Field Strength -- Facts Versus Rosy Memories

[Lodestone]

[quote name='bwrichmond' timestamp='1396370366' post='8995011']
[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
[/quote]
I absolutely agree it's the smart move at that point. My point is that the reason it became the smart play is that these "super strong fields" didn't put any pressure on guys who were leading. Was anyone in the last 2 or 3 groups under par on Sunday? Where are the finishers? Instead of watching these guys trade great shots, and answering great shots with great shots, they are answering bad shots with more bad shots.

Even the two guys with some wins on their resumes (Adam Scott and Matt Kuchar) blew up on Sundays, when just a decent round would have won their events.

[bwrichmond]

[quote name='Lodestone' timestamp='1396371559' post='8995189']
[quote name='bwrichmond' timestamp='1396370366' post='8995011']
[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
[/quote]
I absolutely agree it's the smart move at that point. My point is that the reason it became the smart play is that these "super strong fields" didn't put any pressure on guys who were leading. Was anyone in the last 2 or 3 groups under par on Sunday? Where are the finishers? Instead of watching these guys trade great shots, and answering great shots with great shots, they are answering bad shots with more bad shots.

Even the two guys with some wins on their resumes (Adam Scott and Matt Kuchar) blew up on Sundays, when just a decent round would have won their events.
[/quote]

Gotcha... I agree there's been no good play recently in some of these tournaments, but I'd be willing to bet there were some tournaments in the classic era where someone limped into a victory. There may have even been several of those tournaments in a row.

Just off the top of my head, I can think of three phenomenal shots to win tournaments in recent memory, inclding YE Yang's stuffed hybrid, Bill Haas out of the water to win the FedEx cup, and Zach Johnson holing out to beat Tiger in a playoff earlier this year.

Another three, off the top of the head, Rory's par 3 17th tee shot at the PGA when Petterson was chasing him, Tiger's 17th chip at Jack's tournament last year, and Patrick Reed's approach in the playoff for his first win from the trees, through the trees, stuffed.

Even though it hasn't happened in the last 4-6 weeks, doesn't mean it hasn't been happening.

Edit: I spelled "phenomenal" as "phenominal". Who does that?

[Lodestone]

[quote name='bwrichmond' timestamp='1396372056' post='8995283']
[quote name='Lodestone' timestamp='1396371559' post='8995189']
[quote name='bwrichmond' timestamp='1396370366' post='8995011']
[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
[/quote]
I absolutely agree it's the smart move at that point. My point is that the reason it became the smart play is that these "super strong fields" didn't put any pressure on guys who were leading. Was anyone in the last 2 or 3 groups under par on Sunday? Where are the finishers? Instead of watching these guys trade great shots, and answering great shots with great shots, they are answering bad shots with more bad shots.

Even the two guys with some wins on their resumes (Adam Scott and Matt Kuchar) blew up on Sundays, when just a decent round would have won their events.
[/quote]

Gotcha... I agree there's been no good play recently in some of these tournaments, but I'd be willing to bet there were some tournaments in the classic era where someone limped into a victory. There may have even been several of those tournaments in a row.

Just off the top of my head, I can think of three phenominal shots to win tournaments in recent memory, inclding YE Yang's stuffed hybrid, Bill Haas out of the water to win the FedEx cup, and Zach Johnson holing out to beat Tiger in a playoff earlier this year.

Another three, off the top of the head, Rory's par 3 17th tee shot at the PGA when Petterson was chasing him, Tiger's 17th chip at Jack's tournament last year, and Patrick Reed's approach in the playoff for his first win from the trees, through the trees, stuffed.

Even though it hasn't happened in the last 4-6 weeks, doesn't mean it hasn't been happening.
[/quote]

I agree, it's a very small sample, and too small to make any real, meaningful conclusions. It was just a passing observation. I'm not that familiar with the courses, but it also occurred to me, especially at Donald Trump's new place, that maybe the courses are set up too tough?
I hate that par 5 finish that essentially nobody could challenge with 2 shots, last Sunday. Recipe for boredom, in my book. Pretty hole, though.

