Palmer, 1965

[url="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1077470/index.htm"]http://sportsillustr...77470/index.htm[/url]
[/quote]

arnie may have said that, but nicklaus has said recently and publicly that back in his day, you had to win to make a living and make a name for yourself...

[url="http://www.nicklaus.com/design/muirfieldvillage/memorial-interview.php"]http://www.nicklaus....l-interview.php[/url]

I don't know that the pressure or tension is magnified because the guys today can make a living playing golf. We couldn't make a living playing golf. We had to go play golf tournaments and win golf tournaments so we had the opportunity to make a name to go make a living, and that was a little different position to be in.
[/quote]

Thanks for the link, but I have to think that Arnie, speaking about 1965 in 1965, would be more accurate than Jack, speaking about the way he remembers things 50 years ago.

Besides, he's contradicting himself. He wrote in his 1997 autobiography that McCormack told him he'd get $100K in endorsements the year he turned pro, even if he didn't make a nickel in a tournament. That was back when the median US family income was about $6K a year. Which, again, agrees with what Arnie said.

Obviously, he was a blue chip prospect, and not everybody got that much, but clearly the players were not in any danger of starving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thoughts:

1) Competition is relative. Are we comparing the top of the heap to the bottom of the heap, or really just one guy to the next few in line or even the whole field?

2) In a weaker field back in the day, you didn't last long because you were out of cash in a hurry and had to go home. I can't associate that with "weak fields" because the competition would be greater to just survive week to week. Poorer players would be rotated out more quickly, which might mean the field remained stronger overall.

3) We seem to have a pile of 1-time major winners these days, and many of them fade after the win. Where are the half-dozen or better major winners? After TW, the competition seems flat vs. older eras.

4) There is a bell curve in any era.

5) Is the overall competition [i]really[/i] less strong if you have 8 or 9 guys with high numbers of majors won and more guys with none, than you would with a few (low number) multiple major winners and a pile of single major winners? (Bear in mind that many of the one-hit major winners have disappeared off the radar after the win).

6) When one guy is the favorite to win each major for more than a decade, can the rest of the field be characterized as stronger overall?

7) Haven't the announcers said for years that no one compares with TW? Isn't that a characterization of a weak field?


Just thinking...bored...

Titleist Tsi3 9/Tensei White 65x

Titleist Tsi2 16.5/Tensei White 75x

Titleist 818 h2 21/Tensei White 95x

Mizuno Mp-20 mb 4-Pw/Dynamic Gold 120x

Mizuno T22 50, 54, 58/Dynamic Gold s400

Bettinardi Studio Stock #8

Titleist ProV1x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1396291801' post='8988317']
[quote name='golfcarte' timestamp='1396288501' post='8987815']
[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1396284987' post='8987377']
[quote name='rlynham' timestamp='1396283887' post='8987209']
One fact the OP seems to forget is that players can make a very lucrative living now without winning, or even coming close. Purses are higher and there are more endorsement opportunities so players are more likely to take it easy after a good run of play.

Anyone who gets on tour and keeps his card is going make a lucrative living. Last season the guy in 125th place made $650k. Back in the old days purses were far smaller and only the top 60 were exempt. Like the saying goes necessity is the mother of invention. Players had to excel in order to make big money.
[/quote]

You're a little late with that insight.

"I don't think it's a good idea for our young players to compete without any real financial incentive, which is what happens when you have a sponsor. These kids don't know what it is like to have to win in order to survive. They know they don't need to win to make a lot of money—more money than they ever dreamed of." --- Arnold Palmer, 1965

[url="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1077470/index.htm"]http://sportsillustr...77470/index.htm[/url]
[/quote]

arnie may have said that, but nicklaus has said recently and publicly that back in his day, you had to win to make a living and make a name for yourself...

