Jordan Speith - Weak Era

[avrag]

[quote name='RVAUSMC' timestamp='1437507145' post='11993968']
LOL: Speith is not long off tee

2013-14 PGA Tour season the great majority of pros are getting it out there at least 280 yards off the tee.

2015 stats: Jordan Spieth 290.8

Average PGA Tour player 280+
Average GOLFWRX player 300+

Makes me laugh at loud when people say he is not long off the tee. It's safe to say anyone of us would enjoy CONSISTENTLY hitting it out there 290.
[/quote]

Spieth is certainly "long enough" just as Faldo was in his prime. And just like Faldo did, he makes up for it with his determination and his brains.
Comparing eras, Norman at least managed to win two majors, Day and DJ, who are both comparable, still stand at 0.

[Shilgy]

[quote name='avrag' timestamp='1437670534' post='12006548']
[quote name='RVAUSMC' timestamp='1437507145' post='11993968']
LOL: Speith is not long off tee

2013-14 PGA Tour season the great majority of pros are getting it out there at least 280 yards off the tee.

2015 stats: Jordan Spieth 290.8

Average PGA Tour player 280+
Average GOLFWRX player 300+

Makes me laugh at loud when people say he is not long off the tee. It's safe to say anyone of us would enjoy CONSISTENTLY hitting it out there 290.
[/quote]

Spieth is certainly "long enough" just as Faldo was in his prime. And just like Faldo did, he makes up for it with his determination and his brains.
Comparing eras, Norman at least managed to win two majors, Day and DJ, who are both comparable, still stand at 0.
[/quote]Is Sergio long enough? Spieth is tied with Sergio and a few others at 47th on the "all drives" category. I would say that is long enough. And just to remind some posters...his average is not all he is capable of. Why is it on wrx that some players their average is all they have and for others the average is only because "he has a ton in reserve"?

[oregongolfguy]

I kind of feel like we are in between era's so to speak. We have a lot of young exciting golfers that are just coming into the prime of their careers. And we have a group of well known players heading into the twilight of their careers.....
Really the only young gun that has really shown us something though besides spieth is Rory....and just some quick comparison numbers with rory and others through first 8 full time yrs on tour....take note that this year is not done for rory one way or the other....

One thing to note on the whole wins argument......for better or worse todays players play waaay less then the palmers and Trevino's year in and year out. That's why I look at win percentage. How often do you win compared to how often you tee it up.

Gary player 7.5% win percentage 4 majors
Tom Watson 8.5% win percentage 3 majors
Lee Trevino 9% win percentage 5 majors
Rory Mcilroy 12% win percentage 4 majors
Arnold Palmer 15% win percentage 6 majors
Jack Nicklaus 17% win percentage 7 majors
Tiger Woods 25% win percentage 8 majors

[RVAUSMC]

[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1437671945' post='12006686']
[quote name='avrag' timestamp='1437670534' post='12006548']
[quote name='RVAUSMC' timestamp='1437507145' post='11993968']
LOL: Speith is not long off tee

2013-14 PGA Tour season the great majority of pros are getting it out there at least 280 yards off the tee.

2015 stats: Jordan Spieth 290.8

Average PGA Tour player 280+
Average GOLFWRX player 300+

Makes me laugh at loud when people say he is not long off the tee. It's safe to say anyone of us would enjoy CONSISTENTLY hitting it out there 290.
[/quote]

Spieth is certainly "long enough" just as Faldo was in his prime. And just like Faldo did, he makes up for it with his determination and his brains.
Comparing eras, Norman at least managed to win two majors, Day and DJ, who are both comparable, still stand at 0.
[/quote]Is Sergio long enough? Spieth is tied with Sergio and a few others at 47th on the "all drives" category. I would say that is long enough. And just to remind some posters...his average is not all he is capable of. Why is it on wrx that some players their average is all they have and for others the average is only because "he has a ton in reserve"?
[/quote]

I was responding to the initial response saying Spieth was not long. My stats were solely to show that HE is indeed long enough. I am a Spieth fan and love his game. I truly believe that
Tiger was in a weaker era as Tiger was far above better than his competition. Jack had more competition in his era. Jordan has more competition in his era. So, in closing Jordan is NOT in a weak era. :-)

[Mahamilto]

[quote name='CrabDaddy' timestamp='1437602778' post='12002260']
[quote name='Mahamilto' timestamp='1437589227' post='12000706']
The reality is that the[b] interbreeding[/b] and evolutionary small changes over decades do produce more fit physical individuals... and they are just as skilled as the less athletic greats of the past.
[/quote]
"Interbreeding"? Uh, could you give us [i]your[/i] definition of that? I'm assuming you don't mean inter-species?