[bwrichmond]

[quote name='Lodestone' timestamp='1396372402' post='8995347']
[quote name='bwrichmond' timestamp='1396372056' post='8995283']
[quote name='Lodestone' timestamp='1396371559' post='8995189']
[quote name='bwrichmond' timestamp='1396370366' post='8995011']
[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
[/quote]
I absolutely agree it's the smart move at that point. My point is that the reason it became the smart play is that these "super strong fields" didn't put any pressure on guys who were leading. Was anyone in the last 2 or 3 groups under par on Sunday? Where are the finishers? Instead of watching these guys trade great shots, and answering great shots with great shots, they are answering bad shots with more bad shots.

Even the two guys with some wins on their resumes (Adam Scott and Matt Kuchar) blew up on Sundays, when just a decent round would have won their events.
[/quote]

Gotcha... I agree there's been no good play recently in some of these tournaments, but I'd be willing to bet there were some tournaments in the classic era where someone limped into a victory. There may have even been several of those tournaments in a row.

Just off the top of my head, I can think of three phenominal shots to win tournaments in recent memory, inclding YE Yang's stuffed hybrid, Bill Haas out of the water to win the FedEx cup, and Zach Johnson holing out to beat Tiger in a playoff earlier this year.

Another three, off the top of the head, Rory's par 3 17th tee shot at the PGA when Petterson was chasing him, Tiger's 17th chip at Jack's tournament last year, and Patrick Reed's approach in the playoff for his first win from the trees, through the trees, stuffed.

Even though it hasn't happened in the last 4-6 weeks, doesn't mean it hasn't been happening.
[/quote]

I agree, it's a very small sample, and too small to make any real, meaningful conclusions. It was just a passing observation. I'm not that familiar with the courses, but it also occurred to me, especially at Donald Trump's new place, that maybe the courses are set up too tough?
I hate that par 5 finish that essentially nobody could challenge with 2 shots, last Sunday. Recipe for boredom, in my book. Pretty hole, though.
[/quote]

Observation noted... I agree with you, I'm ready to see some exciting finishes... Somebody post a number from 3 or 4 back and then say, "Come get it, boys!"

[born4golf77]

what way do you believe is the best way to compare players across generations?

in my opinion as a player you can only control how you play and the absolute best you can do is beat everybody that shows up.

Jack, Arnie, etc could not control who they played against and how good they were. The goal is to be the best of your time and ultimately get in the conversation for the best of all time.

Another question is how many good international players were there during the previous generations?

Is it harder to win now as opposed to 50 yrs ago? Not sure really. Only a few guys will play well any given week just there are more of them now. I still believe only 10% of any field will be playing well enough that week to actually win.

It may seem too simplistic to compare the numbers straight across but ulitmately players are judged by wins, whether we like it or not.

I guarantee you when professionals set their career goals on paper or in their mind they first set goals for overall wins and majors and everything else is secondary and tertiary. A player may want to win the Vardon tropy or POTY but ultimately it comes down to wins for good players and majors for the great players

[csh19792001]

On 3/31/2014 at 7:01 AM, monkeynaut said:

would

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.

[stinger_gc]

9 hours ago, csh19792001 said:

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.

Does that mean Jon Rahm>Tiger Woods>Jack Nicklaus

[csh19792001]

15 minutes ago, PHILsThemannnn said:

Does that mean Jon Rahm>Tiger Woods>Jack Nicklaus

 

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.

[RobotDoctor]

It is easier to compare Ben Hogan to Arnold Palmer to Jack Nicklaus because they played in the same era of equipment and course conditions.  To compare Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods is much more difficult because of the great advancements of equipment, course conditions and physical conditioning.  Let me throw this out regarding Jack Nicklaus.  At 58 he finished the 1998 Masters tied for 6th (-5).  Tiger Woods was defending champion and finished the tournament tied for 8th (-3).  Same type equipment yet a man 35 years his senior beat the defending Masters champion, the world #1 golfer.  I concede Jack Nicklaus caught lightening in a bottle that week but the numbers are the numbers.  As great as Tiger Woods is, and he is one of the all time best, will be be able to catch lightening in a bottle at 58 like Jack did?  
 

In the end threads like this are ridiculous because it’s all pure conjecture.  Some try to validate these with statistics but at the end of the day there is no way to fairly compare greats of past generations to the best of today.  One thing to note about distance, Jack Nicklaus won a long drive contest at the 1963 PGA Championship (341 yards) using a 43” MacGregor Tommy Armour SS1W persimmon driver with a steel shaft.  What would have Jack accomplished with the equipment of today during his prime?  No one will ever know.  Is Tiger better than Jack?  Is Jack better than Tiger?  All I know at the very least is the measuring stick Tiger goes by he is still 3 wins short.  
 