[url="http://www.nicklaus.com/design/muirfieldvillage/memorial-interview.php"]http://www.nicklaus....l-interview.php[/url]

I don't know that the pressure or tension is magnified because the guys today can make a living playing golf. We couldn't make a living playing golf. We had to go play golf tournaments and win golf tournaments so we had the opportunity to make a name to go make a living, and that was a little different position to be in.
[/quote]

Thanks for the link, but I have to think that Arnie, speaking about 1965 in 1965, would be more accurate than Jack, speaking about the way he remembers things 50 years ago.

Besides, he's contradicting himself. He wrote in his 1997 autobiography that McCormack told him he'd get $100K in endorsements the year he turned pro, even if he didn't make a nickel in a tournament. That was back when the median US family income was about $6K a year. Which, again, agrees with what Arnie said.

Obviously, he was a blue chip prospect, and not everybody got that much, but clearly the players were not in any danger of starving.
[/quote]


Only the top 60 on the money list kept their cards for the following seasons back in the 60s and early 70s. Not sure of the exact year it changed but that is a lot different from the top 125 currently in place. And just because Arnie got a lot of endorsement money doesn't mean the average pro did.

And an agent making a making that kind of promise to a young player is just a sales pitch anyway. Doesn't mean it actually happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='rlynham' timestamp='1396294530' post='8988611']
[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1396291801' post='8988317']
[quote name='golfcarte' timestamp='1396288501' post='8987815']
[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1396284987' post='8987377']
[quote name='rlynham' timestamp='1396283887' post='8987209']
One fact the OP seems to forget is that players can make a very lucrative living now without winning, or even coming close. Purses are higher and there are more endorsement opportunities so players are more likely to take it easy after a good run of play.

Anyone who gets on tour and keeps his card is going make a lucrative living. Last season the guy in 125th place made $650k. Back in the old days purses were far smaller and only the top 60 were exempt. Like the saying goes necessity is the mother of invention. Players had to excel in order to make big money.
[/quote]

You're a little late with that insight.

"I don't think it's a good idea for our young players to compete without any real financial incentive, which is what happens when you have a sponsor. These kids don't know what it is like to have to win in order to survive. They know they don't need to win to make a lot of money—more money than they ever dreamed of." --- Arnold Palmer, 1965

[url="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1077470/index.htm"]http://sportsillustr...77470/index.htm[/url]
[/quote]

arnie may have said that, but nicklaus has said recently and publicly that back in his day, you had to win to make a living and make a name for yourself...

[url="http://www.nicklaus.com/design/muirfieldvillage/memorial-interview.php"]http://www.nicklaus....l-interview.php[/url]

I don't know that the pressure or tension is magnified because the guys today can make a living playing golf. We couldn't make a living playing golf. We had to go play golf tournaments and win golf tournaments so we had the opportunity to make a name to go make a living, and that was a little different position to be in.
[/quote]

Thanks for the link, but I have to think that Arnie, speaking about 1965 in 1965, would be more accurate than Jack, speaking about the way he remembers things 50 years ago.

Besides, he's contradicting himself. He wrote in his 1997 autobiography that McCormack told him he'd get $100K in endorsements the year he turned pro, even if he didn't make a nickel in a tournament. That was back when the median US family income was about $6K a year. Which, again, agrees with what Arnie said.

Obviously, he was a blue chip prospect, and not everybody got that much, but clearly the players were not in any danger of starving.
[/quote]


Only the top 60 on the money list kept their cards for the following seasons back in the 60s and early 70s. Not sure of the exact year it changed but that is a lot different from the top 125 currently in place. And just because Arnie got a lot of endorsement money doesn't mean the average pro did.

And an agent making a making that kind of promise to a young player is just a sales pitch anyway. Doesn't mean it actually happened.
[/quote]

I guess I didn't make it clear that it did actually happen, and that Arnie wasn't talking about himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the average tour pro is def better today, you don't think the 'greats' of the years past were better? A lee trevino or raymond floyd
versus a retief goosen or padraig harrington?