[quote]Please don't forget that as a species, especially as we continually have cultural and ethnic assimilation, our genetics change to have a more able species. The assimilation of various genomes from around the globe creates offspring who have many of the advantageous traits of different environmentally driven genomic changes.[/quote]
Wow! How does cultural assimilation change the genome? Changing one's name from Tong-Kwa to Tony doesn't affect one's genetics.
I'm not a geneticist, but I do remember reading that the human genome is ~99% identical for all people, that our differences are in phenotype, not genotype. Can you document/cite evidence for the genetic changes you're referring to?

There are practically no selective forces on modern people. Seems like 99% of us breed, regardless of our fitness. In the post-depression era, men started working at a very young age. Today's golfers are the product of coaches, much improved fitness/diet knowledge, AJGA tournaments, etc...* with little distraction, like helping to put food on the table for the family. Changes in the human genome occurring in 50-60 years - 2 generations- in the absence of natural selection?
I'm open-minded, but currently doubtful.
How does the simple fact that more people have the opportunity to play sports factor into your analysis?

* - there are obviously parallels for all sports.
[/quote]

To answer your question let me first expand your understanding of cultral assimilation. When a culture first migrates, they typically retain their customs and practices, which often include norms governing the acceptability of two individuals producing offspring. Frequently, these norms demand that the culture's members breed with their own, as this would be only logical prior to the migration event when that was, in fact, the only real option. As a culture assimilates, the norms change significantly. It is not only the adoption of material culture that occurs; with time, the isolated culture will inevitably began to not only interact, but also interbreed with the members of their new geographical region. As this occurs, previously genetically isolated material is inevitably combined with another previously isolated gene pool. Keep in mind that almost no functional process in the body is coded for by a single gene. Most traits and abilities come from the combination of many genes, and with enough tries and new additions to the gene pool, the genomics will untimately combine to create advantageous traits which were statistically impossible to arrive from subtle genetic mutations alone; at least in the short amout of time we are discussing.

First, I want to clear up a misconception you appear to have. While Genotype and Phenotype are indeed NOT the same thing, the big thing you miss is that it is the genotype (and the environment to an extent) is what ultimately determines phenotype. The two cannot ever be fully separated. To understand further see "2)" and "fact 2". The reality is that the phenotypic differences are what become melded as cultural, ethnic, and geographical interbreeding occurs. As this happens, you do indeed begin to produce (a small but significant) number of individuals of superior phenotype.

1) By interbreeding I specifically mean geographical/cultural/ethnic interbreeding of diverse humans. As in humans (yes we are all the same species) from a variety of geographical origins now are producing offspring together, rather than only producing offspring with individuals of similar geographical origin.

2) Anyone with a basic understanding of genomics realizes first off that while 99%+ of our DNA is a match, it is the remaining small % that has the impact on our functionality. If you want a genetics lecture I will happily provide, but for the sake of readability lets just give a few facts and go from there. This may SEEM long... but I promise you this is the short version.

Fact 1: Understand the central dogma of genetics. Specific sequences of DNA code for "a gene", A gene codes for messenger RNA, messenger RNA codes for a protein, proteins allow for functionality of a cell. One Gene, One mRNA, One Protein. This is the common thread of all life on our planet.

Fact 2: Only 1.5% of our DNA actually codes for the proteins that function. Ever open a box from UPS and have a million packing peanuts pour out to find that your tiny delicate item within is indeed perfectly preserved? Yeah... thats how the human genome works too. Upwards of 98.5% of DNA is there simply to ensure "fidelity" of the genome. If there is a large buffer zone, there its way less likely something breaks. Though some americans refuse to come to terms with this, our DNA is in reality a result of sheer randomness in evolution and the sheer competitiveness of environmentally finite resources. Every single round of cell replication leads to about 1 permanent error in our genome, according to current genomic understanding (which is really really deep since the completion of the human genome project). This is just replication, were not even discussing errors that may arise from environmental exposure to carcinogens or radiation etc. More or less, genetics mutation becomes a game of Russian Roulette, but with a twist: some of the bullets kill while others make you stronger. There are effectively 3 billion base pairs in the genome, yet only 45 million actually do anything at all. Additionally, not all proteins these genes code for are of equal importance. Some genes code for proteins we cannot live without, while others code for proteins that we only need in certain instances. If a mutation has only a 1.5% chance of hitting something of function, your species survival rate increases, but the ability to evolve actually slows. Add in "the wobble effect" of RNA assembly codons, and the likelihood of major variation drops even further. It is the nature of the DNA itself in the most successful species that allows occupation of the top spot.