 

Edited November 28, 2021 by RobotDoctor

[RobotDoctor]

20 hours ago, csh19792001 said:

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.

Only the top 60 golfers were exempt for the next season in 1980. The all exempt tour (top 125) began in 1984.  The PGA Tour still enjoys this benefit today.  Back then endorsement money wasn’t near what it is today. A pro today can sign several endorsement contracts and not worry about making ends meet.  Some pros back pre 1980 had to have a side job to make ends meet.  What does this mean, it means many professionals outside the top 60 couldn’t practice as much as pros do today to hone their swings.  There’s so many factors regarding scoring average that comparing these numbers aren’t as concrete as you would think.  Absolutely no factual basis from these numbers.  None.  That’s game, set and match.  

Edited November 29, 2021 by RobotDoctor
Poor grammar

[bscinstnct]

2014?!

 

This thread like

 

[bladehunter]

On 3/31/2014 at 2:11 AM, Soloman1 said:

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. http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/%3C#EMO_DIR%23%3E/smile.png

Saying the fields are better now is like saying rap music is better than classic rock. You gotta be kidding me... http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/%3C#EMO_DIR%23%3E/smile.png

yep.  10000 % yes.    Been watching a guy learn to play persimmon recently. Plus handicap.  It’s pretty eye opening how much easier todays equipment is.  Talent isn’t better today.  We just have more folks in a financial position to be coached and play as full time pro-ams as kids .  Yesteryear required most of those talented guys to go to work at age 13 or so. 
 

 

[RobotDoctor]

Just now, bscinstnct said:

2014?!

 

This thread like

 

LOL, someone else brought it to the surface.  😂

[bladehunter]

11 hours ago, csh19792001 said:

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.

You’ll be hard pressed to find a bigger tiger fan than I.  But.  This isn’t a decided thing. Jack’s longevity has to be considered.  He won majors with his peers into his late 50s or early 60s.  
 

 

Edited November 28, 2021 by bladehunter

[csh19792001]

6 hours ago, RobotDoctor said:

Only the top 60 golfers were exempt for the next season in 1980. The all exempt tour (top 125) began in 1984.  The PGA Tour still enjoys this benefit today.  Back then endorsement money wasn’t near what it is today. A pro today can sign several endorsement contracts and not worry about making ends meet.  Some pros back pre 1980 had to have a side job to make ends meet.  What does this mean, it means many professionals outside the top 60 couldn’t practice as much as pros do today to hone their swings.  There’s so many factors regarding scoring average that comparing these numbers isn’t as concrete as you would think.  Absolutely no factual basis from these numbers.  None.  That’s game, set and match.  

 

Join in, here! Your thoughts are greatly welcomed and will be appreciated! 🙂

[aenemated]

6 hours ago, bladehunter said:

yep.  10000 % yes.    Been watching a guy learn to play persimmon recently. Plus handicap.  It’s pretty eye opening how much easier todays equipment is.  Talent isn’t better today.  We just have more folks in a financial position to be coached and play as full time pro-ams as kids .  Yesteryear required most of those talented guys to go to work at age 13 or so. 

 

I'm JUST old enough to have started playing with persimmons. For fun recently, I tracked down a similar set to the garage-sale ones my dad picked up for me when I was a kid - MacGregor Muirfields - on eBay for just a couple hundred bucks. The irons are pretty beat up but the woods (fun to refer to them as such and it be true!) are in stellar condition. Like, look barely hit over the years.

 

It's fun to take 'em to the range ... and appreciate how much easier clubs are to hit nowadays. 

 

Also had forgotten how freakin heavy they were! 

[TiScape]

7 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

2014?!

 

This thread like

 

Thanks a lot ‘search’  🔎!  🙄

🤣 It’s a good thread though. Need all the help we can get this time of year. 

[bladehunter]

2 hours ago, aenemated said:

 

I'm JUST old enough to have started playing with persimmons. For fun recently, I tracked down a similar set to the garage-sale ones my dad picked up for me when I was a kid - MacGregor Muirfields - on eBay for just a couple hundred bucks. The irons are pretty beat up but the woods (fun to refer to them as such and it be true!) are in stellar condition. Like, look barely hit over the years.