Wishon 919 THI 11* 0.5* Open
Wishon 929 HS 14.5*, 19* 0.5 Open
Wishon 775HS 22*, 25*
Wishon 5, 6 560 MC 7-PW MMC MB
Wishon 54, 59 Micro-Groove HM
All shafts are S2S Stepless Steel Wishon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1396367053' post='8994495']
I guess I didn't make it clear that it did actually happen, and that Arnie wasn't talking about himself.
[/quote]


Pretty sure Arnie's autobiography was about himself. I am also sure that the number of exempt players back then was half of what it is now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have long agreed that the fields have gotten deeper and better over time. However, watching the puke-fests on the PGA Tour since the Tour hit Florida has me wondering "Where are the finishers? The guys who see a trophy and don't barf all over themselves coming down the stretch"??

I mean, really, how many guys have won in the last month by bogeying the 18th hole? The old-timers are probably thinking "better fields my arse"….

just my two cents.

FORE RIGHT!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lodestone' timestamp='1396369624' post='8994911']
I have long agreed that the fields have gotten deeper and better over time. However, watching the puke-fests on the PGA Tour since the Tour hit Florida has me wondering "Where are the finishers? The guys who see a trophy and don't barf all over themselves coming down the stretch"??

I mean, really, how many guys have won in the last month by bogeying the 18th hole? The old-timers are probably thinking "better fields my arse"….

just my two cents.
[/quote]

While I agree that there haven't been any spectacular finishes or any super low rounds to win, I think an important distinction needs to be made about the bogey finishes. It's one thing to make bogey when you're trying to play the hole as well as you possibly can, and still end up with the win. It's something entirely different when you make bogey because double bogey gets you into a playoff; so you hit iron off the tee on a Par 4 with trouble everywhere (a la Patrick Reed). That's called smart. If you don't believe me, I've got Van de Velde's number for you.

Edited for readability

TaylorMade SLDR 430 9* with Project X 7C3 6.0
Callaway X Hot Pro 3Deep 13* with Aldila ProtoPYPE 80 S
TaylorMade UDI 1-iron 16* with Dynamic Gold X100
Cleveland 588TT 4-PW with KBS C-Taper X
Scratch 47, 51, and 56 wedges with Dynamic Gold X7 8-iron shafts
Odyssey Metal-X 7 Mid 385g cut to 38" and counterbalanced
TaylorMade Lethal / TaylorMade Tour Preferred X

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='tembolo1284' timestamp='1396367217' post='8994519']
While the average tour pro is def better today, you don't think the 'greats' of the years past were better? A lee trevino or raymond floyd
versus a retief goosen or padraig harrington?
[/quote]

Their numbers are better, sure, but if Trevino had been born 30 years later, or Goosen 30 years earlier, would their numbers be the same? There's just no way to know. That's why I said above that I can't even say for sure that Tiger was better than Trevino. I'd bet my house that he was, but I can't say it for sure.

50 years ago, there were no world rankings, and really, no basis for them, since there were no tournaments where all the world class golfers played against each other, like we have in today's majors and WGCs. So when I compare golfers of different eras, the best I can do is look at how dominant they were, and who they had to dominate.

I think that even Brandel Chamblee would agree that when Old and Young Tom won a British Open with just 8 players in the field, it wasn't as impressive as winning a WGC today, so at least that's a start. And it seems so obvious to me that there is a gradual strengthening of the fields over time. It's not always the case that every field is stronger than the previous year, but in general, there's a clear trend.

So it seems almost as obvious to me that when Gary Player won the 1959 Open with zero American touring pros in the field, or when Arnie and Jack won their Opens of the 60's with just a handful, that it shouldn't count as much as a major today. I know, it's not their fault, they can only beat whoever shows up, but you can say the same thing about whoever wins the John Deere.

Awsi is constantly misrepresenting my claim. I don't say it's obvious that the top 10 or 20 or 50 golfers in the world today are more talented than they were 50 years ago. I say it's obvious that the tournaments, even the majors, of 50 years ago didn't have as many of the top 10 or 20 or 50 golfers in the field.