Now looking at this you may say... wow... so its impossible to get change, huh? This answer actually is far from true. The environment we live in and the competition for resources drive change. While I will grant the idea that modern society has significantly decreased the ability for man to evolve in many ways (marriage, non-selective breeding, less actually finite resources), it is our connectedness that ultimately topples this contention from becoming an absolute. Why? This is the biggy. Because for 10000+ years our species developed isolated and as a product of evolution driven by environmental selection. This is quite literally the most easily viewable portion of genetics. Populations from closer to the equator have darker skin to combat solar intensity and limit the development of skin cancers. People from cold climates have longer and thinner noses, which allow the warming of air before it enters the chest. Individuals from areas with high malaria incidence have various changes to their blood composition and make up to prevent or limit the infection... I could literally do this all day.

What ends up happening in our modern connected world is that these traits begin to be combined, in a manner they never have before. It is a guarantee that the combination of some of these previously isolated genes will cause for a more fit individual. All they need is the ability to pump out a ton of individuals and eventually some will hit the jackpot. The more you pump out, the more jackpots you hit. We are, as a species, pumping out at a higher rate than ever. I will say you are right, that modern society, on average, reproduces without any regard for this. But understand when I am speaking of exceptional human specimens, I am talking about an INCREDIBLY small portion of the population. The individuals who are at the top of modern sport today are not the "normal". They are instead the inevitable recombination of various previously isolated traits which modern times have allowed to intertwine. As they have, every generation produces a larger number of these "elite" physical (or mental) specimens.

One must also understand meiosis to really get a grip on this. With a fairly high frequency, maternal and paternal copies of DNA will exchange parts when sex cells form in a process called "crossing over". For an analogy, its as if the two chromosomes barrow each other's blueprints when making the new blueprint. Again, the more this happens, especially with diverse traits, the more often you will see those "outliers". It is the large group of outliers that you see playing professional sports today. Those from the middle of the bell curve have no chance to perform against them.

Finally, the uncomfortable portion of modern genetics comes from the atrocities of our recent past and its major influence on human genetics. Looking at history, you can see multiple occurrences of genetic cleansing and preferential trait selection that occurred as humans treated each other horribly across thousands of years. Slave owners worldwide would breed the "fittest" male and female slaves in an attempt to produce a more capable workforce. It worked. In Nazi Germany, the sick and deemed unfit were eliminated systematically from the population, and their genetic material exited with it. Similar instances can be seen in many other countries and regions across history; we are indeed terrible to one another. The genetic consequences of these abhorrent actions, however, had very real consequences to the global gene pool, some good and some bad. The genetically "good" traits and changes that resulted from these horrifying historical events are very commonly found in the modern high athletic achiever. The modern athlete today is bigger, stronger, more coordinated, and more capable than ever... it is no accident and cannot be explained by environment alone. The reality is that outliers always existed. That is why we had legendary men and women of physical ability in the past. But as our rate of reproduction, and therefore genetic recombinant possibilities, skyrocketed, the sheer number of these legendary outliners increased exponentially. They went from rare: like a single legand of the day dominating a less capable field, to common (in pro athletics "common") where a field was comprised exclusively of these high ceiling athletes.

In the end, when we are talking about a very, very, small portion of the population that plays and succeeds at professional sport, it becomes a numbers game. The intertwining of genetics from various previously isolated regions (interbreeding) inevitably will (and has...) result in a small portion of exceptional physical performers. Additionally, it cannot be overlooked that people typically are attracted to individuals of similar physical stature. There is an absolute abundance of research to back this. Though not an absolute, it is certainly a trend in modern society that taller individuals tend to have taller spouses, and fit individuals tend to have fitter spouses. As this occurs, it is simply a matter of spins on the wheel before you get the net effect: a group of highly capable individuals. The majority of professional athletes these days are in that category.