 

It's fun to take 'em to the range ... and appreciate how much easier clubs are to hit nowadays. 

 

Also had forgotten how freakin heavy they were! 

I agree. It is fun.  Something satisfying about it.  I’m fighting the urge hard.   Because I know  if I Jump in that pool I’ll go in neck deep. 😂.  

[Hawkeye77]

20 hours ago, csh19792001 said:

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.

Pretty sure you brought up the same thing in the other thread you trolled by dredging it up, now the "new" one about the same stuff, lol.

 

Enjoy.

[csh19792001]

Even when people agree with you, you're still a ****head? And for no reason? Real nice, happy person you must be. 

[Hawkeye77]

5 minutes ago, csh19792001 said:

Even when people agree with you, you're still a ****head? And for no reason? Real nice, happy person you must be. 

If that's directed at me, no idea what you are talking about but the disguised profanity says it all.  

 

My response will continue to be Bill Russell, or Jack Nicklaus or any all timers.  Great memories, and classy people.

 

As I said, enjoy.  

 

 

[bobfoster]

Fun thread. Curiously serious amounts of passion. (I'm usually really long winded, but am humbled by the length of some of the contributions here.) Just have a little to add, based on just the sheer length of time I've been involved in the sport. 

 

I've been playing, and watching golf (and tennis - my two big sports) since the 1960s. My first tennis racquet was the Wilson Stan Smith wooden racquet. Remember when Jimmy Conners was the first to put a metal one into play. My first golf driver was persimmon. My Dad actually took me to see Ben Hogan play (a memory I still treasure).

 

I've watched golf evolve over decades. What I can say is this (IMO): There is no way to compare eras. There are simply too many variables to do any meaningfully realistic "what if". The technology has changed dramatically. The courses have changed dramatically. Sports science and medicine has changed dramatically (in the 60s and 70s it was not unusual to see fat guys strolling down the fairway smoking a cigarette, these days a lot of golfers are in the gym as much as any pro baseball or football player - Tiger transformed golf into a serious sport). The purses have changed dramatically. 

 

Trying to figure out what Tiger or Dustin or Bryson would have done had they played in 1970, or what Jack, Tom, or Arnie would have done had they started in 2000 is is literally impossible. As comparing Conners and McEnroe to Federer and Djokovic would be. 

 

It is a silly argument, but nonetheless a delightful one to have ... 👏🏌️‍♂️

[max power]

12 hours ago, RobotDoctor said:

It is easier to compare Ben Hogan to Arnold Palmer to Jack Nicklaus because they played in the same era of equipment and course conditions.  To compare Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods is much more difficult because of the great advancements of equipment, course conditions and physical conditioning.  Let me throw this out regarding Jack Nicklaus.  At 58 he finished the 1998 Masters tied for 6th (-5).  Tiger Woods was defending champion and finished the tournament tied for 8th (-3).  Same type equipment yet a man 35 years his senior beat the defending Masters champion, the world #1 golfer.  I concede Jack Nicklaus caught lightening in a bottle that week but the numbers are the numbers.  As great as Tiger Woods is, and he is one of the all time best, will be be able to catch lightening in a bottle at 58 like Jack did?  
 

In the end threads like this are ridiculous because it’s all pure conjecture.  Some try to validate these with statistics but at the end of the day there is no way to fairly compare greats of past generations to the best of today.  One thing to note about distance, Jack Nicklaus won a long drive contest at the 1963 PGA Championship (341 yards) using a 43” MacGregor Tommy Armour SS1W persimmon driver with a steel shaft.  What would have Jack accomplished with the equipment of today during his prime?  No one will ever know.  Is Tiger better than Jack?  Is Jack better than Tiger?  All I know at the very least is the measuring stick Tiger goes by he is still 3 wins short.  
 

 

This is consistently the dumbest golf argument that gets made. Better and more forgiving equipment makes the entire field more competitive. Everyone uses the same equipment. If Jack is the best ball striker that advantage is magnified with the use of persimmon and blades. I agree that Jack is an outlier and would compete wonderfully with modern golfers. But advances in equipment and the number of competitive golfers worldwide have made it much harder to win a tournament.