If you calculated the strength of field for those Opens the way the OWGR does it for PGA events today, they might not even be above average. They would almost certainly come out weaker than the top PGA events like the Memorial or Bay Hill, let alone the WGCs.

The Opens are extreme examples, but the other majors were weaker, too. The PGA Championships of the 60's didn't just have 20 club pros in the field, they had over 100. The ratio of club pros to touring pros was about 2 to 1. The Masters had fields as small as 72, as late as 1979. After you subtract the amateurs, old timers, and affirmative action invitees, there were probably less than 60 legitimate contenders in some years. The US Open was the best of the four, but even it suffered from having very few international players in the field.

I'm not saying we should throw out all the old majors. They were the best events of their time. I'm just saying that comparing the numbers straight across is too simplistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Discussion and links to Photos
      Please put any questions or Comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Monday #1
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Monday #2
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #1
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #2
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #3
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Thorbjorn Olesen - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Ben Silverman - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jesse Droemer - SoTX PGA Section POY - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      David Lipsky - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Martin Trainer - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Zac Blair - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jacob Bridgeman - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Trace Crowe - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jimmy Walker - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Daniel Berger - WITB(very mini) - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Chesson Hadley - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Callum McNeill - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Rhein Gibson - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Patrick Fishburn - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Peter Malnati - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Raul Pereda - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Gary Woodland WITB (New driver, iron shafts) – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Padraig Harrington WITB – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      Tom Hoge's custom Cameron - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Piretti putters - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Ping putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Kevin Dougherty's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Bettinardi putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Erik Barnes testing an all-black Axis1 putter – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Tony Finau's new driver shaft – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
       
       
       
       
       
      • 7 replies
    • 2024 Valspar Championship WITB Photos (Thanks to bvmagic)- Discussion & Links to Photos
      This weeks WITB Pics are from member bvmagic (Brian). Brian's first event for WRX was in 2008 at Bayhill while in college. Thanks so much bv.
       
      Please put your comments or question on this thread. Links to all the threads are below...
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 31 replies
    • 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #1
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #2
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #3
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Matt (LFG) Every - WITB - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Sahith Theegala - WITB - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Cameron putters (and new "LD" grip) - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      New Bettinardi MB & CB irons - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Custom Bettinardi API putter cover - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Custom Swag API covers - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      New Golf Pride Reverse Taper grips - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 15 replies
    • 2024 Cognizant Classic - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #1
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #2
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #3
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #4
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Brandt Snedeker - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Max Greyserman - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Eric Cole - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Carl Yuan - WITb - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Russell Henley - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Justin Sun - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Alex Noren - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Shane Lowry - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Taylor Montgomery - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Jake Knapp (KnappTime_ltd) - WITB - - 2024 Cognizant Classic
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Super Stoke Pistol Lock 1.0 & 2.0 grips - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      LA Golf new insert putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      New Garsen Quad Tour 15 grip - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      New Swag covers - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Jacob Bridgeman's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Bud Cauley's custom Cameron putters - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Ryo Hisatsune's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Chris Kirk - new black Callaway Apex CB irons and a few Odyssey putters - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Alejandro Tosti's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 2 replies
    • 2024 Genesis Invitational - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Monday #1
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Monday #2
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #1
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #2
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #3
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #4
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Rory McIlroy - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Sepp Straka - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Patrick Rodgers - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Brendon Todd - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Denny McCarthy - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Corey Conners - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Chase Johnson - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tommy Fleetwood - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Matt Fitzpatrick - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Si Woo Kim - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Viktor Hovland - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Wyndham Clark - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Cam Davis - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Nick Taylor - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Ben Baller WITB update (New putter, driver, hybrid and shafts) – 2024 Genesis Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Vortex Golf rangefinder - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      New Fujikura Ventus shaft - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods & TaylorMade "Sun Day Red" apparel launch event, product photos – 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods Sun Day Red golf shoes - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Aretera shafts - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      New Toulon putters - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods' new white "Sun Day Red" golf shoe prototypes – 2024 Genesis Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      • 22 replies

×
×
  • Create New...