What Happened? I blacked out...

[dlygrisse]

[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1437533683' post='11996816']
[quote name='dlygrisse' timestamp='1437532949' post='11996696']
Dustin Johnson reminds me of Wieskopf in Jacks era and Couples or DL III in Tigers era. He will be good for one major someday.

Spieth seems to have that mental edge, as Forged pointed out. To me he will have a Watson/Trevino type of career at worst. Potentially he could win 10-15 majors and 50 plus tournaments. The next 15-20 years will be fun to watch.

Every era has their top dogs, underachievers an overachievers. Spieth and Rory are top dog type of players because of the 5 inches between the ears and talent.
[/quote]

Speith can be the next Tiger / Jack. Or he can be the next Duval / Miller.
[/quote]I agree, it really depends on his "want to" and what his goals are long term, and of course injuries. I really think he will have more lasting power than Duval, Duval really didn't seem comfortable at the top, Jordan seems to relish it.

I'll stick with a Tom Watson type of career as my benchmark for him.

[dlygrisse]

[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1437671945' post='12006686']
[quote name='avrag' timestamp='1437670534' post='12006548']
[quote name='RVAUSMC' timestamp='1437507145' post='11993968']
LOL: Speith is not long off tee

2013-14 PGA Tour season the great majority of pros are getting it out there at least 280 yards off the tee.

2015 stats: Jordan Spieth 290.8

Average PGA Tour player 280+
Average GOLFWRX player 300+

Makes me laugh at loud when people say he is not long off the tee. It's safe to say anyone of us would enjoy CONSISTENTLY hitting it out there 290.
[/quote]

Spieth is certainly "long enough" just as Faldo was in his prime. And just like Faldo did, he makes up for it with his determination and his brains.
Comparing eras, Norman at least managed to win two majors, Day and DJ, who are both comparable, still stand at 0.
[/quote]Is Sergio long enough? Spieth is tied with Sergio and a few others at 47th on the "all drives" category. I would say that is long enough. And just to remind some posters...his average is not all he is capable of. Why is it on wrx that some players their average is all they have and for others the average is only because "he has a ton in reserve"?
[/quote]People started saying he wasn't long at the Masters. Spieth said after the Masters he was basically hitting a bunt slice around the course to keep it in play because he was a little out of sync with the driver that week. He seemed to be keeping up with all but the really long hitters at the Open.

[BobbyDPlaysGolf]

I can't believe you are arguing that it is a weaker field today. It's 10x harder to get on tour now and stay on tour then it was just a short time ago. Tiger brought a lot of interest to the game and you are seeing the best of those kids tee it up right now. Jordan Spieth thinks his way around a course better then anyone else. It's almost like that old saying about Jack. Something like "he's not known for making the most birdies out of anyone, but he does make the most pars." The kids has a lot of game and his scoring average, and he's the youngest to do it since Gene Sarazen. C'mon now, don't diminish it because he can't tee it up against early 2000 Tiger, or 53 hogan or 45 Nelson.

[BobbyDPlaysGolf]

I mean he's on pace for the 3rd lowest scoring average in a season. It really doesn't matter who he tee's it up against.

[jmvargas]

many interesting comments here but after many many years of following this game i know that during their prime there was no one more intimidating

than tiger and jack...

i feel jordan is approaching this type of reputation with his performance this year but he has a long time to go...

....and there are also more players capable of winning now than ever before..

[Wknd_Warrior]

Time will tell, but Jordan is breathing rarefied air already.

Consider we could be witness to two living legends at their peak in the same era.

[Shilgy]

Things that make you go hmmm....Funny isn't it. Tiger dominated for 16 years or so and that made the era weak. Now that Tiger is not dominating the era all of a sudden became uber-powerfall.

[Bingo1976]

[quote name='RVAUSMC' timestamp='1437507145' post='11993968']
LOL: Speith is not long off tee

2013-14 PGA Tour season the great majority of pros are getting it out there at least 280 yards off the tee.