[RobotDoctor]

40 minutes ago, max power said:

This is consistently the dumbest golf argument that gets made. Better and more forgiving equipment makes the entire field more competitive. Everyone uses the same equipment. If Jack is the best ball striker that advantage is magnified with the use of persimmon and blades. I agree that Jack is an outlier and would compete wonderfully with modern golfers. But advances in equipment and the number of competitive golfers worldwide have made it much harder to win a tournament.

Why is it dumb?  I'm not discounting how good tour pros today are but saying they're better than Nicklaus, Palmer, Hogan or any number of great tour pros of previous generations is ridiculous.  Can't compare generations straight across the board.  Advancement in fitness, diet, coaching (both mental and swing), technology and certainly equipment have made dialing in the golf swing available for the masses.  Junior tournament programs teach kids how to be competitive.  College golf programs are more sophisticated and the competition and tournaments are conducted to be similar to tour events.  The advantages for the middle of the pack golfers are ever present while the journeyman tour pro in the 60s and 70s simply did not have these opportunities in just endorsements and tour prize fund.   Unless a tour pro finished in the top 25 or 30 in money winnings they had a hard time making ends meet.  Finish out of the top 60 and you're not exempt.  

What is consistent is the group of members here who disregard this obvious fact and continue to say this generation of tour pros could wipe the floor with every great golfer of the past.   That is just utter arrogance.  
 

Just curious, ever play persimmon woods, balata balls, non frequency matched shafts and old style forged irons?

 

.... and Ben Hogan was a better ball striker than Jack Nicklaus.  

Edited November 29, 2021 by RobotDoctor

[max power]

3 hours ago, RobotDoctor said:

Why is it dumb?  I'm not discounting how good tour pros today are but saying they're better than Nicklaus, Palmer, Hogan or any number of great tour pros of previous generations is ridiculous.  Can't compare generations straight across the board.  Advancement in fitness, diet, coaching (both mental and swing), technology and certainly equipment have made dialing in the golf swing available for the masses.  Junior tournament programs teach kids how to be competitive.  College golf programs are more sophisticated and the competition and tournaments are conducted to be similar to tour events.  The advantages for the middle of the pack golfers are ever present while the journeyman tour pro in the 60s and 70s simply did not have these opportunities in just endorsements and tour prize fund.   Unless a tour pro finished in the top 25 or 30 in money winnings they had a hard time making ends meet.  Finish out of the top 60 and you're not exempt.  

What is consistent is the group of members here who disregard this obvious fact and continue to say this generation of tour pros could wipe the floor with every great golfer of the past.   That is just utter arrogance.  
 

Just curious, ever play persimmon woods, balata balls, non frequency matched shafts and old style forged irons?

 

.... and Ben Hogan was a better ball striker than Jack Nicklaus.  

Yes I have. Got an entire set of persimmons and Wilson Staff Fluid Feels along with a couple of 50 or 60 year old putters that I take both to the range and to the course. I also play with a 40 year old set of Titleist Tour Model blades on a regular basis. I never said that today’s players could beat all the great golfers of the past. I have no doubt that Hogan and Snead and Nicklaus and Trevino would be very successful modern golfers. But the field they would play against now is better than what they played against in their heyday. And modern equipment would take away some of the advantage that excellent balls strikers like Hogan and Trevino and Norman had over their competition. I still think Nicklaus and Woods are in an absolute tie for best golfer ever. Tiger completely dominated a stronger field and Nicklaus has a record in majors that no one has approached-and he stayed competitive for what seemed like 35 years.

Edited November 29, 2021 by max power

[RobotDoctor]

4 hours ago, max power said:

Yes I have. Got an entire set of persimmons and Wilson Staff Fluid Feels along with a couple of 50 or 60 year old putters that I take both to the range and to the course. I also play with a 40 year old set of Titleist Tour Model blades on a regular basis. I never said that today’s players could beat all the great golfers of the past. I have no doubt that Hogan and Snead and Nicklaus and Trevino would be very successful modern golfers. But the field they would play against now is better than what they played against in their heyday. And modern equipment would take away some of the advantage that excellent balls strikers like Hogan and Trevino and Norman had over their competition. I still think Nicklaus and Woods are in an absolute tie for best golfer ever. Tiger completely dominated a stronger field and Nicklaus has a record in majors that no one has approached-and he stayed competitive for what seemed like 35 years.