2015 stats: Jordan Spieth 290.8

Average PGA Tour player 280+
Average GOLFWRX player 300+

Makes me laugh at loud when people say he is not long off the tee. It's safe to say anyone of us would enjoy CONSISTENTLY hitting it out there 290.
[/quote]

PGA Tour Average is calculated based on accurate data and averaged out across the season.
GOLFWRX Average is calculated by the drive you hit downwind, off a sprinkler head, down a cart path from an elevated tee to a bone dry fairway 5 years ago, divided by 1

[mwkbmw]

[quote name='BobbyDPlaysGolf' timestamp='1437691391' post='12008624']
I can't believe you are arguing that it is a weaker field today. It's 10x harder to get on tour now and stay on tour then it was just a short time ago. Tiger brought a lot of interest to the game and you are seeing the best of those kids tee it up right now. Jordan Spieth thinks his way around a course better then anyone else. It's almost like that old saying about Jack. Something like "he's not known for making the most birdies out of anyone, but he does make the most pars." The kids has a lot of game and his scoring average, and he's the youngest to do it since Gene Sarazen. C'mon now, don't diminish it because he can't tee it up against early 2000 Tiger, or 53 hogan or 45 Nelson.
[/quote]

This^ Jordan actually leads the PGA Tour in birdies per round with a 4.60 average.

[BobbyDPlaysGolf]

[quote name='mwkbmw' timestamp='1437701240' post='12009456'][quote name='BobbyDPlaysGolf' timestamp='1437691391' post='12008624']
I can't believe you are arguing that it is a weaker field today. It's 10x harder to get on tour now and stay on tour then it was just a short time ago. Tiger brought a lot of interest to the game and you are seeing the best of those kids tee it up right now. Jordan Spieth thinks his way around a course better then anyone else. It's almost like that old saying about Jack. Something like "he's not known for making the most birdies out of anyone, but he does make the most pars." The kids has a lot of game and his scoring average, and he's the youngest to do it since Gene Sarazen. C'mon now, don't diminish it because he can't tee it up against early 2000 Tiger, or 53 hogan or 45 Nelson.
[/quote]

This^ Jordan actually leads the PGA Tour in birdies per round with a 4.60 average.[/quote]

O yea can we also talk about how he makes 1 in 4 20 footer? The kid has a game built to last.

[nochct1]

[quote name='dlygrisse' timestamp='1437688016' post='12008282']
[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1437533683' post='11996816']
[quote name='dlygrisse' timestamp='1437532949' post='11996696']
Dustin Johnson reminds me of Wieskopf in Jacks era and Couples or DL III in Tigers era. He will be good for one major someday.

Spieth seems to have that mental edge, as Forged pointed out. To me he will have a Watson/Trevino type of career at worst. Potentially he could win 10-15 majors and 50 plus tournaments. The next 15-20 years will be fun to watch.

Every era has their top dogs, underachievers an overachievers. Spieth and Rory are top dog type of players because of the 5 inches between the ears and talent.
[/quote]

Speith can be the next Tiger / Jack. Or he can be the next Duval / Miller.
[/quote]I agree, it really depends on his "want to" and what his goals are long term, and of course injuries. I really think he will have more lasting power than Duval, Duval really didn't seem comfortable at the top, Jordan seems to relish it.

I'll stick with a Tom Watson type of career as my benchmark for him.
[/quote]

I agree that he will have a longer career than Duval. My concern with Speith is that he is making a TON of 25 foot putts right now and his only weakness is shorter putts. That's probably the worst weakness to have. And making a lot of longer putts can go away very quickly.

[redfirebird08]

[quote name='BobbyDPlaysGolf' timestamp='1437691565' post='12008638']
I mean he's on pace for the 3rd lowest scoring average in a season. It really doesn't matter who he tee's it up against.
[/quote]

Where did you come up with that? Woods has had a bunch of seasons with a better scoring average than what Spieth is doing this year. And by a bunch, I don't mean just two.

1999 - Woods 68.43
2000 - Woods 67.79
2001 - Woods 68.81
2002 - Woods 68.56
2003 - Woods 68.41
2005 - Woods 68.65
2006 - Woods 68.11
2007 - Woods 67.79
2008 - Woods 67.65 (only 6 events due to injury, but still incredible golf with 4 wins)
2009 - Woods 68.05
[b]2015 - Spieth 68.84[/b]

[Smith65]

[quote name='oregongolfguy' timestamp='1437673279' post='12006808']
I kind of feel like we are in between era's so to speak. We have a lot of young exciting golfers that are just coming into the prime of their careers. And we have a group of well known players heading into the twilight of their careers.....
Really the only young gun that has really shown us something though besides spieth is Rory....and just some quick comparison numbers with rory and others through first 8 full time yrs on tour....take note that this year is not done for rory one way or the other....