Yes, the modern equipment had negated the advantage of great ball striking.  Look at the careers of Paul Azinger and Corey Pavin, just to name two contemporary top level touring pros caught in the middle of the equipment revolution.  They weren't long hitters but the field was level due to their ability to shape shots.  The modern golf ball isn't designed to move like a balata ball does.  Their advantage was negated and their lack of distance became a hinderance.  I would definitely include Trevino and possibly Hogan in this category. Greg Norman could hold his own with the evolution but his desire to remain in competitive golf seemed to lose that after the 1996 Masters.  
 

Fields are stronger as golf has been readily available to the masses in the past 25 years or so compared to how it was up through the 70s.  Better facilities, better instruction, better conditioning, better equipment made golf evolve at a faster rate than in previous generations.  Case in point is that I hit the ball as far as I do with a driver today than I did in the late 80s/early 90s when I was in my mid 20s playing persimmon and balata.   I'm almost 60 now still driving the ball respectable distances. It certainly isn't my great conditioning that has allowed me to do this.  My flexibility and strength has decreased, my weight has increased.  So why am I still hitting the ball close to the distances I did 30-35 years ago?  
 

With regard to the number of competitive golfers today compared to the past generations re-read my point about junior programs through college.  I really believe this had been huge in the development of more great golfers compared to the past. 
 

Golf has evolved to a point where comparing greats of the past to today isn't so simple as the numbers they produced (distances, scoring averages, etc.).  Since we cannot teleport golfers from one generation to another generation comparisons are purely theoretical so nobody is wrong or right in their opinion.  This will remain one of Golf's great mysteries.  

[RobotDoctor]

Speaking strictly about the strength of the field, when exactly did the strength of field become stronger?   If we go back and look at numbers it seems that the strength of field increased in the 80s.   Coincidentally this was about the time when Dean Beman introduced the top 125 all exempt tour.  Prize money increased in the 80s as did sponsor money.  Professional golf evolved where the touring pro could actually make a very, very comfortable living just playing golf.  This made a career as a golf touring professional a viable dream.  Then throw in this kid named Tiger Woods and a whole generation of ultra competitive golfers began to play golf.  We're seeing the effects of several things that have made the fields so deep today.  Also keep in mind of the huge boom in new golfers in the 80s that saw an unprecedented number of golfers coming to the game.  New golfers increased by the millions.  This continued into the early 90s when it slowed a bit.  After Tiger Woods rise to dominance the number of new golfers once again grew at huge levels.  I believe this, and modern benefits of learning the game, significantly contributed to the strength of field.  These benefits simply didn't exist into the 70s.  

[teejaywhy]

On 3/30/2014 at 10:27 PM, Brock Savage said:

 

Right, except nobody says that. We don't say the golfers are more talented today. We say there are more talented golfers today. "More" meaning they are more numerous, not more talented.

 

Talent is random. Only a small percentage of people win the talent lottery --- for world class golf, way less than 1%. And there's no telling whether the most talented player of any period, including this one, was more talented than Jack, or Jones, or Vardon. It's absolutely unknowable.

 

What is knowable, though, is that the base population is larger, so whatever percentage of people are born with golf talent, there are a lot more of them today than there were 50 years ago.

 

What is knowable is that training and coaching is vastly improved. Hogan had to dig his swing out of the dirt. Today, they have radar and laser and the Minolta super duper high speed swing cam, and they know exactly how every little swing tweak affects their spin rate and launch angle and apex height -- stuff nobody had any clue about in Jack's day. So 50 years ago, if you had 100 guys born with golf talent take up golf, maybe 30 of them would find their optimal swing. Today, it's probably over 90.

 

What is knowable is that the huge purses, and the fact that Tiger was the world's richest and most famous athlete, and not just the world #1 golfer, is making golf the first choice of more young athletes, rather than just the guys who couldn't make the "real" sports teams in school. So if you had 100 guys born with multi-sport talent 50 years ago, most of them played golf for fun, if at all. Today, a lot more of them concentrate on golf as their main sport.