One thing to note on the whole wins argument......for better or worse todays players play waaay less then the palmers and Trevino's year in and year out. That's why I look at win percentage. How often do you win compared to how often you tee it up.

Gary player 7.5% win percentage 4 majors
Tom Watson 8.5% win percentage 3 majors
Lee Trevino 9% win percentage 5 majors
Rory Mcilroy 12% win percentage 4 majors
Arnold Palmer 15% win percentage 6 majors
Jack Nicklaus 17% win percentage 7 majors
Tiger Woods 25% win percentage 8 majors
[/quote]


What was Bobby Jones' win percentage?

[Lodestone]

[quote name='Mahamilto' timestamp='1437686148' post='12008106']
[quote name='CrabDaddy' timestamp='1437602778' post='12002260']
[quote name='Mahamilto' timestamp='1437589227' post='12000706']
The reality is that the[b] interbreeding[/b] and evolutionary small changes over decades do produce more fit physical individuals... and they are just as skilled as the less athletic greats of the past.
[/quote]
"Interbreeding"? Uh, could you give us [i]your[/i] definition of that? I'm assuming you don't mean inter-species?

[quote]Please don't forget that as a species, especially as we continually have cultural and ethnic assimilation, our genetics change to have a more able species. The assimilation of various genomes from around the globe creates offspring who have many of the advantageous traits of different environmentally driven genomic changes.[/quote]
Wow! How does cultural assimilation change the genome? Changing one's name from Tong-Kwa to Tony doesn't affect one's genetics.
I'm not a geneticist, but I do remember reading that the human genome is ~99% identical for all people, that our differences are in phenotype, not genotype. Can you document/cite evidence for the genetic changes you're referring to?

There are practically no selective forces on modern people. Seems like 99% of us breed, regardless of our fitness. In the post-depression era, men started working at a very young age. Today's golfers are the product of coaches, much improved fitness/diet knowledge, AJGA tournaments, etc...* with little distraction, like helping to put food on the table for the family. Changes in the human genome occurring in 50-60 years - 2 generations- in the absence of natural selection?
I'm open-minded, but currently doubtful.
How does the simple fact that more people have the opportunity to play sports factor into your analysis?

* - there are obviously parallels for all sports.
[/quote]

To answer your question let me first expand your understanding of cultral assimilation. When a culture first migrates, they typically retain their customs and practices, which often include norms governing the acceptability of two individuals producing offspring. Frequently, these norms demand that the culture's members breed with their own, as this would be only logical prior to the migration event when that was, in fact, the only real option. As a culture assimilates, the norms change significantly. It is not only the adoption of material culture that occurs; with time, the isolated culture will inevitably began to not only interact, but also interbreed with the members of their new geographical region. As this occurs, previously genetically isolated material is inevitably combined with another previously isolated gene pool. Keep in mind that almost no functional process in the body is coded for by a single gene. Most traits and abilities come from the combination of many genes, and with enough tries and new additions to the gene pool, the genomics will untimately combine to create advantageous traits which were statistically impossible to arrive from subtle genetic mutations alone; at least in the short amout of time we are discussing.

First, I want to clear up a misconception you appear to have. While Genotype and Phenotype are indeed NOT the same thing, the big thing you miss is that it is the genotype (and the environment to an extent) is what ultimately determines phenotype. The two cannot ever be fully separated. To understand further see "2)" and "fact 2". The reality is that the phenotypic differences are what become melded as cultural, ethnic, and geographical interbreeding occurs. As this happens, you do indeed begin to produce (a small but significant) number of individuals of superior phenotype.

1) By interbreeding I specifically mean geographical/cultural/ethnic interbreeding of diverse humans. As in humans (yes we are all the same species) from a variety of geographical origins now are producing offspring together, rather than only producing offspring with individuals of similar geographical origin.

2) Anyone with a basic understanding of genomics realizes first off that while 99%+ of our DNA is a match, it is the remaining small % that has the impact on our functionality. If you want a genetics lecture I will happily provide, but for the sake of readability lets just give a few facts and go from there. This may SEEM long... but I promise you this is the short version.

Fact 1: Understand the central dogma of genetics. Specific sequences of DNA code for "a gene", A gene codes for messenger RNA, messenger RNA codes for a protein, proteins allow for functionality of a cell. One Gene, One mRNA, One Protein. This is the common thread of all life on our planet.

Fact 2: Only 1.5% of our DNA actually codes for the proteins that function. Ever open a box from UPS and have a million packing peanuts pour out to find that your tiny delicate item within is indeed perfectly preserved? Yeah... thats how the human genome works too. Upwards of 98.5% of DNA is there simply to ensure "fidelity" of the genome. If there is a large buffer zone, there its way less likely something breaks. Though some americans refuse to come to terms with this, our DNA is in reality a result of sheer randomness in evolution and the sheer competitiveness of environmentally finite resources. Every single round of cell replication leads to about 1 permanent error in our genome, according to current genomic understanding (which is really really deep since the completion of the human genome project). This is just replication, were not even discussing errors that may arise from environmental exposure to carcinogens or radiation etc. More or less, genetics mutation becomes a game of Russian Roulette, but with a twist: some of the bullets kill while others make you stronger. There are effectively 3 billion base pairs in the genome, yet only 45 million actually do anything at all. Additionally, not all proteins these genes code for are of equal importance. Some genes code for proteins we cannot live without, while others code for proteins that we only need in certain instances. If a mutation has only a 1.5% chance of hitting something of function, your species survival rate increases, but the ability to evolve actually slows. Add in "the wobble effect" of RNA assembly codons, and the likelihood of major variation drops even further. It is the nature of the DNA itself in the most successful species that allows occupation of the top spot.

Now looking at this you may say... wow... so its impossible to get change, huh? This answer actually is far from true. The environment we live in and the competition for resources drive change. While I will grant the idea that modern society has significantly decreased the ability for man to evolve in many ways (marriage, non-selective breeding, less actually finite resources), it is our connectedness that ultimately topples this contention from becoming an absolute. Why? This is the biggy. Because for 10000+ years our species developed isolated and as a product of evolution driven by environmental selection. This is quite literally the most easily viewable portion of genetics. Populations from closer to the equator have darker skin to combat solar intensity and limit the development of skin cancers. People from cold climates have longer and thinner noses, which allow the warming of air before it enters the chest. Individuals from areas with high malaria incidence have various changes to their blood composition and make up to prevent or limit the infection... I could literally do this all day.

What ends up happening in our modern connected world is that these traits begin to be combined, in a manner they never have before. It is a guarantee that the combination of some of these previously isolated genes will cause for a more fit individual. All they need is the ability to pump out a ton of individuals and eventually some will hit the jackpot. The more you pump out, the more jackpots you hit. We are, as a species, pumping out at a higher rate than ever. I will say you are right, that modern society, on average, reproduces without any regard for this. But understand when I am speaking of exceptional human specimens, I am talking about an INCREDIBLY small portion of the population. The individuals who are at the top of modern sport today are not the "normal". They are instead the inevitable recombination of various previously isolated traits which modern times have allowed to intertwine. As they have, every generation produces a larger number of these "elite" physical (or mental) specimens.

One must also understand meiosis to really get a grip on this. With a fairly high frequency, maternal and paternal copies of DNA will exchange parts when sex cells form in a process called "crossing over". For an analogy, its as if the two chromosomes barrow each other's blueprints when making the new blueprint. Again, the more this happens, especially with diverse traits, the more often you will see those "outliers". It is the large group of outliers that you see playing professional sports today. Those from the middle of the bell curve have no chance to perform against them.

Finally, the uncomfortable portion of modern genetics comes from the atrocities of our recent past and its major influence on human genetics. Looking at history, you can see multiple occurrences of genetic cleansing and preferential trait selection that occurred as humans treated each other horribly across thousands of years. Slave owners worldwide would breed the "fittest" male and female slaves in an attempt to produce a more capable workforce. It worked. In Nazi Germany, the sick and deemed unfit were eliminated systematically from the population, and their genetic material exited with it. Similar instances can be seen in many other countries and regions across history; we are indeed terrible to one another. The genetic consequences of these abhorrent actions, however, had very real consequences to the global gene pool, some good and some bad. The genetically "good" traits and changes that resulted from these horrifying historical events are very commonly found in the modern high athletic achiever. The modern athlete today is bigger, stronger, more coordinated, and more capable than ever... it is no accident and cannot be explained by environment alone. The reality is that outliers always existed. That is why we had legendary men and women of physical ability in the past. But as our rate of reproduction, and therefore genetic recombinant possibilities, skyrocketed, the sheer number of these legendary outliners increased exponentially. They went from rare: like a single legand of the day dominating a less capable field, to common (in pro athletics "common") where a field was comprised exclusively of these high ceiling athletes.