 

And what is knowable is that travel is much faster and cheaper now, so almost every world class player shows up for almost every major and WGC, and for many of the regular PGA events. 50 years ago, the second or third best player in, say, Australia, often didn't even play in the British Open, let alone a PGA event. So all the PGA events, and three of the four majors, had only a handful of international players, and the fourth major had only a handful of Americans.

 

None of that is speculation. It is a verifiable fact that there are over twice as many people in the world today than there were 50 years ago. It's a verifiable fact that the purses today are hundreds of times as high as they were 50 years ago --- Tony Lema got about $4200 for winning the 1964 Open; today, it's about $1.5 million. It's a verifiable fact that virtually all the world top 100 play every major they are eligible for, instead of only a handful playing any events that require overseas travel.

 

It's not knowable exactly how all of that combines, but a good indication is the number of entries in the US Open. To enter the US Open requires both top 1% talent for the game, and a serious commitment to it. There were about 2400 entrants per year 50 years ago. This century, it's consistently over 9000, well over three times as many. It's true that, mostly because of the time and expense, the number of duffers recreational players has declined, but they never had any influence on field strength, anyway. High school kids on the golf team still play all they want, for free.

 

What do you have to counter that? Nothing but your belief that there were half a dozen golf phenoms all at the same time in the 60's, and none today, now that Tiger's past his prime. You're entitled to that opinion, but what facts do you have to back it up? Only the number of majors they won. But how many majors would Phil have won if the fields were like they were 50 years ago?

 

Phil finished second in the US Open to Goosen in 2004, to Ogilvy in 2006, and to Rose last year. 50 years ago, odds are that none of those guys would have even tried to qualify for the US Open, since it required shutting down their schedule for a minimum of three weeks to travel to the US for sectional qualifying, with no guarantee that they would make it into the actual tournament. Michael Campbell, who beat Tiger with some amazing putting down the stretch in 2005, said that he would not have entered that year if the USGA hadn't established overseas qualifying sites, so he didn't have to travel to enter.

 

How would Phil look next to Arnie with those three US Opens? Eight majors, and a career Grand Slam.

 

And how would Tiger look if Michael Campbell, Trevor Immelman, Angel Cabrera, and YA Yang had stayed home, like most international players did in the Jack era?

 

I'll make it even simpler for you, since you follow women's golf. How much better would the US women look today, if there were no Asians on tour? Or even just no Koreans?

 

Well, it looks like you're going to crow about the lack of current talent every time a guy backs into a win for the foreseeable future, but come on. The Valero was a 40-point tournament, which makes it one of the weakest regular PGA events, barely above the John Deere. And the tournament committee knows that most top players don't like to play right before a major, so they try to attract the few who do by making it as close to major conditions as possible, to help them fine tune their games. A weak field facing a tough setup is not a recipe for low scores, but you still insist on taking one bad week and comparing it to the majors of your hazy memory, even though you seem to have forgotten epic collapses by the likes of Arnie, who managed to lose a seven shot lead over the last 9 holes of the 1966 US Open. And who knows how often something like that happened in a low-rent event?

 

I don't know if Tiger was more talented than Jack, or even Trevino. All I know is that there are many solid reasons to believe that in order to win a tournament, he had to beat around three times as many talented golfers, even in most of the regular tour events he's won, as Jack did in a major --- especially the Open, where Jack only had to beat as few as 8 other Americans, at a time when probably 60-70 of the world top 100 were Americans. I don't say it's true by definition, as you claimed, but I say it's the way to bet, based on facts and logic.

 

Waiting for the facts...

 

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, teejaywhy said:

 

Waiting for the facts...

 

One guy posted facts and was ridiculed. There are more players with a shot…and even more within two shots…in scoring average every year.

 Does that mean they are more talented?  Maybe and maybe not.  But does it matter?  Whether it is equipment making the game easier or just more guys with talent the fact is there are more players with the ability to win any given week.

 

So yeah, it’s more difficult to win.  Why is golf seemingly the only sport that is hard to believe? High school girls swim faster than did Tarzan in the 1924 and 1928 Olympics winning gold.  Would anyone believe the 1966 Packers would roll and win the Super Bowl today? Training and nutrition have bred bigger stronger faster athletes. That is indisputable.

 

But sure, a whiskey swilling 5’4” nothing could still win a lot in golf today because he’s a winner in his head.**

 

 

 

**not a reference to any particular player.