In the end, when we are talking about a very, very, small portion of the population that plays and succeeds at professional sport, it becomes a numbers game. The intertwining of genetics from various previously isolated regions (interbreeding) inevitably will (and has...) result in a small portion of exceptional physical performers. Additionally, it cannot be overlooked that people typically are attracted to individuals of similar physical stature. There is an absolute abundance of research to back this. Though not an absolute, it is certainly a trend in modern society that taller individuals tend to have taller spouses, and fit individuals tend to have fitter spouses. As this occurs, it is simply a matter of spins on the wheel before you get the net effect: a group of highly capable individuals. The majority of professional athletes these days are in that category.

What Happened? I blacked out...
[/quote]

I got as far as "...let me first expand your understanding of cultral assimilation."

[imakaveli]

Not a week era, just a boring year

(imho)

[LeoLeo99]

How exactly do you quantify if Player A is great or if all the rest are weak? It's all relative. It's just two sides of the same coin. You can say Jordan is stronger than all the rest or you can say all the rest are weaker than Jordan.

Why such negativity? The worst guy on tour is a damn good golfer.

[NV825]

[quote name='imakaveli' timestamp='1437752106' post='12012462']
Not a week era, just a boring year

(imho)
[/quote]

I respect your opinion, but besides the Masters how many tournaments have started with a handful of guys in position to win on Sunday and how many extra hole playoffs have we had this year? It's been an exciting year of golf.

[imakaveli]

[quote name='NV825' timestamp='1437753160' post='12012596']
[quote name='imakaveli' timestamp='1437752106' post='12012462']
Not a week era, just a boring year

(imho)
[/quote]

I respect your opinion, but besides the Masters how many tournaments have started with a handful of guys in position to win on Sunday and how many extra hole playoffs have we had this year? It's been an exciting year of golf.
[/quote]

You can keep 2015, I'll watch the replay of 2013

[CrabDaddy]

[quote name='imakaveli' timestamp='1437752106' post='12012462']
Not a week era, just a boring year

(imho)
[/quote]
This year, you can say Jordan is boring, Zach is boring, Rory, Tiger, Dustin... but, 2015 is far from a boring year because of one man - Robert Allenby!

[LeoLeo99]

[quote name='NV825' timestamp='1437753160' post='12012596']
[quote name='imakaveli' timestamp='1437752106' post='12012462']
Not a week era, just a boring year

(imho)
[/quote]

I respect your opinion, but besides the Masters how many tournaments have started with a handful of guys in position to win on Sunday and how many extra hole playoffs have we had this year? It's been an exciting year of golf.
[/quote]

Golf is golf. It's the golfers' personalities that add the fun and make it worth watching.

[redfirebird08]

[quote name='imakaveli' timestamp='1437752106' post='12012462']
Not a week era, just a boring year

(imho)
[/quote]

I think it has been a very entertaining year in golf.

[dlygrisse]

[quote name='redfirebird08' timestamp='1437773454' post='12014560']
[quote name='imakaveli' timestamp='1437752106' post='12012462']
Not a week era, just a boring year

(imho)
[/quote]

I think it has been a very entertaining year in golf.
[/quote]Very entertaining, especially the majors. Not. sure. what. your. definition of entertaining is????

[rlynham]

Seriously there were a bunch of fun tourneys to watch even before the Masters.

[jmvargas]

[quote name='redfirebird08' timestamp='1437773454' post='12014560']
[quote name='imakaveli' timestamp='1437752106' post='12012462']
Not a week era, just a boring year

(imho)
[/quote]

I think it has been a very entertaining year in golf.
[/quote]


..inspite of the weather this year's British Open was one of the best and most exciting tournaments i have viewed for a long time...

the number of players in contention plus Jordan Spieth's quest for a 3rd straight major is a combination we may not see for a long time..

the tv commentary team led by Peter Alliss and the coverage itself with great views of the course,players and spectators was excellent..

the only letdown i felt was towards the end when Jordan Spieth's missed his birdie on the 72nd hole and his Grand Slam chances were gone..

....am still looking forward to the last major but am not keeping my hopes high for that one..

[KrazyTrain18]

You know it's a weak era when somebody different wins each week...